Search

The European Union has been constructed through common ontologies of a world composed and divided on spatial scales. This paper elaborates on this point and examines anthropologically some of the key notions that have been called on to construct the EU, notably that of ‘culture’. It is suggested that we might profitably take ‘culture’ out of our own analytical tool-kits and treat it instead as an interesting but problematic invention. Drawing on the author's own fieldwork inside European institutions, the paper explores relevant aspects of life inside the Commission and what it is to be ‘European’. The paper sets out some of the negative and positive ways in which ‘culture’ is lived or understood in the Commission, and it outlines some of the problems of ‘culture’ as an analytical tool, from its earlier history to the stereotypes it still encourages, and in so doing points to aspects of the practical imagination and difficulties of the EU project more generally. We see that Europe may respect cultures but only by cherishing the notionally culture-free. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper identifies and seeks to resolve the paradox that British social policy appears to have diverged from its EU partners in the period since membership and to have converged with that of the USA. Existing historical institutionalist approaches stress common regime characteristics of Britain and the USA in explanation of British difference from other member states. The present paper challenges such accounts and argues that the explanation lies in the transformation (and demise) of the post-Imperial/Commonwealth system of political economy in which the British economy (and related social policy) was embedded. This transformation has also produced internal problems within the British state giving rise to its reorganization with devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. The final part of the paper addresses how this latter development has created a 'fault-line' in the British social policy debate with the possibility of reversing the trend toward Americanization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National governing and regulation of professions is to some extent challenged by contemporary international regulation, and partly replaced by considerable international re-regulation - firstly by the European Union, and secondly by globalization of the markets for capital, goods, services and labour. Issues regarding professions are being negotiated at the European level by European professional federations and EU public authorities. These new trends raise questions for the sociological analysis of professions regarding standards of professional education, forms of public regulation, strategies of market closure or autonomy. This paper is a summary of the policies for and the formal regulation of professional education in the European Union. Data are based on policy documents, directives and agreements with a particular focus on the cases of architects and psychologists. Psychology demonstrates most elements of a professional project, proactively emphasizing education, research and academic status and new tasks on an international market. Architecture demonstrates a more established occupation defending the market and emphasizing the social status and the ubiquitous and general role of architecture. There has been a shift from 'hard' regulation to more 'soft' regulation, allowing more room for professional actors to organise themselves and define their rules of mobility, as well as more initiatives from below and within national and supranational associations, making the policies more contextually determined compared to the external directions from above in the 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]