While the European Union looms large in contemporary political science, intellectual debates across Europe on the normative foundations for integration have received less attention. This book focuses in on the visions and interpretations of European integration proposed since the early 1990s by “public intellectuals”, i.e. political philosophers, scholars, editors or writers whose opinions contribute to framing public attitudes. How is the European Union framed in national intellectual debates? How is the evolving European polity conceived? Do national debates cross‐pollinate, or are they disc ... More

While the European Union looms large in contemporary political science, intellectual debates across Europe on the normative foundations for integration have received less attention. This book focuses in on the visions and interpretations of European integration proposed since the early 1990s by “public intellectuals”, i.e. political philosophers, scholars, editors or writers whose opinions contribute to framing public attitudes. How is the European Union framed in national intellectual debates? How is the evolving European polity conceived? Do national debates cross‐pollinate, or are they discrete entities each speaking their own language? In answer to these questions, the book develops a comparison between intellectual narratives of European integration across twelve nation‐states — including founding and newer EU members as well as non‐member states — and frames this with chapters reflecting on the echoes and discords across borders. This book thus takes on the debate on unity versus plurality that has long plagued Europe; it ultimately suggests that narrative diversity — both within each country and across borders — is not just an asset but a necessity in a Europe built by the processes of “contestatory democracy” and collective legitimation. At a time when Europe is struggling to define not only its geographical borders but also new cultural, religious and social identities, this book argues that normative homogeneity is by no means a prerequisite for union. Rather, the intellectual “polyphony” of narratives demonstrated by this book should be celebrated and cultivated as a foundation for a new model of European democracy.