While governments across Europe argue mostly in favor of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the US and the EU (TTIP), TTIP is continuously losing support in public opinion, as Eurobarometer data shows. If you are a newspaper reader or an attentive public citizen the following fact might surprise you: European anti-TTIP-protestors are not generally anti-trade. They are not generally against trade with the US, either. And certainly, there is also the wish among European citizens to strengthen the Atlantic link between the EU and the US, with both needing to cooperate to ensure the future of our transatlantic ties. But polls keep showing declining support for TTIP, so the question I ask myself is: How is TTIP special?
The EU already has free trade agreements with more than 50 other states. However, TTIP seems to be different: Following 15 rounds of negotiations TTIP is facing fierce opposition from tens of thousands of US and European citizens, NGOs, trade unions and civil society organizations. They are alarmed by the potential dangers of such a far reaching trade agreement and fear that TTIP will result in a race to the bottom and in the erosion of their social, trade union and environmental rights. Rather than trying to understand this complex set of regulations in TTIP, I would like to assess the question: How did civil society politicize TTIP so successfully? The question of how TTIP became a topic of public interest indicates that TTIP is seen by society as far more than an economic deal. My observations raise the premise that one cannot merely explain opposition by looking at the content of the negotiations as economic scholars have sought to do. It seems important to consider the specific historical context and the rhetorical underpinnings of the TTIP-discourse.
Comparing the discourse on TTIP with public interest in other global trade negotiations, TTIP has gained a remarkable amount of media and public attention. While this is only true for some of the EU member states, the European-wide politization of TTIP is still outstanding compared to the usually low public salience of international trade policies. TTIP is especially interesting to look at through the lens of Cultural Studies, asking: Which ideas and cultural understandings are in the minds and hearts of thousands of Europeans protesting against TTIP? Which arguments trump the general need for growth and prosperity in times of the ongoing euro-crisis, the wish to strengthen the relationship to the US after the recent NSA scandal, and a generally positive attitude in favor of free trade?
I state that politics, identity and culture, not macroeconomic data or models, determine the conflictual discourse on TTIP. In comparison to the rationalistic perspective of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, anti-TTIP civil society interest groups were far more successful in gathering support on democratic and cultural questions. In their idealistic rhetoric, terms and concepts of responsibility, morality, balance, multiplicity, democracy, identity, and role models play a major role. The anti-TTIP argumentation is dominated by idealistic understandings of Europe as a multiplicity of cultures (exception culturelle), a community of values (understanding of “fair share” vs. American “othering”), a responsible global actor for sustainability (Paris World Climate Conference), a construct, and an example for socially and economically responsible politics – also in regard to third countries excluded from the treaty. On the moral level, TTIP opponents recall the lack of trust in US government due to the NSA scandal and fundamental moral differences (that become manifest in examples such as the death penalty, the US strategy in the Snowden affair and Guantanamo). The identity of Europe as a non-homogeneous, multi-national construct is activated to further elaborate the incapability of European and American standards and norms- and finally visions of their (political) future.
Looking at the pro-TTIP arguments, one can identify idealistic rhetoric here as well: proponents talk about the need to “set global standards” on the basis of “shared values” between the EU and the US, that refers to a specific understanding of global responsibility and certain understanding of being a role model for global politics. But in the pro-TTIP discourse, rationalist argumentation is dominant: The responsibility to generate wealth and growth in the nation states plays a significant role in the argumentation. In order to support their pro-TTIP attitudes, supporters refer to economic models that can show gains (seldom losses) of the treaty as well as to numbers of potential benefits per household. Also, the argumentation is more strategical: the EU’s declining importance in global politics, as well as the increasing power of China is one of the most important rationalist arguments that are put forward by the TTIP proponents. In the same manner, the relationship to the US is portrayed as first a traditional obligation due to a long shared history, and second as a relation that needs to be fixed through closer cooperation. In addition, the partnership is seen as a forceful economic unity that is able to compete with China, since it has 50% of global GDP. It is outstanding that the potentially significant economic gains from an ambitious TTIP remain contested, even if the predicted effects from trade diversion are mostly positive.
