European Solidarity Under Scrutiny :

Empirical Evidence for the Effects of

Media Identity Framing 1st Edition
Christopher Starke
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/european-solidarity-under-scrutiny-empirical-evidenc
e-for-the-effects-of-media-identity-framing-1st-edition-christopher-starke/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EUROPEAN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

European Solidarity
Under Scrutiny
Empirical Evidence for the Effects
of Media Identity Framing

Christopher Starke
Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology

Series Editors
Carlo Ruzza
School of International Studies
University of Trento
Trento, Italy

Hans-Jörg Trenz
Department of Media, Cognition & Communication
University of Copenhagen
Copenhagen, Denmark
Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology addresses contemporary
themes in the field of Political Sociology. Over recent years, attention has
turned increasingly to processes of Europeanization and globalization and
the social and political spaces that are opened by them. These processes
comprise both institutional-constitutional change and new dynamics of
social transnationalism. Europeanization and globalization are also about
changing power relations as they affect people’s lives, social networks and
forms of mobility.
The Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology series addresses
linkages between regulation, institution building and the full range of
societal repercussions at local, regional, national, European and global
level, and will sharpen understanding of changing patterns of attitudes
and behaviours of individuals and groups, the political use of new rights
and opportunities by citizens, new conflict lines and coalitions, societal
interactions and networking, and shifting loyalties and solidarity within
and across the European space.
We welcome proposals from across the spectrum of Political Soci-
ology and Political Science, on dimensions of citizenship; political atti-
tudes and values; political communication and public spheres; states,
communities, governance structure and political institutions; forms of
political participation; populism and the radical right; and democracy and
democratization.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14630
 Christopher Starke

European Solidarity
Under Scrutiny
Empirical Evidence for the Effects of Media
Identity Framing
Christopher Starke
Department of Social Sciences
Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf
Düsseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology

ISBN 978-3-030-67178-5 ISBN 978-3-030-67179-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67179-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Getty images/urbazon

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Solidarity has been fundamental to the European Union (EU) since its
inception. As a fundamental principle, solidarity provides the social ‘glue’
that holds the EU together. Yet, the European debt crisis and other
recent conflicts threaten visions of a unified Europe, even endangering
its very existence. More than ever, it seems, the EU is in dire need of
European solidarity. The unique potential of solidarity to offer solutions
for social problems, when other control mechanisms such as coercion or
compensation fail, ensures the stability of the EU even in times of severe
crisis. Thus, it is key to understand under which conditions European
solidarity emerges. This book zooms in on the individual level and
investigates how the media framing of European identity in terms of
an economic versus a value-based community affects citizens’ individual
European solidarity. It advances theoretical, methodological and empirical
insights on the drivers of European solidarity. First, this work provides
an interdisciplinary literature review on solidarity culminating in the
novel theoretical concept of individual European solidarity, distinguishing
between an attitudinal and a behavioural dimension. Second, as its
methodological contribution, the book operationalises this novel concept
and applies it to the European debt crisis. Third, a one-shot online
experiment (n = 1611) tests the effects of media identity frames on
individual European solidarity. The results reveal that exposure to a news
article using a value-based (vs. economic) identity frame of the EU slightly
increases attitudinal European solidarity via a single-mediation effect

v
vi PREFACE

and behavioural European solidarity via a serial-mediation effect. The

effects are conditional upon citizens’ perceptions that European solidarity
produces benefits for their own country. The discussion outlines potential
implications for the communication strategy of the EU as well as for
media coverage of European politics.

Düsseldorf, Germany Christopher Starke

 Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this book that I dedicate to my late mother

Hannelore Starke.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my
supervisors Prof. Dr. Frank Marcinkowski and Prof. Dr. Armin Scholl for
their guidance throughout the process. Your advice and feedback made
me a better researcher and encouraged me to further pursue a career in
academia. I am proud to say that you, Prof. Marcinkowski, have been a
true mentor for me over the last years.
I also thank my amazing colleagues at the Department of Commu-
nication (University of Münster) and the Department of Social Sciences
(University of Düsseldorf). Having lunch or coffee breaks together and
playing soccer after a long workday offered much-needed relief and a
whole lot of fun. Your comments and advices during different colloquia
improved my research project tremendously. Especially, I want to thank
my teammates and friends Marco Lünich, Felix Flemming, Julia Metag,
Pero Došenović, Kimon Kieslich, Esther Laukötter and Nadja Zaynel.
I am very grateful for the support of my two colleagues Dennis Licht-
enstein and Ulf Tranow for taking the time to discuss the concepts of
‘identity framing’ and ‘solidarity’ via email, telephone and in face-to-
face meetings at the Düsseldorf train station even though we did not
know each other before. Your comments helped me to deepen my under-
standing of these complex concepts and sharpen the theoretical argument
of this book.

vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A big ‘Dank je’! and an even bigger ‘Knuffel’ to my good friend

