Advertisement

Czech party positions on the EU’s finality: a conceptual metaphor approach

  • Jan Kovář
Original Article

Abstract

Political parties play an important role in offering voters some choices about European Union (EU) politics. The literature on party positions on European integration rely largely, from a methodological point of view, on coding of manifestos and expert surveys. This paper opts for a different approach to the study of party positions on European integration based on the analysis of metaphors used by parties in their discourse about the future form of European integration. Although analysis of metaphors has been providing an increasingly popular tool for examining international politics since the early 1990s, its application to studies of European integration and the EU has been much scarcer. On the basis of key conceptual metaphors used in discourses on the future of the EU that we identified from the relevant literature as well as the corpus itself, we analyse Czech parties’ Euromanifestos issued between 2004 and 2014. The analysis is subsequently projected onto party positions on European integration and Euroscepticism.

Keywords

Metaphors Political parties European integration Manifestos Party positions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the participants at the 7th Pan-European Conference on EU Politics and the 2nd Euroacademia International Conference, the three anonymous reviewers as well as editors of Journal of International Relations and Development for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this contribution.

References

  1. Bailey, Richard. 2003. Conceptual Metaphor, Language, Literature and Pedagogy. Journal of Language and Learning 1 (2): 59–72.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bougher, Lori D. 2012. The Case for Metaphor in Political Reasoning and Cognition. Political Psychology 33 (1): 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brusis, Martin. 2002. Applicant Countries and the Institutional Configuration of the Future EU: Interests and Resonance. In Thinking Enlarged: The Accession Countries and the Future of the European Union, ed. Martin Brusis and Janis Emmanouilidis, 51–60. Bonn: Europa Union.Google Scholar
  5. Budge, Ian. 1994. A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budge, Ian, David Robertson, and Derek Hearl. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, Lynne. 1999. Identifying and Describing Metaphor in Spoken Discourse Data. In Researching and Applying Metaphor, ed. Graham Low and Lynne Cameron, 105–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaban, Natalia, and Serena Kelly. 2017. Tracing the Evolution of EU Images Using a Case-Study of Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (4): 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaban, Natalia, Katrina Stats, and Jessica Bain. 2006. The European Union in Metaphors: Images of the EU in the Asia-Pacifica. 20th IPSA World Congress (Fukuoka, Japan), 1–47.Google Scholar
  11. Chilton, Paul, and Mikhail Ilyin. 1993. Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the ‘Common European House’. Discourse & Society 4 (1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cienki, Alan. 2013. Bringing Concepts from Cognitive Linguistics into the Analysis of Policies and the Political. Journal of International Relations and Development 16 (2): 294–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cortazzi, Martin, and Lixian Jin. 1999. Bridges to Learning: Metaphors of Teaching, Learning and Language. In Researching and Applying Metaphor, ed. Graham Low and Lynne Cameron, 149–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1993. Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly 37 (3): 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drulák, Petr. 2006. Motion, Container and Equilibrium: Metaphors in the Discourse About European Integration. European Journal of International Relations 12 (4): 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drulák, Petr. 2004. Metaphors Europe Lives By: Language and Institutional Change of the European Union. EUI Working Paper SPS no. 2004/15 (San Domenico: European University Institute), 1–53.Google Scholar
  17. Drulák, Petr. 2005. Identifying and Assessing Metaphors: The Discourse on European Future. ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops (Granada), 1–26.Google Scholar
  18. Drulák, Petr, and Vít Beneš. 2015. Czech Metaphors About Europe: Havel Vs Klaus. Journal of International Relations and Development 18 (4): 532–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drulák, Petr, and Lucie Konigová. 2007. Figuring out Europe: EU Metaphors in the Minds of Czech Civil Servants. Perspectives 15 (1): 5–23.Google Scholar
  20. Eder, Nikolaus, Marcelo Jenny, and Wolfgang C. Müller. 2017. Manifesto Functions: How Party Candidates View and Use Their Party’s Central Policy Document. Electoral Studies 45: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Føllesdal, Andreas, and Simon Hix. 2006. Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (3): 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Havlík, Vlastimil. 2011. A Breaking-up of a Pro-European Consensus: Attitudes of Czech Political Parties Towards the European Integration (1998–2010). Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44 (2): 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellstrom, Johan. 2008. Who Leads, Who Follows? Re-Examining the Party-Electorate Linkages on European Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (8): 1127–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hix, Simon, and Christopher Lord. 1997. Political Parties in the European Union. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hulsse, Rainer. 2006. Imagine the EU: The Metaphorical Construction of a Supra-Nationalist Identity. Journal of International Relations and Development 9 (4): 396–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaal, Bertie. 2017. Worldview and Social Practice: A Discourse-Space Approach to Political Text Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Kimmel, Michael. 2009a. Metaphors of the EU Constitutional Debate: Ways of Charting Discourse Coherence in a Complex Metaphor Field. Metaphorik.de 9 (2): 49–100.Google Scholar
  28. Kimmel, Michael. 2009b. The EU Constitution in a Stereoscopic View: Qualitative Content Analysis and Metaphor Analysis Compared. In Democracy Needs Dispute: The Debate on the European Constitution, ed. Cornelia Bruell, Monika Mokre, and Markus Pausch, 119–162. Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Kimmel, Michael. 2012. Optimizing the Analysis of Metaphor in Discourse: How to Make the Most of Qualitative Software and Find a Good Research Design. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, et al. 2007. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kovář, Jan. 2015. Europeanisation of EP Election Manifestos: An Application of a New Approach on the Case of Slovak Political Parties. Czech Journal of Political Science 22 (2): 105–126.Google Scholar
  32. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakoff, George. 2016. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lord, Christopher J. 2010. The Aggregating Function of Political Parties in EU Decision-Making. Living Reviews in European Governance 5.Google Scholar
  38. Luoma-aho, Mika. 2004. Arm Versus Pillar: The Politics of Metaphors of the Western European Union at the 1990–91 Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (1): 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyons, Pat. 2012. Theory, Data and Analysis. Data Resources for the Study of Politics in the Czech Republic, Prague: Sociologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.Google Scholar
  40. Mair, Peter. 2000. The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems. West European Politics 23 (4): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Musolff, Andreas. 2001. The Metaphorisation of European Politics: Movement on the Road to Europe. In Attitudes Towards Europe: Language in the Unification Process, ed. Andreas Musolff et al., 179–200. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Musolff, Andreas. 2004. The Heart of the European Body Politic. British and German Perspectives on Europe’s Central Organ. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25 (5–6): 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Musolff, Andreas. 2006. Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Serfaty, S. (ed.). 2003. The European Finality Debate and Its National Dimensions. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  45. Taggart, Paul, and Aleks Szczerbiak. 2002. Europeanisation, Euroscepticism and Party Systems: Party-Based Euroscepticism in the Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 3 (1): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trechsel, Alexander H., and Peter Mair. 2011. When Parties (Also) Position Themselves: An Introduction to the EU Profiler. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 8 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tully, James. 1988. The Pen is a Mighty Sword: Quentin Skinner’s Analysis of Politics. In Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. James Tully, 7–25. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Elfrinkhof, Annemarie, Isa Maks, and Bertie Kaal. 2014. From Text to Political Positions. The Convergence of Political, Discourse and Linguistic Analysis. In From Text to Political Positions. Text Analysis across Disciplines, ed. Bertie Kaal, Isa Maks, and Annemarie van Elfrinkhof, 297–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of International RelationsPrague 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations