Introduction: the Europeanisation of identities through everyday practices

ABSTRACT

In this introduction to the special issue on ‘The Europeanisation of identities through everyday practices’, we argue for a more thorough shift towards everyday practices, lifeworlds and leisure-time activities as important terrains for research into (ultimately also politically relevant) identifications among Europeans. Doing so entails the idea that the Europeanisation of identities might unfold in a more subliminal manner, and might hence be anchored less in policy changes and people’s positionings towards political issues in a narrower sense. In contrast, mindsets, aspirations and frames of reference might undo a more unconscious transformation due to various activities in lifeworldly, cultural, leisure time-related, and even private spheres. Drawing on a multitude of fields (e.g. cultural heritage, university cooperation, everyday routines in the border region, arts, sports and gaming) as well as varying approaches and different methodologies, this Special Issue aims at demonstrating that ever more Europeanised identities might emerge from multiple sources and activities, which are not obviously tied to political agendas and frameworks.

KEYWORDS:

• Europeanisation
• (European) identity
• the everyday
• leisure-time
• transnationalism

Why europeanisation? Why identities? Why “the everyday”?

In 2019, a YouGov poll commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations suggested that a majority of Europeans think the EU is destined for failure and will very likely fall apart within the next two decades (Boffey 2019). And indeed, all enhanced solidarity in view of Russia’s war in Ukraine since 2022 aside, the news headlines across European countries and societies seem to be dominated by reports on rising polarisation, raging populism, growing political apathy and disenfranchisement with ‘Brussels’, the EU, and the European project in general.

However, cross-border communication, travel and contact has probably never been easier and more vivid than today. Internet-based communication, especially on social networks, may be limited by language knowledge but usually not by national borders (i.e. Hänska and Bauchowitz 2019; Ruiz-Soler, Curini, and Ceron 2019).¹ Cross-border travel for holidays but also for work and study purposes is more common in EU-rope than ever before and national frontiers are hardly noticeable for Schengen citizens within the Schengen area.² Even in areas such as online shopping, the common market has set aside barriers throughout the past decades (Gomez-Herrera, Martens, and Turlea 2014; Sleuwaegen and Smith 2022).

Given these two sides of the European ‘face’, could it be that below the level of political (dis-)association and positioning, people across Europe have unconsciously become more glued towards ‘Europe’ in a wider sense? That their mindsets, aspirations and frames of reference have become more ‘Europeanised’ – to use an academic term – in a much more subliminal fashion than suggested by mainstream political commentary and social science research? And that this normalisation of moving across the continent, defining oneself as belonging to a community of Europeans, and identifying with a wider European frame have less to do with political understandings in a narrower sense, but are resulting from everyday practices and leisure-time activities?

This Special Issue sets out to target this question in a multidimensional manner, with varying approaches and a combination of different methodologies. Despite their thematic variance, all contributions share a curiosity to explore pathways of a Europeanisation of identities through everyday practices. This entails three different ambitions.

First, the articles seek to contribute to, as well as to expand on, the existing literatures on Europeanisation. Undoubtedly, the Journal of Contemporary European Studies (JCES) has, over the years, built a track record in innovative Europeanisation research, and particularly so through its long-standing appreciation of a multitude of approaches to, and applications of, the Europeanisation concept (cf. Coban Oran 2021; Lähdesmaki 2016; Patarin-Jossec 2020). The ideas related to Europeanisation in this Special Issue accordingly pick up on a more recent strand of the debate: it anchors ‘Europeanisation’ less in policy change than in processes through which perceptions of people are transformed – quite often unconsciously yet with unmistakable references to Europe in a wider sense (cf. Reyes Enverga 2019). Already in 2017, JCES published a thematic issue on the narrative turn in EU studies (cf. Bouza Garcia 2017). Undoubtedly, we see our endeavour in line with many of the ambitions of this Special Issue back then. This is in particular true as regards narratives, which emerges from not exclusively political spheres, i.e. more cultural fields, among other things. Yet, our main interest is more on activities and their capacity to effect a Europeanisation through everyday practices. A renewed emphasis on activities such as gaming, fandom, travelling, consuming fiction etc. hence allows us to further explore the contexts, within which narratives of Europeanisation emerge, solidify over time, or are transformed.

