This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Back to contents

International relations

Reference:

Gavrilenko N.V. “Fear” as a disintegration factor: conceptual view on British-European relations in light of Brexit // International relations. 2023. № 2. P. 18-35. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0641.2023.2.41052 EDN: RHRVVW URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=41052

“Fear” as a disintegration factor: conceptual view on British-European relations in light of Brexit

Gavrilenko Nikita Vladislavovich

Graduate student, Department of Applied International Analysis, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)

76 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow, 119454, Russia

gavrilenko.n.v@my.mgimo.ru

Other publications by this author

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0641.2023.2.41052

EDN:

RHRVVW

Received:

21-06-2023

Published:

05-07-2023

Abstract: The article aims at contributing to discussions on British national identity and its impact on the state’s foreign policy, with British-European relations used as an example. The author provides a concept of “fear” within the constructivist approach as a tool to explain withdrawing from the integration organisation. According to it, the logic of state’s behaviour can be explained with the help of four impulses that cause fear for one’s own identity. These are generalised categories that make it easier to analyse and describe actions taken by actors while interacting with their counteragents. Given the results of the research on British-European relations, one can conclude that deeper integration and gradually empowered supranational bodies provoke conflict between national and transnational identities. For fear of being deprived of its identity, which is of paramount importance, the United Kingdom was trying to securitise the threat by leaving the Union. Accordingly, the concept of “fear” facilitates defining reasons why politicians turn to politicising a problem and developing a security scenario, which is Brexit when it comes to British-European relations. Yet, it doesn’t guarantee identity restoration and can only aggravate internal issues, which is proved by the case of Great Britain.

Keywords:

Great Britain, the European Union, Brexit, Constructivism, National identity, Transnational identity, Cognitive community-regions, Fear, Right-wing populism, Euroscepticism
This article is automatically translated.

Summing up, we note that the concept of fear proposed in this study is an addition to the theory of securitization of the Copenhagen school. The latter indicates that politicians draw the attention of their audience to a particular threat, while the former indicates that they come to this as a result of perception and interpretation of the existing danger. In this regard, such an emotion as fear determines the decisions of political figures of states. It is especially possible to trace this clearly within the framework of integration processes, in particular in Europe. Some States still prefer national identity, despite the high level of interdependence caused by globalization. The fear of losing something that has gone through long stages of formation and development, as well as losing independence and being in a state of insecurity, lead to an increase in support for populist movements. This undermines the unity of the integration association.

As for the UK itself, when leaving the EU, it was driven by an impulse of fear due to the desire to isolate itself and preserve its own national identity, while it is also worth noting the willingness to make changes and risks, since it was not clear until almost the last whether London and Brussels would be able to come to an agreement on the future format of interaction, which could to hit the economy and the position of both counterparties very hard. However, the problem is that it is not possible to return to the original version of the British identity, since certain aspects of the transnational identity of the European Union have already taken root in it. In this regard, one of the main tasks of London should be to prevent further political and ideological fragmentation of society within the country and the resulting strengthening of unity and identity in the international arena.