With this analysis, I aspire to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the politization of TTIP by the opponents, as well as the process of constructing it as a cultural issue. The anti-TTIP-protests show that global trade is no longer the exclusive domain of economic experts and practitioners in the field, but is politicized by a broader public. This (re)politicization of trade issues in the TTIP discourse mirrors a change in the nature of debating. Trade is not just about distributing goods, but increasingly a normative conflict, meaning a struggle about how and what parts of the culture are worth being protected, especially in the light of the increasing global interconnectedness. Understanding this broader ‘cultural shift’ requires moving beyond conventional, rationalist accounts of trade policy which focus on the mediation of interests. Rather, a look at culture-based accounts is required. In a narrow sense of the word, ‘culture’ is what we see in the TV, what we hear in radio, what we eat, what we buy – all of those goods are surrounding us and build a collectively shared way of life. That’s why trading, in the sense of exchanging goods, is and has always been strongly connected to culture. In a broader sense of the word, which I would like to apply here, ‘culture’ is a shared understanding about how to live together, connected to the normative question ‘What a good life is’. In that sense, the discourse on TTIP is as much about economic gains and geopolitical considerations, as about cultural self-understandings of Europe and the US.
Nora, I really like your approach and the arguments you made.
There have been several articles and studies recently, showing how rational arguments
are not affecting the opponents of TTIP as well as those who generally feel left behind by the elites.
It became more of an emotional debate, a post-truth challenge, in which it is difficult to convince
with the means that used to be successful. Fear of the effects of globalization is one of the biggest
reasons, why people vote extreme parties. TTIP stands for globalization and free trade. I think one of the big challenges is to make people see the good aspects of globalization and how they can profite from it. Fear is a very strong emotion and mostly not open towards rational arguments. This makes the challenge even more difficult to win.
Dear Simon, thanks for your comment! Definitely, I would agree that fear is “mostly not open towards rational arguments”, as you said. However, I would say that feelings, and especially fear, should be expressed in the public discourse – and they should be adressed and taken seriously by political decision-makers. In the case of TTIP, I would say that it is not about one group “winning” against the other, but about the need to revive a democratic and vital debate about such issues. From my point of view, the discourse on TTIP reveals a general mistrust and disconnectedness between politicians and citizens that is dangerous and should be number one of the European political agenda. What do you think?
Hi Nora – your article is a really nice contribution – thanks. From a US perspective, it is so intriguing to see such opposition to free trade in Europe, especially in countries like Germany where trade-affected workers have access to robust social protections, at least compared to those in the United States. My background is in quantitative analysis, and I entirely agree with you – number are one thing, feelings are another – and one feeling that I think has real economic consequences is unfairness. What do you think it will take to restore trust in trade again, and to mitigate this outward feeling of unfairness harbored by so many?
Hi Brian, I am very happy to exchange on that question of unfairness, thank you. Actually, I think that Americains and Europeans have very diffrent conceptions of fairness, therefore I think it is difficult to make general statements (Do you know the differentiation between “fair play” and “fair share”?) in this intercultural setting 😉 But I would agree with you that many TTIP opponents feel that a few big corporate interests are much more important in the political sphere than the interests of thousands of citizens. And are they wrong? I don’t know..
Also, I would want to add another perspective on the “unfairness in TTIP” that is very prominent in the TTIP debate, which is the question of the effects on third countries: What is our “responisiblity” towards Africa and Turkey, both very important trading partners for Europe today?
What do you think, Brian? Do we (as rich, Western countries) have such an responsiblity towards other world regions that profit a lot from the trade relationships?
I already made the argument earlier in the comment to Simon, I think that we should not try to create “trust in trade”, as you write, but to take their scepticism serious and create a new culture of political debate between citizens and politicians.
Nora, I completely agree that interest groups in favor of free trade have neglected to provide cultural goals or a cultural vision. In the US, it looks like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be defeated not truly based environmental or labor considerations, but as result of the far left and right dominating a culture war against free trade.