Second, the focus of all contributions is less on changes at the level of policies, regulations and rules but at the level of identifications and forms of communality emerging among people and across (national) societies. While it would be futile to argue that the question of ‘European(−ised) identities’ is of rather recent origin, we nevertheless see – and criticise – a certain narrowcasting of the respective debates, particularly in the area of Political Science. Also, the JCES thematic issue of 2017 cited above mostly put an emphasis on narrations around, or advanced through EU-level institutions. While we acknowledge that these form part of any ongoing Europeanisation of identities, not least when we include contexts such as the EU-sponsored university cooperation or European Heritage sites (see the respective contributions by Mäkinen and Kaasik-Krogerus, as well as Frame and Curyło in this issue), we should not restrict our attention to such narratives and ensuing identifications. Still, many of the widely cited more conventional analyses of how Europeans imagine, narrate, and discursively construct ‘Europe’ have cast the issue of an eventually emerging European identity in rather strictly political terms (cf. Checkel and Katzenstein 2009; Risse 2010; more recently: Negri, Nicoli, and Kuhn 2021). Whereas studies of the political symbolism of the EU and its identification potential (cf. Pryke 2020), normative renderings of the EU as a political project in the eyes of many (cf. Kaiser and Mc Mahon 2017), and an eventually developing European public sphere through the merging political news agendas across Europe (e.g. Koopmans and Statham 2010a; recently: García-Gordillo and Rivas-de-Roca 2021) all have their value, we argue that identity change happens on a more than purely political plane.

Third, the authors in this Special Issue aim at putting people’s everyday (and supposedly non-political) activities and resulting patterns of identification and identity change centre stage. This requires a change of perspective which breeds a newfound interest in the value – both empirically and analytically – of the ‘everyday’, in activities that people carry out in their leisure time, or which they do not perceive as tied to political agendas and frameworks. Much in line with a recently emerging strand in the sociological literature – see further below –, we argue that when people invest time, emotions and other resources during significant stretches of their lifetime (e.g. as part of their education, work, entertainment or leisure) this significantly shapes their understandings of themselves in relation to the outside world. This does not exempt political actors such as the EU from influence, as several of our contributions make clear. These political actors may serve as points of reference (e.g. in popular literature), or they shape frameworks (e.g. as regards university exchanges or cultural heritage) within which people then move and act. The point, though, is that the domains we are talking about significantly transcend the field of conventional politics.

To truly appreciate the novel qualities of the approach taken in this Special Issue, it might be warranted to briefly summarise (a) where the debate on the Europeanisation of identities has been coming from, and (b) where more recent approaches at the nexus of Political Science and Sociology part ways from this. Finally, we will position all contributions to this Special Issue in the novel thematic frame sketched above.

The europeanisation of identities: a burgeoning debate full of insights and blind spots³

The field of European identity research has become almost overwhelming by now. At best, it can be considered heterodox and multifaceted. Already a decade ago, Kaina (2013, 184) criticised that research conducted under the rubric of European identity rather “provides inconsistent evidence, contradictory conclusions and controversial diagnoses“. While there might be some truth to such a verdict, deploring any such disorder does not automatically reduce it. What constitutes a ‘European identity’ in the first place is less consensual across various studies and conceptual frameworks than one could perhaps assume. Often, the term is taken to denote the self-identification of people as Europeans (next to localised and national forms of identification). However, there is more disagreement on whether, as a reference object, the concept of European identity targets ‘Europe’ in a wider understanding or rather ‘the EU’ more narrowly conceived (cf. Dalton 2021, 3). In other words, what people across the continent might identify with is still subject to debate. In contrast, it is widely held that multiple identifications – for instance in relation to the region one is inhabiting, the respective nation-state and Europe – can co-exist alongside each other (cf. Carey 2002; Díez Medrano and Gutiérrez 2001; Risse 2003, 488).