References

1. Devetak, R., True, J. (Eds.) (2022). Theories of International Relations. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
2. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
3. Svendsen, L. (2010). Философия страха [Philosophy of Fear]. Мoscow: Прогресс-Традиция.
4. Wendt, A. (2004). The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies, 30, 289-316.
5. Shannon, V. P., & Kowert, P. A. (Eds.) (2012). Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations: An Ideational Alliance. The University of Michigan Press.
6. Kubálková, V., Onuf, N., & Kowert, P. (Eds.) (1998). International Relations in A Constructed World. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Adler, E. (2002). Security Communities. Cambridge University Press.
8. Oelsner, A. (2013). The institutional identity of regional organizations, or Mercosur’s Identity Crisis. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 115-127.
9. Deutsch, K. (1953). Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality. New York: The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10. Adler, E. (1997) Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations. Millenia: Journal of International Relations, 26, 249-277.
11. Riemann, F. (2000). Основные формы страха [Basic Forms of Fear]. Мoscow: Алетейа.
12. Taggart, P., Szczerbiak, A. (2002). The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate States. Working Paper. Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex.
13. Walter, S. (2019) Better off without You? How the British media portrayed EU citizens in Brexit news. The International Journal of Press. Politics, 24(1), 1-22.
14. Lebedeva, M. M. (2019). Modern megatrends of world politics. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, Т. 63. 9., 29-37. doi:10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-9-29-37
15. Tevdoy-Bourmouli, A. I. (2018). Этнополитическая динамика Европейского союза: Учеб. пособие для студентов [Ethnopolitical dynamic of the European Union: a textbook for students]. Мoscow: Издательство «Аспект-Пресс». 224 p.
16. Mosley, O. (1958). Europe: Faith and Plan. A Way Out from the Coming Crises and an Introduction to Thinking as a European. Essex: Washburn and Sons Limited.
17. Roberts, A. (2018). Churchill: Walking with Destiny. London: Allen Lane.
18. Kapitonova, N. K., & Romanova, E. V. (2016). История внешней политики Великобритании: учебник [History of Foreign Policy of Great Britain: Coursebook]. Мoscow: Международные отношения.
19. Anayet Hossain, F. M., & Korban Ali, M. (2014). Relation Between Individual and Society. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(8), 130-137.
20. Alexandre-Collier, A. (2014). Euroscepticism under Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron: From Theory to Practice. Observatorie de la société britannique, 16, 1-14.
21. Kaveshnikov, N. Yu. (2018). United Kingdom and European Union: A Long History of Divorce. Part 2. Awkward Partner. Современная Европа, 6(85), 18-29.
22. Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Bromley, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (2004). British Social Attitudes: The 21st Report. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
23. Farrar, M., Robinson, S., Valli, Y., & Wetherly, P. (2021). Islam in the West. Key Issues in Multiculturalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Driver, S., Martell, L. (2002). Blair’s Britain. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25. Tariq, M., Triandafyllidou, A., & Zapata-Barrero, R. (2006). Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach. London: Routledge. 240 p.
26. O’Donnell, C. M., Whitman, R. G. (2007). European Policy under Gordon Brown: Perspective on a Future Prime Minister. International Affairs, 2, 253-272 (Vol. 83).
27. Fedorov, K. M. (2012). К вопросу о внешнеполитическом курсе Великобритании в период премьерства Гордона Брауна [On British foreign policy under Gordon Brown]. Власть, 4, 161-164.
28. Dovgilenko, G. A. (2016). Ратификация Лиссабонского договора в Великобритании и консервативная оппозиция [Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Great Britain and conservative opposition]. Вестник ВятГУ, 9, 45-52.
29. Schweizer, V. Ya. (2018). Parties and movements of the political alternative in contemporary Europe. Nauchno-analiticheskij vestnik IE RAN, №3, 43-47. doi:10.15211/vestnikieran320184347
30. Nandi, A., & Platt, L. (2018). The relationship between political and ethnic identity among UK ethnic minority and majority population. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1-23.
31. Antropova, S. Yu., & Krasina, E. A. (2019). Brexit: A natural coincidence. Власть, №1, 267-273. doi: 10.31171/vlast.v27i1.6263.
32. Oakden, P. (2015). UKIP. Believe in Britain, United Kingdom Independence Party 2015 Manifesto. Imax Design & Print Ltd., The Old Cart House. 76 p.
33. Kaveshnikov, N. Yu., & Matveevski, Yu. A. (2018). Европейский союз: история, институты, политика: Учебник для вузов [The European Union: History, Institutions, Policy: Coursebook]. М.: Издательство «Аспект-Пресс».
34. Kaveshnikov, N. Yu., Domanov, A. O. (2018). Методика оценки евроскептических отношений на примере политических партий Великобритании [A method of appraising euroscepticism: the record of the British political parties]. Международные процессы, Т. 16, 1, 80-89.
35. Okhoshin, O. V. (2020). Миграционная политика Великобритании до и после брекзита [British migration policy before and after Brexit]. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология, Т. 22, №3, 506-516. doi:10.22363/2313-1438-2020-22-3-506-516.
36. Shein, S. A. (2018). Концепт традиционных ценностей в программе и стратегии британских консерваторов: выборы 2015 и 2017 годов [The concept of traditional values in the programme and strategy of British conservatives]. Вестник Пермского университета. Серия «История», Т. 43, 4, 22-30.
37. Kumar, K. (2000). Nation and Empire: English and British National Identity in Comparative Perspective. Theory and Society, 29/5, 575-608.
38. Koller, V., Kopf, S., Miglbauer, M. (Eds.) (2019). Discourses of Brexit. London and New York: Routledge. 269 p.
39. Buckledee, S. (2018). The Language of Brexit: How Britain talked its way out of the European Union. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
40. Karavaeva, D. N. (2016). Английская идентичность и её дискурс: Британия – Англия – Северная Англия [English identity and its discourse: Britain – England – Northern England]. Екатеринбург: УрО РАН.
41. Kazakov, I. V. (2021). Construction of the British national identity in relation to Brexit: evolution of the discourse of the prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, Vol. 15, 1, 109-118. doi:10.17072/2218-1067-2021-1-109-118
42. Eremina, N. V. (2017). The roots of Brexit: conflict of identities in the United Kingdom. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law, 10(1), 87-105. doi:10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-1-87-105
43. Okhoshin, O. V. (2019). Scotland between the UK and the EU against the background of Brexit. Современная Европа, 6, 57-67. doi:10.15211/soveurope629195767
44. Henderson, A., Wyn Jones, R. (2021). Englishness: The Political Force Transforming Britain. Oxford University Press.
