Sign Up Submit Enquiry

Peoplehood, dissensus, and partisanship. The European Union as a case study

Home Peoplehood, dissensus, and partisanship. The European Union as a case study

Related Articles

Contact us

Article Content

Abstract

This article discusses critically the consensus-based account of peoplehood, inherited from Hobbes and Rousseau, whose central tenet is that scattered individuals coalesce into a people when subjected to a single will. It claims that, because this account of peoplehood is indexed on unity, it is difficult to reconcile with a democratic perspective. The article contends that Rancière’s dissensus-based account of peoplehood—according to which the people is constituted through the staging of its internal division—is more in line with democratic expectations. To further buttress this claim, it addresses a recurrent critique: since dissensus is episodic, it would prove unable to provide a people with a sustained democratic agency. It turns to Lea Ypi and Jonathan White’s discussion of partisanship practices and presents them as a possible institutionalization of dissensus. The article’s second section showcases the relevance of the dissensus-based account of peoplehood by applying it to the claim that the lack of support for the European Union is due to the absence of a European people. It argues that the dissensus-based account of peoplehood breaks the current conceptual deadlock regarding whether (or not) the European Union can rely on a European people by shifting the critical focus on the lack of venues and mechanisms to express dissent within the EU.

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

  • EU Politics
  • European Politics
  • European Union Politics
  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Theory

Notes

  1. In 2019, only 51% of the European citizens had voted in the European elections. A significant increase in comparison with 2014, at which point that figure had fallen to 43%. URL: https://europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/fr/participation/0019.png, consulté le 11 février 2020.

  2. This cosmopolitan Europe does, however, not live up to its universal commitments when it comes to its treatment of third-country nationals. For a critical examination of the normative foundations of EU’s migration policies, see Aubert, I., Aubert and Deleixhe (2021), A New Idea(l) for Europe. Report on the Future of Cosmopolitanism in Europe, NoVaMigra Policy Brief or Kundnani (2023) EuroWhiteness. Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project. London: Hurst.

References

  • Althusser, L. (1967). Sur le Contrat social, Cahiers pour l’analyse 7 : 5-42.

  • Aubert, I., Deleixhe, M. (2021). A New Idea(l) for Europe. Report on the Future of Cosmopolitanism in Europe, NoVaMigra Policy Brief.

  • Badiou, A. et al. (2013). Qu’est-ce qu’un peuple?, Paris : La Fabrique.

  • Balibar, E. (1997). Ce qui fait qu’un peuple est un peuple, in Balibar E. La Crainte des masses. Paris : Galilée, pp.101–129.

  • Balibar, E. (2016). Europe, crise et fin?, Lormont: Le Bord de l’eau.

  • Ballangé, A. (2022). La démocratie communautaire. Généalogie critique de l’Union Européenne, Paris : Editions de la Sorbonne.

  • Beck, U., and E. Grande. 2007. Cosmopolitan Europe. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Bellamy, R. 2017. A European republic of sovereign states. European Journal of Political Thought 16 (2): 188–209.

    Google Scholar

  • Berns, T., and L. Carré. 2013. Le nom de peuple, les noms du peuple. Tumultes 40 (1): 13–24.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Brack, N., and Coman, R. (2025). Understanding Dissensus in the Age of Crises: Theoretical Reflexions, European Political Science 24(2): XXX-XXX.

  • Breaugh, M. 2007. L’expérience plébéienne: Une histoire discontinue de la liberté politique. Paris: Payot.

    Google Scholar

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2006. The legitimation crisis of the European Union. Constellations 13 (2): 165–180.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Chambers, S. 2011. Jacques Rancière and the problem of pure politics. European Journal of Political Theory 10 (3): 303–326.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Colliot-Thélène, C. 2010. La Démocratie sans « demos ». Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar

  • Dahl, R., ed. 1966. Political opposition in western democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar

  • De Cleen, B., B. Moffitt, P. Panayotu, and Y. Stavrakakis. 2020. The potentials and difficulties of transnational populism: The case of the democracy in Europe movement 2025 (DiEM25). Political Studies 68 (1): 146–166.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Debray, R. 2019. L’Europe fantôme. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar

  • Deranty, J.P. 2003. Rancière and contemporary political ontology. Theory & Event. https://doi.org/10.1353/tae.2003.0010.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Dupuis-Déri, F. 2016. La peur du peuple : agoraphobie et agoraphilie politiques. Montréal: Lux.

    Google Scholar

  • Errejon, I., Mouffe, C. (2015). Construir pueblo. Hegemonia y radicalizacion de la democracia, Barcelona: Icaria Editorial.

  • Fassin, E. 2017. Populisme : Le grand ressentiment. Paris: Textuel.

    Google Scholar

  • Ferry, JM (2006). Europe la voie kantienne. Essai sur l’identité postnationale, Paris: Cerf.

  • Fjeld, A. (2018). Jacques Rancière. Pratiquer l’égalité, Paris: Michalon.

