Eurosphere(s)? Fragmented and stratified or integrated and fair? A conceptual and pre-theoretical mapping exercise

摘要: This working paper has three explicit intents. First, I discuss some basic conceptual issues regarding ‘spheres’, ‘places/localities’, ‘arenas’; ‘levels’; ‘fields’ or ‘social spaces’; and different kinds/types of ‘publics’. Second, present theoretical empirical minima sociologica on fragmentation integration stratification fairness public arenas providing a more complex sophisticated frame compared with existing attempts to clarify criteria, concepts foci European Public Spheres. Third, address pressing normative that may help prevent the quasi-automatic transport EU (idealized) standards liberal democratic legitimacy related publicity ‘national democracies’ – counterpart methodological nationalism state-centrism. More specifically, propose we should resist two biases. One dominates over Many: one ‘integrated’ ‘heavy’ Sphere versus many ‘light’ (and obviously multitude sub-European) spheres. strand does not analyze looks for (hopes asks for) too much unity, cohesion. It trade-offs characteristic ‘simple’ ‘compound polities. also selectivity ‘a Sphere’. The second bias unqualified trust in ‘(individual) citizens’ seriously enough take into account time-, information-, qualification-constrains deliberation, participation, decision-making. We cannot want do without ‘elites’ urgently need whole variety ‘counter-elites’ all sorts, particularly inside citizens-movements organizations order control professional bureaucratic elites levels, especially EU. distinctiveness my associative approach is twofold: first, it an institution-centered, multi-level analysis spheres and, second, shows emphasis sectoral/functional spaces arenas. representation presence relevant stake- knowledge-holders these brings conflict contestation where they matter most, opposition so-called ‘Big’ Politics its recent revival populist political ‘movements’ parties.