As a legacy of most European identity literature having emerged in the field of Political Science, or in response to it, many analyses have taken a rather restrictive stance on where to discover relevant identity dynamics. Constituting the home turf of Political Science and Political Sociology, issues such as shared political norms, levels of appreciation for the EU’s institutions, as well as attention paid to and evaluations of political action at the EU level have accordingly driven most academic ventures into European identity research. Even when leaving the level of elite discourse and opening up towards wider publics within Europe (cf. Brigevich 2018; Carpentier 2021; Heidenreich 2019; Maier and Risse 2003), the more traditional research angles and concerns tended to prevail. No doubt, most researchers did so for well-intentioned reasons, for instance when inquiring into people’s knowledge on the EU (Verhaegen and Hooghe 2015) or the Union and its symbols (Bruter 2003; cf. discussion below). Such questions have been asked both with an eye to the function of a possibly emerging collective identity for the political legitimacy of European integration in general and as a remedy for an often-lamented ‘democracy deficit’ (cf. Camia 2010; Duchesne 2008) seemingly built into the EU’s emerging polity.

Arguably, the longest-standing strand of the debate on the Europeanisation of identities has also zoomed in on shared ethical-self understandings across European societies (cf. Kantner 2006), be they of a civic or cultural nature (cf. Ciaglia, Fuest, and Heinemann 2020). As Bruter (2003; 2004) has repeatedly pointed out, a European identity may be anchored in more civic values such as shared adherence to and appreciation of the principles of democracy, the rule of law, or more open and liberal orientations. Against the background of such general notions, some more specific ideas and positions have increasingly been marked as ‘distinctly European’, e.g. the respect for human rights, the repudiation of the death penalty, and a positive attitude towards welfarism, solidarity and social cohesion – all this with the effect of foregrounding and strengthening a particular identity which is then claimed by many Europeans as ‘theirs’ (cf. Cerutti 2003; Kleiner and Bücker 2016, 203).

In comparison, a more culturally defined European identity would rest on the perception of cultural proximity and references to a shared cultural heritage. As some have argued, the very cultural repertoire from which to draw in order to forge a unifying European identity is in fact limited due to often rivalling historical trajectories, clashing memories, and the absence of one unifying language as a significant roadblock (cf. Mayer and Palmowski 2004). Nevertheless, the reality of European integration knows quite a few instances of such culturalist self-identifications among Europeans. In turn, any such value-based and/or culturalist conception of identity is also assumed to work as a means of delineation and hence a vehicle for preventing outsiders from entering the community of Europeans (or the EU as an organisation) (cf. Aydin-Düzgit 2012, 138, 144). As Kundnani (2023) recently pointed out, ‘cultural proximity’, in the European case, may also be conceived of as a racialized, exclusivist rendering of the ‘European project’. Arguably, this testifies to the ambiguous qualities of a culturalist conception of European identity, which can quite well become a vehicle of ‘imperial amnesia’, in Kundnani’s words, or a platform to promulgate a fortress Europe in an effort to ward off migration on the basis of culturalist arguments. However, as we would maintain, people, in their everyday activities, may also be able to transcend racialized binaries, not least through partaking in ‘welcome cultures’ (see Andersen and Aubry, 2024).