  • Fligstein, N. 2008. Euroclash : The EU, European identity, and the future of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  • Habermas, J. 1992. Citizenship and national identity: Some reflections on the future of Europe. Praxis International 12 (1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar

  • Habermas, J. (2000). Après l’Etat-nation. Une nouvelle constellation politique, Paris: Fayard.

  • Hix, S., A. Noury, and G. Roland. 2005. Power to the parties: Cohesion and competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 209–234.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Hobbes, T. 1949. De cive or the citizen. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar

  • Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan, JCA Gaskin (ed.), Oxford: Oxford UP.

  • Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2008. A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39: 1–23.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kaiser, W. 2007. Christian Democracy and the origins of the European union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Kelsen, H. (2004). La Démocratie. Sa nature – sa valeur, Paris: Dalloz.

  • Kundnani, H. (2023). EuroWhiteness. Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project, London: Hurst.

  • Lacroix, J. (2004). L’Europe en procès. Quel patriotisme au-delà des nationalismes ?, Paris : Cerf.

  • Magnette, P. 2017. Le Régime politique de l’Union Européenne. Paris: Sciences Po.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the Void. The Hollowing of Western Democracy, Londres: Verso.

  • Majone, G. 1998. Europe’s democratic deficit. The question of standards. European Law Journal 4 (1): 5–28.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Manent, P. (2006). La Raison des nations. Réflexions sur la démocratie en Europe, Paris: Gallimard.

  • May, T. 2008. The Political thought of jacques rancière: creating equality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Miller, D. 2008. Republicanism, national identity, and Europe. In Republicanism and political theory, ed. C. Laborde and J. Maynor, 133–158. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar

  • Müller, J.W. 2016. What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Müller, JW (2011). Contesting Democracy. Political Ideas in the 20th Century, New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Näsström, S. 2017. The legitimacy of the people. Political Theory 35 (5): 624–658.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Nicolaidis, K. 2013. European demoicracy and its crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (2): 351–369.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Ogien, A., and S. Laugier. 2017. Antidémocratie. Paris: La Découverte.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Patberg, M. 2020. Constituent power in the European union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Rancière, J. 1998. Aux bords du politique. Paris: Folio.

    Google Scholar

  • Rancière, J. (1995). La Mésentente. Politique et philosophie, Paris: Galilée.

  • Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus. On Politics and Aesthetics, Corcoran S (ed), London: Continuum.

  • Rousseau, JJ (2001). Du Contrat social, Bernardi B (ed.), Paris: Flammarion.

  • Rousseau, JJ (2002). The Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses, Dunn S. (ed), New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Scharpf, F. 1998. Negative and positive integration in the political economy of European welfare states. In The future of european welfare, ed. M. Rhodes and Y. Meny, 157–177. London: Palgrave.

    Chapter Google Scholar

  • Schnapper, D. (1994). La Communauté des citoyens. Sur l’idée moderne de nation, Paris: Gallimard.

  • Spector, C. (2015). Rousseau. Les paradoxes de l’autonomie démocratique, Paris: Michalon.

  • Tarragoni, F. 2019. L’Esprit démocratique du populisme. Paris: La Découverte.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Tilly, C. 1994. States and nationalism in Europe 1492–1992. Theory and Society 23: 131–146.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Van Middelaar, L. 2018. Quand l’Europe improvise. Dix ans de crises politiques, Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar

  • Weiler, J.H.H. 1995. Does Europe need a constitution? Demos, telos, and the German maastricht decision. European Law Journal 1 (3): 219–258.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Weiler, J.H.H. 1997. To be a European citizen. Eros and civilization. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4): 495–519.

    Article Google Scholar

  • White, J. 2014. Transnational partisanship: Idea and practice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 377–400.

    Article Google Scholar

  • White, J. 2015. When parties make people. Global Policy 6 (1): 106–114.

    Article Google Scholar

  • White, J. 2019. Politics of last resort: Governing by emergency in the European union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • White, J. 2020. Europeanizing ideologies. Journal of European Public Policy 27 (9): 1287–1306.

    Article Google Scholar

  • White, J., and L. Ypi. 2017. The politics of peoplehood. Political Theory 45 (4): 439–465.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson, M. 2021. Authoritarian liberalism and the transformation of modern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book Google Scholar

  • Wolin, S. 1994. Fugitive democracy. Constellations 1 (1): 11–25.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Wolkenstein, F. 2017. Demoicracy, transnational partisanship and the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (2): 284–299.

    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Théorie Politique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 23 Rue Béranger, 1190, Brussels, Belgium

    Martin Deleixhe

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Deleixhe.

Additional information

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deleixhe, M. Peoplehood, dissensus, and partisanship. The European Union as a case study. Eur Polit Sci (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-025-00543-7

  • Accepted
  • Published
  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-025-00543-7

Keywords

  • Dissensus
  • Peoplehood
  • Transnational partisanship
  • Political integration
  • Rancière
  • Demos

Copyright © All rights reserved Designed and Developed by Digital Flavers

WhatsApp