Le travail de la critique en eurocratie : regards ethnographiques croisés
Title: Le travail de la critique en eurocratie : regards ethnographiques croisés;
Critique as routine in eurocracy : two compared ethnographic perspectives
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1623-6297; 2105-2875
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Politique européenne, 2024, No. 85, pp. 40-71
Cite
HAMM, Marylou, GILLARD, Xavier, Le travail de la critique en eurocratie : regards ethnographiques croisés; Critique as routine in eurocracy : two compared ethnographic perspectives, Politique européenne, 2024, No. 85, pp. 40-71 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77880
Abstract
Cet article s’appuie sur deux enquêtes de terrain, l’une sur la défense commerciale et l’autre sur la gestion de crise, pour proposer une analyse ethnographique du travail de la critique au sein de la Commission européenne. Il montre l’intérêt de cette approche pour comprendre comment, au quotidien, les eurofonctionnaires naviguent entre des tensions récurrentes, telles que la dialectique entre politique et technique ou entre urgences et règles formalisées. Loin de constituer un acte de résistance spectaculaire ou le symptôme d’une crise, nous montrons que la critique imprègne la routine institutionnelle, bien qu’elle reste encore insuffisamment étudiée. Aborder la critique comme point d’entrée permet d’examiner simultanément ce que font et pensent les eurocrates, tout en offrant une réflexion transversale sur leur ethos professionnel et les épreuves auxquelles il est soumis. Pour convaincre, l’article opère un triple croisement : entre des littératures rarement mises en dialogue, deux enquêtes de terrain, et trois échelles d’observation, fondées sur des entretiens, des observations et l’analyse de brouillons.
This article builds on two field studies, one examining trade defence and the other crisis management, to provide an ethnographic analysis of the practice of criticism within the European Commission. We identify and examine the strategies employed by EU officials to navigate the recurring tensions that define their daily work. These include the interplay between political imperatives and technical expertise, as well as the balance between crisis response and formalised regulations. Rather than characterising criticism as an isolated act of defiance or a symptom of institutional dysfunction, we reveal its pervasive role in routine institutional practices, a dimension often overlooked in scholarly accounts. By focusing on criticisms, the article offers valuable insights into both the actions and thought processes of EU bureaucrats, while simultaneously encouraging a broader reflection on their professional ethos and the challenges it regularly undergoes. To substantiate this argument, our analysis integrates three dimensions: a dialogue between rarely connected literatures, comparative findings from two field investigations, and multi-level observations drawn from interviews, participant observations, and the analysis of draft documents.
This article builds on two field studies, one examining trade defence and the other crisis management, to provide an ethnographic analysis of the practice of criticism within the European Commission. We identify and examine the strategies employed by EU officials to navigate the recurring tensions that define their daily work. These include the interplay between political imperatives and technical expertise, as well as the balance between crisis response and formalised regulations. Rather than characterising criticism as an isolated act of defiance or a symptom of institutional dysfunction, we reveal its pervasive role in routine institutional practices, a dimension often overlooked in scholarly accounts. By focusing on criticisms, the article offers valuable insights into both the actions and thought processes of EU bureaucrats, while simultaneously encouraging a broader reflection on their professional ethos and the challenges it regularly undergoes. To substantiate this argument, our analysis integrates three dimensions: a dialogue between rarely connected literatures, comparative findings from two field investigations, and multi-level observations drawn from interviews, participant observations, and the analysis of draft documents.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 22 January 2025