A second main theme in the Political Science-driven literature on European identity has been the ‘identity potential’ of the EU, its institutions, its political accomplishments, and the symbols it has generated to establish itself in the minds of people. Based on the idea that publics across Europe – and even more so, different strata of the respective populations within specific national contexts – identify to a different extent with the EU as a political project, it has attempted to elucidate the drivers for such identification and differentials between them. Hermann and Brewer (2004, 3) have emphasised the ever-increasing presence of EU institutions in people’s lives as an effect of the institution being drawn into a multitude of transnational problems and crises. In a similar vein, Mayer and Palmowski (2004, 592) have noted the political capital the EU amassed over the years in transforming hitherto international disputes into internal arguments, which were then resolved through mediation and the rule of law. Seen from today’s angle, one could add that some ‘political capital’ seems to be ascribed to the EU as well. Inasmuch as such capital is not – or cannot be – leveraged, though, it may even undermine the institutions’ identification potential, as ‘performance traps’ translate into dissatisfaction all too easily. However, most emblematic for approaches in this domain is that any identification with ‘Europe’ has been almost instinctively operationalised as being tied to a conscious exposure towards the EU, be it information-wise or through direct experiences and encounters (cf. Bergbauer 2018).

In contrast, the bulk of investigations into the EU’s identity potential has focused on the institution’s symbols. As Heinrich (2016, 74) explains, the most basic mechanism here is that an increased frequency of exposure to ‘banal stimuli’ – such as signs, flags, slogans, anthems etc (cf. Pryke 2020). – may lead to a normalisation, the familiarity with such symbols and subsequently, perhaps, credibility and trust. Symbols thus constitute powerful channels and safeguards of purposively engineered latent identification; they first mobilise awareness and then generate sentiment (cf. Cram and Patrikios 2016). Not by chance have many authors pointed towards the intended identity dimensions of the EU (cf. Gillespie and Laffan 2006, 142–44; Karolewski 2010, 47). The introduction of a common currency not only had a monetary and an economic dimension, but also one related to identity (cf. recently Negri, Nicoli, and Kuhn 2021). Alongside, the EU has employed considerable resources in order to generate symbols that resonate with national publics: its flag, an anthem, several European Days dedicated to select issues, landmark buildings and flagship programmes (cf. Cram and Patrikios 2016, 64).

Thirdly, questions of European identity have been discussed with an eye to the emergence of a European(−wide) public sphere. This, again, came in largely two variants. On the one hand, scholars put the formation of a European identity centre stage and sought to assess it via dynamics observable in public spheres, both nationally and supranationally (cf. Hänska and Bauchowitz 2019; Risse 2010; Ruiz-Soler, Curini, and Ceron 2019). On the other hand, some studies clearly elevated normative concerns about the privileging of certain actors in an increasingly Europeanised sphere, and the analytic interest in demonstrating their very existence, above the consideration of any identity effects emanating from it (cf. Boomgaarden et al. 2010; Koopmans and Statham 2010a; Trenz 2004). In his review of key literatures on the European public sphere, Nitoiu (2013, 26) consequently highlights as one overarching theme the disputed character of the very possibility of creating such a truly transnational, unified discursive space comprising the bulk of ‘communication fluxes and actors from all strata of society’.

Grounding the debate conceptually and empirically, Risse (2010, 5, 116–18) argued that an ongoing Europeanisation of public spheres should be observable whenever European issues – the bulk of which related to the EU, some of them also covering topics spilling over borders from a neighbouring country – are debated as common concerns, using similar frames of reference across various national publics. Converging thematic intensities, e.g. measured by the ratio of national-to-EU reporting, and the convergence of frames and topics are hence key in assessing the contours of such an increasingly Europeanised public sphere. Such a sphere is then assumed to constitute a site where communities of communication are being (re-)constructed, with the implication of the gradual emergence of a collective identity. In a very similar fashion, Koopmans and Statham (2010b, 37–38) report on the convergence of news agendas, frames and criteria of relevance in news reporting across Europe. Yet they refrain from concluding too much on any identity effect. According to their interpretation, ‘Europe’ might have become an increasingly visible and salient reference point in the mass media coverage of politics, but with rather differentiated effects on different actors: traditional (political) elites seem to have been strengthened and only marginal effects on empowering civil society could be ascertained (cf. also Díez Medrano 2009; Zappetini 2019).