45. Kapitonova, N. K. (2020). Британия в поисках новой роли: неоимперский и глобальный проекты тори в свете Брекзита [Britain in search of a new role: neo-imperial and global projects of the Tories in light of Brexit]. Вестник РФФИ, 1 (105), 24-27.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the peer-reviewed study is the emotion of fear as a factor in the process of Britain's exit from the European Union, known as Brexit. Despite the antiquity of the emotion of fear, it plays a huge role in modern politics and is actively used by populists, so it is extremely difficult to overestimate the relevance of the topic chosen by the author. The constructivist theory of securitization of the Copenhagen School (B. Buzan, O. Waver, etc.) is declared as the theoretical and methodological basis of the study. The author seeks to complement this approach with his own concept of fear, rightly pointing out that this methodological course has signs of scientific novelty. Structurally, the work also does not cause significant complaints: its logic is consistent and reflects the main aspects of the research. The following sections are highlighted in the text: - "Introduction", where a scientific problem is posed, its relevance is justified, theoretical and methodological reflection is carried out, and the purpose and objectives of the study are formulated; - "Fear in the context of regional integration: theoretical aspects", where the theoretical synthesis of the author's concept of fear with the theory of securitization of the Copenhagen School is carried out- "Relations between the UK and the EU as a conflict of national and transnational identities", where, in the context of the developed approach, the conflict of identities and the fears generated by this conflict in British society and elites is investigated; - "Britain's exit from the European Union: consequences for national identity", which analyzes the consequences of the choice made by the British; - "Conclusion", which summarizes the results of the study, draws conclusions and outlines prospects for further research. Stylistically, the work also does not contain significant problems. There are a number of stylistic (for example, redundant words in the expressions "it seems possible to trace", "it is not possible to return", etc.) and grammatical (for example, a missing comma in the turnover "such as" in the sentence "... such an emotion as fear determines..."; or an extra comma after the turnover "in this regard," as in the sentence "In this regard, one of the main tasks of London should be ...", etc.), but in general it is written quite competently, in good Russian, with the correct use of scientific terminology. However, it should be noted that there are some stretches in the logic of the work. In particular, the author points to fear as one of the key factors of Brexit on the grounds that the British were afraid of the erosion of their national identity and sovereignty in the process of Britain's integration into the European Union. The idea is really interesting (and that is why the reviewer, disagreeing with the author, recommends the article for publication – in order to discuss this idea in a qualified scientific community), but not without flaws. First of all, the concepts of national identity and, moreover, sovereignty are too abstract to cause a feeling of fear from their loss or "blurring" (an even less understandable thing for direct perception). The author rightly points out that such a powerful emotion as fear is actively used by populists of various stripes – from the extreme left to the radical right. But the author overlooks the fact that the fears to which these populists appeal are always extremely specific – from "visiting foreigners who take away jobs" to "insidious Jews who only dream of how to destroy the white race." The reasons for such fears can be very diverse, but they are always extremely specific and should be associated with something VERY "tangible" - with a Jewish neighbor or a Tajik janitor. Abstract threats, by definition, cannot cause powerful fears, except for small fears. This, by the way, is associated with difficulties with environmental issues – many people understand that the consequences of environmentally irresponsible behavior will be very serious, but the abstract remoteness of these consequences leads to the fact that most are not ready to change this behavior. Therefore, the fear of the loss or "blurring" of national identity and/or sovereignty must first take concrete forms and be projected onto specific objects – "newcomers", "Gentiles", etc. All this really took place in modern Britain, but the author does not disclose this point in his work in any way. The second point. Let's say the British were afraid of the "erosion" of their identity and sovereignty. Is the fear of very abstract threats capable of generating a reaction that plunged Britain into the abyss of unpredictability associated with the exit from one political and economic state to another? At least there is a reason for discussion here. Finally, the third point. Despite the existing approaches to presenting states as "personalities" in a psychological sense, the author himself puts the word "personality" in quotation marks – something inside resists this approach. The state is too complex an entity to represent it as a monolith with personal characteristics. In any state, there are various elite groups that fight for power and influence, have different interests and DIFFERENT DEGREES of RATIONALITY. Therefore, it seems a bit of a stretch to reduce the complexity of the internal and foreign policy of the state to a "personality", endowing the state with will and emotions. It is very useful here to recall the words of Max Weber that the concepts of "people", "nation", "state", etc. cannot be subjects of volition or thinking, except in the sense of collective will or collective thought. Nevertheless, the reviewer's conceptual disagreement cannot serve as a basis for rejecting the article. On the contrary, the author's conclusions are sufficiently justified by references to the relevant scientific literature, therefore they deserve discussion in the scientific community. The bibliography includes a solid 45 titles, including sources in foreign languages, and adequately represents the state of research on the subject of the article. The appeal to the opponents takes place in terms of discussing the theoretical and methodological basis of the study. GENERAL CONCLUSION: the article proposed for review can be qualified as a scientific study that meets the requirements for works of this kind. The research presented in the article is carried out at a fairly high theoretical and methodological level, is based on a solid empirical base and contains conclusions with signs of scientific novelty. The results obtained by the author correspond to the subject of the journal "International Relations" and will be of interest to political scientists, political psychologists and sociologists, for specialists in the field of world politics and international relations, as well as for students of the listed fields of study. According to the results of the review, the article is recommended for publication.

Journals

Books

“Fear” as a disintegration factor: conceptual view on British-European relations in light of Brexit