Giuditta Caliendo

From its outset, the European Union has devoted considerable efforts to legitimate its governance. In the constant endeavor to connect to its citizens, the EU has attained undeniably impressive achievements, although opposition remains strong and many are still sceptical of its political rationale.

According to the literature in the field of European integration, opposition to the EU cannot be ascribed to one specific cause of discontent and tends to be associated to a general lack of perceived legitimacy among citizens. Legitimacy itself comes across as a ‘fluid’ concept, which varies across time and according to the events that day-by-day make up the history of the European Union. This might explain why the Eurobarometer is, among other data sources, constantly taken into consideration by scholars and analysts to gauge ‘citizens’ mood’ at a given point in time, especially at times when the occurrence of specific circumstances may not particularly fuel democratic support (Turkey’s prospective accession is a case in point).

From a more optimistic perspective, this ‘fluidity’ may also have a positive side to it: by undertaking certain actions and measures, the EU can buttress its legitimacy, or to some extent try to counter public distrust. Some authors believe that the increasing “entitativity”, i.e. the presence and relevance of EU institutions in people’s everyday lives, seems to positively affect their identification with the EU as a political entity. According to political scientist Eriksen (2009), by emphasizing certain actions and priorities, such as solving citizens’ problems, creating a framework of shared values, and empowering citizens by conferring rights upon them, the EU strengthens its legitimacy and constructs its political identity around three functional models: (i) the EU as a problem-solver, (ii) the EU as a provider of common values, (iii) the EU as a provider of rights.

In my study, I argue that the emergence of these three new identity roles is strictly related to processes of discursive change which can be clearly traced in EU texts addressing the general public (informative booklets published on Europa, the EU’s official website). My research draws upon Critical Discourse Analysis to investigate the discursive practices employed by the EU to construct itself as a legitimate supranational entity. This translates into the act of: (i) exploring critically the effectiveness of communication strategies being implemented by the EU in response to the legitimacy crisis; (ii) selecting and scrutinizing those discursive patterns that help confer upon the EU the institutional acceptability required for citizens to identify with it.