Mirrored Europe. How the European Self is Constructed in Newspapers Through Defining Turkey
TOIVONEN, JANNE (2007)
2007
Tiedotusoppi - Journalism and Mass Communication
Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tiedekunta - Faculty of Social Sciences
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2007-10-01
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-17281
https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-17281
Tiivistelmä
In my thesis I examine the self-images of Europe reproduced in two European newspapers. My viewpoint is to study articles that discuss Turkey’s accession negotiations with the European Union in order to find the self-images reproduced by mirroring the self (Europe) to the other (Turkey). By discussing what Turkey should be in order to gain accession in the European Union, the articles formulate their own perception of Europe.
My research material consists of 57 articles published in the Brussels-based European Voice and Finnish Helsingin Sanomat in October – December 2005. By comparing the articles published in two different countries I attempt to reach a setting that enables enough differences for comparison.
My research method combines discourse analysis with the self-other nexus, the theory of self and the other mutually constructing each other. I also conduct a hegemonic discourse analysis to reveal the hegemonic structures in the articles. As the background theory I use cultural and political research conducted on European boundaries, foremost studies of European identity formation and the historical relations between Europe and Turkey.
In the articles, Europe is commonly depicted as prosperous, democratic and developed when defined through the other, Turkey. The European Voice has a more positive image of Europe than Helsingin Sanomat. In the European Voice a European Turkey is seen as ideal, but a more Turkish Europe as a large threat. On the contrary, the discourses of Helsingin Sanomat contain more criticism to the European self. Europe is seen more duplicitous and incoherent than in the European Voice.
It is possible to distinguish three different self-image categories of “Europe”: 1) the Europe of ideals, 2) the Europe of masses and 3) the Official Europe of the decision-makers. The Europe of ideals is the common basis for the Europe of masses and the Official Europe, but forming a coherent European self-understanding proves difficult due to the gap and mistrust between the two latter images.
From the viewpoint of hegemony, both papers have the tendency to evaluate both Europe and Turkey from the traditional hard politics viewpoint of the power-holders – mainly economy and politics. In addition, both inevitability of deepening the European integration and Turkey’s subordinate position to Europe reach a somewhat hegemonic position. This suggests that the papers consider the viewpoints of the European elite to be important in defining the European self and the suitability of the other into this self-image.
My research material consists of 57 articles published in the Brussels-based European Voice and Finnish Helsingin Sanomat in October – December 2005. By comparing the articles published in two different countries I attempt to reach a setting that enables enough differences for comparison.
My research method combines discourse analysis with the self-other nexus, the theory of self and the other mutually constructing each other. I also conduct a hegemonic discourse analysis to reveal the hegemonic structures in the articles. As the background theory I use cultural and political research conducted on European boundaries, foremost studies of European identity formation and the historical relations between Europe and Turkey.
In the articles, Europe is commonly depicted as prosperous, democratic and developed when defined through the other, Turkey. The European Voice has a more positive image of Europe than Helsingin Sanomat. In the European Voice a European Turkey is seen as ideal, but a more Turkish Europe as a large threat. On the contrary, the discourses of Helsingin Sanomat contain more criticism to the European self. Europe is seen more duplicitous and incoherent than in the European Voice.
It is possible to distinguish three different self-image categories of “Europe”: 1) the Europe of ideals, 2) the Europe of masses and 3) the Official Europe of the decision-makers. The Europe of ideals is the common basis for the Europe of masses and the Official Europe, but forming a coherent European self-understanding proves difficult due to the gap and mistrust between the two latter images.
From the viewpoint of hegemony, both papers have the tendency to evaluate both Europe and Turkey from the traditional hard politics viewpoint of the power-holders – mainly economy and politics. In addition, both inevitability of deepening the European integration and Turkey’s subordinate position to Europe reach a somewhat hegemonic position. This suggests that the papers consider the viewpoints of the European elite to be important in defining the European self and the suitability of the other into this self-image.