There are many, especially young people, who can appreciate the cultural benefits of globalization. Therefore free trade interest groups should have campaigns in social media and TV promoting a cultural vision.
Hi Michael, your comment is very interesting to read, because I do not know too many details about the current Americain debate on free trade agreements such as TTIP and TPP- I just heard that they are all cancelled or at least “on ice” due to Trump’s election?! If i understood you correctly, you would say that there is not enough focus on the positive aspects of free trade in the US debate? I would be very curiuos what you mean by “a culture war against free trade” and “a cultural vision”? What do you think are the “cultural benefits of globalization” of TTIP? Thank you for the clarifications and further explanations 🙂
Nora, I think your perspective applies not only to TTIP, TPP, and other trade, but also to a series of policy issues-cum-cultural markers in the 21st century West. I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment that values, culture, and identity have formed the basis of public opinion toward these agreements, and as I look back on the US elections, it seems to me that topics ranging from trade to education, the use of torture to views on energy investment, all took on identity significance for proponents and opponents alike. But what I am still puzzled by is the origin of the change. Do you see political elites (including the new wave of political outsiders) as driving the identity relationship with traditionally sterile policy issues? Or is this an awakening by citizens that is really driving the change?
Hi Isaac, I totally agree that other issues as well have been framed as identity questions- thanks for broadening our views for that!
I think, concerning thee question of the origin of change, at least in Europe you could see that it was the Anti-TTIP-movement, consisting of elite activists and in some countries (such as Germany) a mass public, that brought the identity frame in the discourse. In contrast, political decision makers too late started to argue in a less complex and understandable way for the TTIP. But this might differ from the US discourse?
Dear Nora, thank you for this fascinating article. Allow me to add one point to your analysis and combine your article with others to argue for a “new positive vision” for the transatlantic partnership.
In your argument, you mention the “lack of trust in the US government”, stemming from opposition to morally disagreeable policies by the US. But let us also zoom in on another aspect of the culture among some anti-TTIP civil society, which is harder to justify in argumentative terms. I would argue that opposition to TTIP is rooted in a deeper anti-Americanism among segments of society. This interpretation would also support your argument on why civil society was so successful in politicizing TTIP. It appears to be much easier to mobilize “in opposition to the US”, than against similar policies. Consider public opinion: 70 percent of Germans believe that TTIP will bring more disadvantages for Germany, whereas only 32 percent believe that CETA will bring more disadvantages (ARD-DeutschlandTrend: – Section “CETA bei den Deutschen beliebter als TTIP” – http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-659.html).
This significant difference in public opinion can also be traced to a lack of passion for the transatlantic relationship. I mean, what is its purpose anymore? Why, despite of the enormous economic and political power Europe and North America still unite in today’s world, are we incapable of finding worthy causes?
The most important insight I would take from your article is the need for a vision capable of rallying citizens behind it. Personally, I am not opposed to TTIP, but not enthusiastic either. I think we can productively combine your article with my own and that of Lucian Go. Lucian wrote very intelligently on integrating climate change into TTIP. He points out how old trade rules trump even the Paris Agreement. Lucian mentions Europe’s Energy Charter Treaty and NAFTA; I would add how the Obama administration this year struck down India’s solar energy program through the WTO (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/24/profit_over_the_planet_wtos_lawsuit_ruling_could_be_a_giant_blow_to_the_renewable_energy_movement/). If political leaders show me how TTIP contributes to the fight against climate change and tax evasion practices, I will actively support it. What lacks right now is a vision on how to respond to humanity’s biggest challenges in the present, including climate change, security and extreme poverty. – Tim
Hi tim,
thanks for the insightful comments and the connections you made between our articles! I was wondering about the role of Anti-Americanism in the TTIP discourse as well. Looking at the Eurobarometer Survey, we can see that people are not generally anti-trade. They are not generally against trade with the US, too.