While the conventional debate on the Europeanisation of identities is undoubtedly rich and substantive, what is not in the picture also needs be highlighted. Reducing such identity change to questions of the right and legitimate polity and underlying values constituting a community, responses to the symbolism of the EU, as well as the eventual merger of national public debates and news agendas on more strictly political issues risks pushing the very fields of action in which many people are busy day in and day out – and the many activities in which they invest considerable time, attention and emotion – to the margins, if they are accorded any interest at all. But is this a valid and justified conception of ‘the average European citizen’: a hyper-informed and thoroughly interested, consciously political actor most of the time, reflecting about the EU’s (non-)activities and its symbolism? If the current multiple crises (climate, institutional, populist, security, economic etc.) have the capacity to weaken citizens’ bonds to ‘Europe’ as an idea and a political project, could identifications with Europe result from other types of encounters and interactions, forging cohesion despite (the perception of) political misalignment?

It strikes us that the disregard for activities which many people across Europe engage in for a substantial time during the day, and lifeworlds⁴ which they populate much more frequently and extensively than that of politics and news discourse, comes with a price. When we speak of a Europeanisation of identities, can we leave out contexts and phenomena in the realms of sport, culture, literature, fandom, leisure-time activities, volunteerism, job and student mobility, as well as transboundary experiences associated with ‘normal’ life? Not very much, as we would like to demonstrate. It is in this sense that the contributors aim at discussing the plurality of European identity formation. A decided emphasis on interactions and experiences in everyday life contexts is accordingly to allow us to fully grasp the wide array of identifications with and narrations of ‘Europe’, which seem to form the basis of both conscious and subliminal identity work.

Putting everyday activities and lifeworldly experiences at the centre

Almost two decades ago, Wodak (2007, 70–71) remarked that ‘what is experienced as European’ results from multiple activities, some of which are ‘consciously planned in the sense of political, economic or cultural interventions’ whereas others are more hidden and in the background. While subsequently referring to the everyday experiences of migrants and people-to-people internet communication across Europe in this context, she pointed out what was missing from many forays into European identity at that time and is still is somewhat exotic today: an analytic interest in more mundane activities and their contribution to more subconscious identity effects – those below the level of reflexive action geared towards political objects (institutions, values, symbols, news etc.).

Some scholars took on the challenge – mostly Sociologists of different stripes, with a few Political Scientists siding with them – and opened up a whole new field of research under rubrics such as ‘social transnationalism’ (e.g. Mau 2010), ‘experiencing European integration’ (e.g. Kuhn 2015), ‘everyday Europe’ (e.g. Recchi et al. 2019) or ‘banal Europeanism’ (Foret and Trino 2022; Weber 2021). What they have in common is a turn towards more lifeworldly contexts such as travel, tourism and cross-border mobility, learning, studying and engaging in leisure-time activities related, inter alia, to culture, entertainment and sport, cooking and culinary choices or shopping.

The delay with which this turn was taken is still somewhat surprising given the amount of time and attention ordinary European citizens invest in such domains, at least in comparison to more openly political activities. Pathbreaking in this regard were the studies conducted in the context of the EUCROSS research project (‘Crossing Borders – Making Europe’, 2011–2014), which put the link between transnational mobility, transactions across European boundaries and eventually resulting patterns of attitudinal and/or identity change in the focus of their attention. In a similar fashion, Mau (and colleagues) had aimed at testing whether increased transnationality across Europe is accompanied by higher levels of identification with Europe. He found a strong correlation; however, as he himself stressed, causality could well run both ways: attitudinal change could constitute the result of increased transnationality, while a higher propensity to move across borders in the European context may, in turn, also have stemmed from an already Europeanised mindset (Mau 2010, 118–19).

