Читать книгу Joining a Prestigious Club - Maria Shagina - Страница 8

2. Research Framework

Inspired by the appeal of “going empirical”, this research aims to depart from a traditional “rationalist-constructivist” divide and to move further, by offering a fine-grained explanation of the puzzling phenomena of cooperation between Europarties and non-EU parties. Bridging both approaches, this research is interested in revealing why actors are willing to undergo the costly process of adaptation and how actors internalise new norms. It is interested in portraying the “cogs and wheels” of the causal mechanism of socialisation and in defining the scope conditions stipulating the internalisation.

Combining both rationalist and constructivist logics to party politics, this research focuses on the driving forces behind domestic change as the result of cooperation between Europarties and non-EU parties. Why do political parties decide to comply with norms and implement changes? Is domestic change driven by parties’ noble beliefs or by their pragmatic power tactics? How does norm diffusion occur, and under what conditions does it penetrate the domestic level? These questions can be addressed from both rational and normative perspectives, emphasising a “logic of consequences” and a “logic of appropriateness” in the process of Europeanisation.

2.1 Theoretical Framework:
Socialisation and Norm Diffusion

According to Checkel, socialisation is “the process of inducting new actors into the norms, rules, and way of behaviour of a given community”.1 As members of a certain community, actors share an identity, beliefs, values, and norms, which spread through the socialisation mechanism and thus impose certain expectations on actors’ behavioural patterns. This definition implies an uneven “master-novice” relationship, where newcomers become integrated into an established group and change their behaviour in line with the group’s rules through social interaction.2 As Johnston put it succinctly, “socialization is aimed at creating membership of a society where the intersubjective understandings of the society become taken for granted”.3 As a result, socialisation enables conformity to norms and its internalisation.

Socialisation facilitates norm diffusion. For new norms to be fully institutionalised and internalised, the whole “lifecycle” must take place, which includes three stages: “norm emergence”, “norm cascade” and internalisation.4 The first stage occurs when an established set of norms faces a destabilising shock that undermines the legitimacy of the norms. Confronted with a new si-tuation, the old set of norms fails to offer a satisfying solution to new challenges and problems. This leads to an “ideational vacuum”, in which actors are no longer satisfied with the status quo and start looking for a new set of norms that will solve the uncomfortable situation.5

The second stage begins once the set of norms is selected. At the “norm cascade” stage, the norm entrepreneurs try to convince the actors to comply with their rules and practices through arguing or persuasion. In fact, this stage is characterised by an active phase of socialisation when the norm leaders are trying to induct actors into their system of values. The “norm cascade” occurs under certain circumstances that trigger the norm adoption by actors. The conditions vary depending on the situation but encompass features of institutional design, properties of the actors to be socialised, and properties of the socialising actors.6

Finally, at the last stage, actors internalise new norms and perform them on a habitual basis. New norms are taken for granted and are no longer subjected to a public debate. As a result, norms are viewed as right, appropriate, and intersubjective.

The intricate process of socialisation requires the analysis of the microfoundations which, in turn, predetermines the sustainability of internalisation. The shift from a “logic of consequences” to a “logic of appropriateness” might be triggerred by two microprocesses—persuasion or social influence.7

Persuasion is an idealistic form of internalisation when newcomers ge-nuinely change their beliefs and attitudes, resulting in “deep” socialisation and sustainable change of behaviour. This type of microprocess leads to a genuine attitude change through high intensity cognition, reflection, or argument.8

In contrast to persuasion, social influence triggers “pro-norm behaviour through the distribution of social rewards and punishments”.9 The social-influence method employs a variety of rewards, including psychological well-being, increased status, and a sense of belonging, achieved through confor-mity with role expectations. Punishments, on the other hand, might include shaming, exclusion, demeaning, or cognitive dissonance derived from inconsistent behaviour vis-à-vis the new role and identity.10

Described as “public conformity without private acceptance”, social influence underlines an unfinished process of internalisation, in which the actor does not internalise new rules and norms, but alters its behaviour due to group pressure.11 Of crucial importance in the microprocess of social influence are the maximisation of status, honour, and prestige, and the desire to avoid losing reputation and public image through humiliation and shaming. The desire to maximise reputational attributes converts the status into an instrument. The membership in a high-status group unleashes leverage over the actor’s attitude. Pursuing self-esteem, actors comply with norms, as they want others to think well of them and they want to think well of themselves.12