I think that the number of critical voices against TTIP must be taken even more serious when looking at how the term “free trade” is perceived positively by 70% of the Europeans. The number of people who think that free trade in general is a good or a very good thing for Germany remained almost at the same high level around 85% (85%, 88%, 85%) from 2014-2016. The study of February 2015 shows that even 85% of those who think that TTIP is not good, support free trade in general. Many supporters of TIPP say, “Trade is inherently good, and TIPP promotes trade, so any thinking person must support it.”
These statements often imply, and sometime even state, that critics are uninformed protectionists who just oppose trade in any form. The numbers suggests that the narrative of a protectionist, anti-globalization TTIP-opponent is not true for the most part of the TTIP critics. What is true is: Concerning their political attitudes, the critics of TTIP are reluctant to attest that globalization is an opportunity: Only 23% agree and 46% disagree, while 67% of the TTIP-supporters agree and 42% disagree.
Wonderful article Nora! Your argument that identity and culture determine the trade discourse accurately reflects the pulse of the present – something so many missed in light of the US election results. In fact, all discourse seems to be following the post-truth narrative as a product of the influences of identity and culture.
Many of the excellent publications in our forum construct arguments from facts. As scholars, an examination of facts determines the logic and argument of the author. However, in this emerging post-truth era, the populous construct arguments from identity (how they perceive themselves) and culture (how they perceive the world). As a consequence reality (the facts or even an interpretation of the facts) does not gain footing in the pedestrian political conversation. Rather, perception dominates the colloquial conversation. This includes fake news stories (examples include people making social media postings presented as news) and acquisition bias (people developing an opinion and then researching “facts” to reinforce their pre-existing position). Not only is this process inverted, but more surprisingly, this has led to people voting against their own self-interest and voting instead to spite their neighbor. To paraphrase a joke from a Netflix special by Dieter Nuhr, “Nuhr in Berlin,” people no long mind being up to their waist in waste – so long as their neighbor is up to their neck in waste.
The emergence of this populous, chain reaction – a faulty constructed perception, reinforcement of that perception with fabricated figures/reports, and to cast a vote not to ensure your interests but rather to condemn someone else – represents a new challenge for academia: especially peace and justice. Consequently, how can scholars, particularly when peace and justice is at stake, reverse this post-truth era?
Hi Derek, thanks for your comment and your new and very important perspective, resulting in the question of how to deal with post-truth arguments as an academic scholar. I would agree that this is a huge challenge for scholars, however I do not think that we can -or even should try to – “reverse” it. Instead, I think we, as academic writers and researchers, should take that development very serious and as an impuls to make more civic-oriented research, research that is closer to and in the name of the citizens. Also I think, we as scienticif writer should care more about how to distribute our research findings and arguments to a broader public, meaning to engage in puplar spheres rather than sitting comfortably in the academic ivory tower- but this is just my personal opinion.
Since others commented in a similiar way, I would like to point out how I see the relation between the buzzword of a “post-truth” discourse and cultural, emotional and identity issues. I am convinced that emotion plays and has always played a fundamental role in politics. I asked myself: What if TTIP opponents were blind, hysteric, ultimately wrong, and ignorant? (And I guess some of them are) In that case, politicians must nevertheless deal with their fears and feeling of insecurity. That’s also what politics is about. Politics is always, and I appreciate that, emotional.
Do you know these statistic models that keep telling us that being murdered in a terrorist attack in Europe is much less real than the possibility to die because you got an insect bite? Nevertheless, we want politicians to invest in counter-terrorist-measures.
So my argument is that: Politics is about emotions and about trust.
Holger Janusch from the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Wuppertal has an interesting idea how the lively TTIP discourse could increase democratic legitimacy of the European governance and prevent international conflicts: “Regardless whether the TTIP is desirable or not, civic participation increases the legitimacy of an agreement at national level and leads to better mutual understanding at the international level. Thus, civic participation lowers the risk of a breakdown of negotiations”
In that sense, I hope we’re going to contribute to the “mutual understanding” in the following discussion.
