| Abstract [eng] |
There are two dominant groups of theories that try to explain possibilities of the emergence of the European public sphere. The first group of authors are advocates of the supranational European public sphere. They claim that three key conditions have to be satisfied that European public sphere could emerge: there should be common language and culture, supranational media and common European identity. These theories argue that it is impossible to satisfy the conditions; so supranational European public sphere is non-existent. Cultural pluralism is seen as a key obstacle. The second set of theories is looking for the Europeanised national public spheres. Scholars assert that cultural pluralism is not a barrier, some of them even speak about the existence of Europeanised public spheres. To summarise, theories of the European public sphere give different answers to the question how cultural pluralism influences public discussions, whether it is a major impediment to the emergence of European public sphere or not. The paper aims to analyse if understanding is possible and achievable in multicultural public sphere between representatives of different cultures. This question is not widely developed in literature; moreover, there is a lack of empirical research in this domain. So, the paper seeks to fill this gap. The paper uses Habermasian definition of the public sphere: it is a sphere produced through the communicative action. Rational and critical discussions take place in the public sphere, communicating sides seek understanding and agreement. In order to answer the question, European Parliament plenary sessions are examined using discourse analysis method. In this paper 20 European Parliament plenary sitting from year 1999 to 2007 are analysed. Discussions in the sittings were related to the question of Turkey's accession to the European Union. Metaphors used by speakers of different nationalities were picked from the minutes of parliamentary sittings. Metaphors should not be seen just as rhetorical mean, they are used to understand abstract phenomena in terms of concrete experience. Metaphor analysis reveals how speaker understands certain situations. As a result, it is possible to evaluate how different members of the European Parliament understand the same things, whether they give divergent or similar meanings to the metaphor, whether their use of the word is culturally specific or not. This analysis showed that representatives of different cultures use the same conceptual metaphors at the universal level. However, they use special metaphoric expressions at the lower level, emphasise different details. This research has showed that the same word can invoke different associations between people of different cultures. This means that the possibility of rational and critical discussions in the multicultural public sphere becomes limited. Several conclusions are made relying on the results of the European Parliament discourse analysis. Firstly, cultural pluralism can create a background for misunderstanding and misinterpretation in the public sphere. Second, linguistic pluralism may also become an obstacle because some aspects of meaning may be lost in the processes of translation between languages. Even if one common language (lingua franca) would be used in discussion, culturally different meanings can be attached to the same concepts. This research proves that cultural homogeneity would create the best conditions for the public sphere to be formed and to function well, because the possibility of cultural misunderstanding would be minimised. Finally, this paper shows that in order to reach mutual understanding and agreement in multicultural public sphere, it would be advisable to make clear how used concepts are understood by other participants in the public discussion. |