Taking earlier enquiries into the multidimensional nature of Europeanisation (e.g. cf. Delhey 2005) as a point of departure, more and more seemingly ‘mundane’ social activities as well as subliminal and unconscious forms of identity work entered the analytic fray. For instance, Friedman and Thiel, in their edited collection linking European identity with culture (Friedman and Thiel 2012), not only set out to explore feelings of ‘transnational belonging’ in Europe but also to trace from where these have emerged. In doing so, they placed a particular emphasis on the ‘cultures of the everyday’ (Friedman and Thiel 2012, 2; also: Gaggio 2012, 162–63). However, this should not be misunderstood as such fields and activities being a bag full of identity changes towards Europeanisation, just waiting to be explored further. In summarising the results of the EUCROSS project, Favell and Recchi (2019, 6) report that the social transnationalism they studied – mobility experiences and actions across borders – frequently did not translate into identifications or attachments in a straightforward fashion, and occasionally not at all. As they assert, a disconnect between transgressing boundaries and experiencing Europe on a mass scale on the one hand, and the sometimes-lacking initiation of closer emotional bonds or expressions of more intimate attachment (to Europe, or the EU) on the other, seems to exist quite palpably. Due to the manifold crises across Europe in combination with the (post-)pandemic situation, this has only become worse according to the same authors (Favell and Recchi 2020). Perhaps, then, ‘social transnationalism’ and its hypothesised effects have already become a case of historical analysis?

Other studies, in contrast, have highlighted and continue to stress the potential of ‘lived experiences’ through cultural events, installations and rituals – such as the European Capitals of Culture – to contribute to more Europeanised self-understandings among locals and visitors (cf. Sassatelli 2009). Particular prominence in this regard has been given to student mobility across Europe and the participants of Erasmus exchanges. Interestingly, the respective studies tend to reach very different conclusions. Mitchell (2015) is rather an outlier in describing, on average, huge and positive effects of Erasmus student exchanges: participants of such exchanges displayed enhanced levels of identification both as Europeans and with Europe. Cognitive mobilisation was hence triggered through being mobile, and particularly so when students mingled with host country nationals and other Europeans alongside their fellow nationals. The singular exception to this were the incomings to, and the outgoings from, the UK – a result which corroborated the findings of earlier studies (cf. Sigalas 2010). Kuhn (2012), on the other hand, noted a ceiling effect according to which patterns of identification towards Europe were only marginally transformed due to the already comparatively high identification levels of the group on the move before going on Erasmus. It is in this sense that top-down programmes of planned Europeanisation and European identity-engineering ‘fail’, since they may cater to an already Europeanised elite while the larger population – the real target audience lacking a more Europeanised horizon – remains unaffected. What is more, if an already high level of European identification works as a selector for participation in such schemes, they ultimately cannot contribute a lot to overcoming the divide between ‘transnational Europhiles’ and ‘local Eurosceptics’ (Kuhn 2015, 144–58; similarly in: van Mol 2018).

From a more analytical point of view, then, ‘transnationalism from above’ (Mau 2010) and the corresponding exchange programmes may not provide the most fruitful testing ground for Europeanisation effects at the level of identities. In contrast, non-elite fields of activity where transnationalism happens rather unconsciously, by default, and in a bottom-up manner – ‘transnationalism from below’ – seems more promising. This is also hinted at by more recent attempts to engage with ‘narrations of Europe from below’ (Scalise 2015), instances of ‘cultural consumption’ such as musical tastes and culinary choices (Hanquinet et al. 2019).

Even though there are indicators that suggest the capacity of such seemingly mundane practices to break up nationally siloed perspectives and narratives, not all forms of lifeworldly connectedness across boundaries inspire deep and authentic identity change. Díez Medrano (2020), in his unconventional study of the effects of cross-boundary marriages on binational couples and identification patterns in their proximate social context, has found that references to a shared European identity are rather strategically deployed (e.g. to allay family doubts). In a similar vein, van Mol et al. (2015) demonstrated that, on the surface, binational couples in Europe appear to show a higher propensity to identify ‘as Europeans’. However, such self-categorisation more often than not has a superficial quality and almost never translates into higher levels of solidarity with fellow Europeans in times of crisis.

