ABSTRACT
Consideration of the contradictions in European integration (EI) normally gravitates to one of two core issues. The first is the extent to which Europe is integrated in different domains, the suspicion being that Europe is less integrated socially and culturally than it is economically and politically. The single market and single currency mask a lack of coordination in fields such as provision of old-age pensions or attempts to tackle unemployment. The flipside of the integration project is the extent to which the European Union has resulted in new patterns of marginalization and exclusion (along the lines of age, gender, ethnicity, or simply geographical remoteness). The second concerns the centrality of the idea of integration to EU studies. The assumption that integration is what we should be studying is largely unquestioned in the EU studies literature. The assumption leads to a sub-field of EI studies, although to an extent the recent shift of emphasis towards Europeanization has ameliorated the situation (Murray 2009). There exists a concern that the idea of integration is far too teleological, and its centrality a mantra or, worse still, an ideological construct. It has generated a huge academic industry but does not help us to understand the broader social and political transformations that have characterized postwar Europe (Delanty and Rumford 2005). There is disciplinary variation in levels of adherence to the “narrative of integration” with political science and studies on international relations proving more accommodating on the whole than sociology or anthropology.