Nora,
What a great read! I agree with you completely that TTIP opposition is not based on anti-trade sentiment. The discussion surrounding it has become stigmatized and going forward, we need to find a way to change its narrative from perpetuating this form of “new isolationism” to a campaign that focuses on economic facts. Given the current political climate, I think it makes sense to put TTIP “on ice,” as you described it in a previous comment, and pick it up again in a few years under a new name and a complete rebranding.
As a side note, I am a bit disheartened by Tim’s comment about the transatlantic relationship that asks, “what is its purpose anymore?” I think Europe and the United States have an enormous role to play globally, whether to help provide security or humanitarian assistance, as just two examples. Despite much of the seemingly isolationist policies put forth by far right wing parties that would diminish the relationship, there is an interest among citizens to contribute actively. A recent Pew Research Center survey, for example, found that 74% of Europeans believe “the EU should play a more active role in world affairs than it does today” (http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-face-the-world-divided/pm_2016-06-13_epw-00-01/).
The new EU foreign and security policy strategy also demonstrates a commitment to broader engagement – there are individual sections that discuss Asia, Africa, and even the Americas (i.e. Latin America)! The EU will need to be mindful not to overexert itself, especially at a time when Europe itself is facing many of its own challenges, but it is very encouraging that it is establishing partnerships with other regions and developing a cadre of experts who are familiar with them. This work can complement that of the U.S. to develop strong economic, diplomatic, and security relationships with countries around the world, which will be enormously helpful during potential crises.
Thank you Michelle for responding so thoroughly to my question as well as posting your response within both conversational chains.
Our forum presents a wonderful opportunity to respond to the many transatlantic challenges mentioned by our community of contributors. The articles written by Michelle and Nora offer an excellent starting point to address those challenges. Our discussion must be “bifocal” in approach – one that maintains our scholarly standards and another that directly addresses this new-wave of populism. In this uncertain time, we cannot sacrifice one for the other. The stakes are too high as transatlantic relationships have been the most reliable, responsive, and relevant global partnerships of the last seventy years.
Hi Derek, I come up with the question concerning your standpoint that “the transatlantic relationship have been the most reliable, responsive, and relevant global partnerships” – do you think this is going to change considering the election of Trump?
Hey Michelle, thank you for adding your opinion here. Reading your comment, what caught my eye is that you propose to shift the focus of the debate on TTIP towards “a campaign that focuses on economic facts”. Reading Nora’s article, I actually came away with the opposite conclusion.
European citizens apparently care about more than just the economic impact of free trade agreements. They do not want to see issues of fairness, justice, transparency and sustainability being subordinated to a profit-maximizing rationale. With this in mind, is the exclusive focus on the economic aspects of free trade agreements not the root of the problems we currently see in the context of TTIP? Wouldn’t the solution therefore be to approach its negotiation in a way that is more inclusive to other concerns and does not leave citizens with the impression that economic incentives trump all else?
Hi Michelle, I wanted to say thank you for commenting on my article- I really liked your side note on Tims comment and I would like to add that I personally agree that the EU should play a more active role as a global actor- but I also see the problem of democratic legitimacy: In addition to the opinion that the EU should be a more powerful actor on foreign affairs, people also have little trust in EU instututions (Eurobarometer survey, spring 2016).
(Also, you might be interested in what I just wrote to Derek about my perspective on the unwarrantable distinction between facts/truth and emotions.)
Nora,
Your article is very eye-opening and I think articulates what many believe, but perhaps could not put their finger on. I definitely agree that it is important to factor in culture in shaping attitudes of TTIP. Given this, do you have any ideas how the TTIP could be furthered? The task to me seems so gargantuan and insurmountable. I’ve read in a few articles posted about the importance of a cultural exchange program such as this one, but admittedly I feel it is a tiny push toward informing the public.
Again, great work, thank you.
Thank you Marysol, for your commentandthe interesting question your posed: I would say, that TTIP can (and should) only be implemented after an open, transparent and democratic discourse and if a majority of people is convinced. That means that we would need to have access to the negotation process – and (remembering my argument that it touches cultural and identity issues) a more cultural-sensitive approach, meaning that we should ask: What else – apart from economic gains or risks – is actually discussed in the TTIP?