THE DISCURSIVE FIGURE OF “TRANSITION” AND RESILIENCE AS THE PILLARS OF SYMBOLIC MAPPING: THE CASE OF THE NORMATIVE INTERACTION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE EU

Authors

Keywords:

the EU-Russia relations, figure of «transition», historicism, orientalism, discourse, international norms, identity, resilience, the European Union

Abstract

The normative interaction between Russia and the EU is a significant component of foreign policy for both Moscow and Brussels. It reflects important general patterns of the symbolic interaction between the West and the rest of the world. The theory of hegemony of E.Laclau and C.Mouffe and post-Marxist discourse analysis show that the European symbolic mapping today is based on historicism and orientalism, embodied in the discursive figure of «transition». The situation has changed recently after the emergence of the «resilience» notion (as the ability of states and societies to adapt to turbulence) in the neoliberal hegemony of the EU. The interpretation of this concept by the EU directly links it with the normative component: only liberal democracies can be resilient in the long run. This approach fills the previous structure of the symbolic political map with the new content – some countries are subject to more exclusion. For instance, Russia moves from its conditional semi-peripheral position to the peripheral one that threatens the resilience of the EU and its Eastern partners. Nevertheless, this position of an outsider in the official discourse of the EU provides Russia with the unique opportunity to come out of the Western-centered historicist pattern.DOI: 10.17072/2218-1067-2020-3-73-81

Author Biography

Глеб Коцур / Gleb Kotsur, St. Petersburg State University

Postgraduate Student, Department of European Studies, Faculty of International Relations

References

Морозов, В. Е. (2009) Россия и Другие: идентичность и границы политического сообщества. Москва: Новое литературное обозрение. [Morozov, V. E. (2009) Russia and the Others: Identity and Limits of the Political Community [Rossija i Drugie: identichnost' i granicy politicheskogo soobshhestva]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russ.)].

Нойманн, И. (2004) Использование "Другого": образы Востока в формировании европейских идентичностей. Москва: Новое издательство. [Neumann, I. (2004) Uses of the Other: "The East" in European Identity Formation [Ispol'zovanie "Drugogo": obrazy Vostoka v formirovanii evropejskih identichnostej]. Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo. (In Russ.)].

Поппер, К. (1993) Нищета историзма. Москва: Прогресс. [Popper, K. (1993) The Poverty of Historicism [Nishheta istorizma]. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.)].

Романова, Т. А. (2017) ‘Категория “Стрессоустойчивость” в Европейском cоюзе', Современная Европа, 76(4), сс. 17–29. [Romanova, T. A. (2017) ‘The "Resilience" notion of the European Union’ [Kategorija “Stressoustojchivost'” v Evropejskom Sojuze], Sovremennaja Evropa, 76(4), pр. 17–29. (In Russ.)].

Романова, Т. А., Павлова, Е. Б. (2019) ‘Стрессоустойчивость в Евросоюзе и Россия: суть и перспективы новой концепции’, Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 63(6), сс. 102–109. [Roma-nova, T. A., Pavlova E. B. (2019) ‘Resilience in the European Union and Russia: Essence and Perspectives of the New Concept’ [Stressoustojchivost' v Evrosojuze i Rossija: sut' i perspektivy novoj koncepcii’], Mirovaja jekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 63(6), рp. 102–109. (In Russ.)].

Хантингтон, С. (2003) Третья волна. Демократизация в конце XX века. Москва: РОССПЭН. [Huntington, S. (2003) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century [Tret'ja volna. Demokratizacija v konce XX veka]. Moscow: ROSSPJeN. (In Russ.)].

Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical differ-ence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Dunn Cavelty, M., Kaufmann M., Søby Kristensen K. (2015) ‘Resilience and (in) security: practices, subjects, temporalities’, Se-curity Dialogue. 46(1), рp. 3–14.

Holling, C. S. (1973) ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), pр. 1–23.

Laclau, E., Mouffe, C. (2001) Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Makarychev, A. (2015) ‘A New European disuni-ty: EU–Russia ruptures and the crisis in the common neighborhood’, Problems of Post-Communism, 62(6), pр. 313–315.

Rostow, W.W. (1956) ‘The take-off into self-sustained growth’, The Economic Journal, 66(261), рp. 25–48.

Said, E. W. (1995) Orientalism: Western conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin.

Published

2020-10-20

How to Cite

Gleb Kotsur Г. К. /. (2020). THE DISCURSIVE FIGURE OF “TRANSITION” AND RESILIENCE AS THE PILLARS OF SYMBOLIC MAPPING: THE CASE OF THE NORMATIVE INTERACTION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE EU. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, 14(3), 73–81. Retrieved from http://press.psu.ru/index.php/polit/article/view/3840