Contributions to this special issue

The articles compiled in this Special Issue set out to expand the analysis of a Europeanisation of identities through everyday activities. Coming from diverse disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. Area Studies, Communication Science, Cultural Studies, History, Linguistics, Political Science), the authors have related to this endeavour not only from varying perspectives and with different methodologies. They have also contributed to assembling quite an array of activities: visiting cultural (heritage) sites, forging university cooperation across boundaries, writing and reading books, following football as a fan, playing videogames, simply living in a cross-border region, welcoming migrants and refugees, and articulating one’s sexuality. Despite this thematic heterogeneity, the articles can be grouped into three strands. The first carries the label of ‘Everyday Europeanisation and changing identities in an EU frame of reference’, the second focuses on the ‘Europeanisation of identities through popular culture’, and the third assembles contributions on what can be dubbed the ‘Europeanisation of identities in everyday political contexts’.

First, capturing ‘Europe’ as a space of (popular) cultural practices and activities which transcend a narrow focus on EU politics does not necessarily mean to discard the EU and its institutions as shapers of frameworks entirely. The first two articles demonstrate this. As Katja Mäkinen and Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus (2024) highlight in their paper, citizens do develop quite different understandings when confronted with European Heritage sites, both in their capacity as visitors and as practitioners working there. Based on ethnographic research including interviews, the authors map the emerging narratives of what it means to ‘be’ or to ‘become’ European when visiting such sites of cultural heritage, and also how ‘cultural Europeanisation’ may enable people in Central and Eastern Europe to move closer to the centre of Europe. In their contribution, Alexander Frame and Barbara Curyło (2024) position the European Universities Initiative as an example of ‘everyday Europeanhood’ – a novel concept fusing established notions in order to capture the qualities and ensuing dynamics of a European-wide framework to bring into contact students and staff in a more normalised, less exceptional setting. Through an analysis of documents and discourses around the initiative, complemented by an insider’s view based on participant observation, the authors are able to demonstrate that the resulting university alliances are designed less in a top down-manner but rather represent bottom-up encounters and day-to-day interactions, which nevertheless have the capacity to promote a stronger sense of European identity.

In the second section, which focuses on the Europeanisation of identities through popular culture, articles on literature, football fandom and videogaming sit next to one another. While discussing vastly different domains of action, they all make clear that leisure time is anything but trivial for an understanding of European identity. Russell Forster (2024), in his contribution based on a discourse analysis of selected fiction books, discusses how British fictional portrayals of the EU have changed alongside Brexit. Whereas prior to 2016, representations of the EU had been almost entirely dystopian, the ‘Brex-Lit fiction’ (i.e. novels published after the decision had materialised) seems to have reversed this trend. The EU afterwards appears as a flawless utopia and a place of longing. Discussing this interesting paradigmatic shift, the article stresses that ‘Europeanness’ (and with that also any identification with Europe, however nostalgic) is deeply intertwined with discourses on eventually declining national identity. The paper also shows that such discourse is not only taking place in the media and parliament. Alexander Brand, Arne Niemann and Regina Weber (2024) then shift attention to a supposedly unlikely place for European identifications: football. In asking how the Europeanisation of football at the level of governance might also have impacted the identities and perceptions of football fans, they attempt to distil the subliminal positioning of fans toward ‘Europe’ from a systematic and comparative analysis of articulations in select online message boards. The results indicate that the factor carrying the most explanatory power for a Europeanisation of a football fan’s mindset is their favourite club’s participation in European-level competition. Frequent exposure to European-level football competition – an arguably not very political field of action – might hence nevertheless translate into more Europeanised perceptions. Finally, Jakub Šindelář (2024) opens up a field, which is undoubtedly important in the lifeworlds of many particularly younger people, yet still at the margins of attention of social science: videogaming. In his article, he discusses the video game ‘Valiant Hearts’, which puts the First World War centre stage and allows gamers to interact in a stylised virtual setting that is shaped by Europeanising elements such as an anti-war narrative, Franco-German reconciliation and a denationalising logic. Combining an analysis of frames employed in the videogame with a close reading of paratextual user-generated videos, in which gamers record themselves and their experiences while playing, he is able to show that it is not only the design of the game that matters. To the contrary, playing videogames should be approached as an activity, which allows people to discuss their experiences thereby shaping understandings and identifications. It is in this sense that ‘informal Europeanisation’ is indeed taking place alongside playing ‘Valiant Hearts’.

The final section binds together three articles tackling interactions and resulting identity shifts in everyday political contexts. Here, it is not so much a crisis, the parliamentary or media debate, or events of high politics that shape the main frame of reference. Rather, three very lifeworldly, more unconsciously political contexts are examined: that of living in a cross-border region, that of welcoming foreigners in a place, and that of articulating one’s sexuality in a more traditional societal surrounding. Elisabeth Donat and Simon Lenhart (2024) refer to the experiences of both average citizens as well as regional parliamentarians living and working in the Euregio Maas-Rhine, a cross-border region between Germany and Belgium. Comparing Eurobarometer data and data collected in focus groups with regional MPs, they assert that perceptions – also of Europe – are hugely impacted by the frequency of cross-border movement and interaction with people, from which trust is built. Any trend towards a gradual ‘growing together’, however, is also reliant on the quality of contacts established. Dorte Andersen and Lola Aubry (2024) tackle the particular situation of welcoming others, migrants, refugees etc. in a place. The ways in which such a ‘welcome culture’ develops, as they show, allows the people involved to imagine Europe in specific ways, and quite a few of them very distinct to EU practices of tough border policing and othering. Building on ethnographic research in various locations, the authors show that what it means to be European is at the same time sensed, imagined, and performed in such welcoming spaces. Rasa Kamarauskaite (2024) finally discusses how LGBQ people in Lithuania reflect on their belonging to Europe, the EU, or ‘the West’ more generally. Based on in-depth interviews, she demonstrates that the subjective senses of (not) belonging to the West/EUrope are mediated by many different factors. Yet, all in all, tolerance and acceptance of their sexual orientation is often explained as becoming ‘more European’ in their life stories. A ‘Rainbow Europe’-narrative is hence developed to streamline homosexuality in view of domestic rejection and non-recognition.

What all these diverse contributions shall make clear, in a nutshell, is that the Europeanisation of identities seems to be under way – and very often much more unconsciously and subliminally than expected. Terrains which seemed to defy political attention or are supposedly a-political can be powerful contexts for a transformation of identities. This, in turn, has undeniable political ramifications for a potential formation of Europe.

Acknowledgments

We like to thank Alexandra Bumcke and Helen Klaes for their valuable research assistance. We also thank the reviewers of this introduction for their valuable comments and suggestions as well as Martin Bull and the JCES team for their support throughout the whole process that led to this special issue.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [386268084].

Notes

1. At least if we talk about people in democratic regimes that have not put filtering and restrictions in place.

2. This goes along with an increasingly stricter border regime vis-à-vis the outside world (Niemann and Zaun 2023) – an important phenomenon that is, however, of lesser relevance for the theme and focus of this special issue.

3. This and the following section build upon chapter 4 of a forthcoming book on the Europeanisation of identities among football fans (cf. Niemann, Brand, and Weber forthcoming). It summarises a few of its arguments, particularly those which transcend the field of football and sports.

4. We use this term in a rather loose fashion, not aiming at philosophical purism along the lines of, for instance, Husserl or Habermas. In our understanding, ‘lifeworlds’ are those contexts of action and being that are not constantly theorised by people, that are taken for granted, and the surroundings of which are too normal to be reflected upon and nevertheless constitute the bulk of most people’s lifetime experience, cf. e.g. Dahlberg and Dahlberg (2020), Krall and Knapp (2021).