Caroline Masquillier for proofreading the manuscript and providing some
much needed last-minute motivation to ‘finish this thing’.
For me personally, finishing this book would have been impossible
without the continuous support of my incredible friends. I am grateful
to my Münster friends for all the coffees, dinners, parties and bicycle
trips. You always had an open ear during my down periods. Thank you so
much Kathleen, Tristan, Quentin, Lars, Elias, Marius, Paula, Jonathan and
Reidun. Katha, thank you for welcoming me to Münster with open arms
and for all the deep conversations we had. Mathias, thank you for accom-
panying me not only through this process but through life in general.
Our thought exchanges are inspirational way beyond research and our
Galli experience taught me persistence. Markus and Johannes, thank you
for being such a calm and steady inspiration and for organizing all the
hiking trips over the last years.
Grazie mille, Alice, for teaching me first-hand what European identity
truly means. Grazie for all the unforgettable experiences we shared over
the last years. Thanks to you, substantial parts of this book were written
in Italy, France, Greece and in trains between Münster and Freiburg.
Thank you, my Flöz brothers Nils Köbis and Cyril Brandt, for igniting
my passion for research, for being trusted companions throughout the
whole process, for our countless discussions about theoretical arguments
and empirical research designs, for shooting holes in my drafts, for
constantly challenging me to improve my research and for all the fun we
had in the meantime. Whether in the library, in a café, at home, in a train
or in the office, working with you has been a true inspiration, not just for
all the good music we discovered.
I want to thank my family: my father Achim, my step-mother and friend
Christiane and my sister Sandra. Thank you for raising me with genuine
curiosity, for letting me make my own decisions and supporting me even
when they turned out to be bad decisions. Thank you for telling me things
I did not want to hear. And thank you for always being a safe haven.
Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my girlfriend Jana.
You gave me the energy to finish this book. You were there whenever I
needed support. You calmed me, encouraged me, believed in me, bore
with me and cheered me up. I am incredibly grateful, proud and happy
that we share our lives together.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 The European Debt Crisis and the Quest for European

Solidarity 13

3 Solidarity in the European Union 19

4 The Concept of European Identity 73

5 Framing European Identity 115

6 Synthesis and Hypotheses 149

7 Method and Data 157

8 Results and Discussion 185

ix
x CONTENTS

9 Conclusion 237

Appendix 245

References 255

Index 283
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Theoretical configuration of individual European solidarity 57

Fig. 5.1 Process model of identity framing effects on European
solidarity 131
Fig. 6.1 Moderated serial-mediation model explaining the effect
of exposure to identity frames on behavioural European
solidarity 150
Fig. 7.1 Standard single-mediation model 177
Fig. 8.1 Direct effect of exposure to identity frames on perceived
importance of identity frames 193
Fig. 8.2 Single-mediation effect of exposure to identity frames
on attitudinal European solidarity 198
Fig. 8.3 Serial-mediation effect of exposure of identity frames
on behavioural European solidarity 208
Fig. 8.4 Moderated serial-mediation effect of exposure to identity
frames on behavioural European solidarity 213
Fig. A.1 Stimulus material—economic identity frame 246
Fig. A.2 Stimulus material—value-based identity frame 248

xi
 List of Tables

Table 8.1 Descriptive statistics of attitudinal European solidarity 188

Table 8.2 Descriptive statistics of behavioural European solidarity 190
Table 8.3 Multiple OLS regression model testing H1 194
Table 8.4 Multiple OLS regression model testing H2 199
Table 8.5 Multiple OLS regression model testing H3 210
Table 8.6 Multiple OLS regression model testing H4 215
Table 8.7 Multiple OLS regression models testing differences
between problem situations 220
Table A.1 Wording of the vignettes 252

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Solidarity has been fundamental to the European Union (EU) since its
inception. As a key principle, it guided the EU in its earliest stages, and
today it is deeply embedded within the European treaties. It is said to
be the social ‘glue’ that holds the EU together by ensuring lasting peace
in Europe, enabling a thriving economy and building a European society
based on the motto ‘united in diversity’. Yet, for the past decade, the EU
has been rocked by a plethora of fundamental crises that threaten not
only those visions of a unified and prosperous Europe but profoundly
endanger the existence of the Union itself. In 2008, several members
of the Eurozone (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) were
unable to repay their government debt. The resulting European debt
crisis gravely jeopardised the stability of the European Monetary Union
(EMU). German chancellor Angela Merkel even famously claimed that
the European project will fail if the euro fails. Then, in 2015, as a result
of the rampant civil war in Syria, the EU faced the largest influx of
immigrants entering the EU in its history. The refugee crisis triggered
substantial discord between the EU member states in terms of border
control, national asylum policies and the enforcement of European law. In
2016, through an unprecedented referendum, the citizens of the United
Kingdom (UK) voted for exiting the EU (‘Brexit’). For the first time
ever, a member state, in this case the second largest economy in Europe,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
C. Starke, European Solidarity Under Scrutiny, Palgrave Studies
in European Political Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67179-2_1
2 C. STARKE

was to leave the EU. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause
a severe economic recession in the EU. The discussions on solidarity-
based aid programmes for particularly affected countries have also been
marked by substantial disagreement among the EU member states. All of
these crises have challenged European solidarity—in fact, putting it to an
existential test.

Why Solidarity?
‘There is no topic that has captured the sociological imagination more
than solidarity’ (Lindenberg, 1998, p. 103). Arguably, without solidarity,
‘no meaningful political community can exist’ (Auer, 2014, p. 329) as
societies would fail to maintain stability (Parsons, 1966) or would simply
fall apart (Lindenberg, 1998). The reason for this pivotal importance of
solidarity lies in its ability to solve social problems in situations when
other control mechanisms, such as coercion or incentives, fail (Banting
& Kymlicka, 2017; Hechter, 1987; Kaufmann, 1984, 2002). It is ‘a
“resource” that can be activated if functional integration […] breaks
down’ (Thome, 1999, p. 105). As such, solidarity is at the root of Euro-
pean democratic societies, promoting social and system integration in the
EU (Preuss, 1999). It is solidarity between European citizens that can
ensure the stability of the EU even in times of severe crisis. Thus, every
crisis is followed by a call for solidarity to overcome it (Wallaschek, Starke,
& Brüning, 2020).
This fundamental function of solidarity has already been emphasised
in the seminal work of Durkheim (1997 [1933]), who introduced the
first systemic sociological theory of solidarity in 1893. He argued that
solidarity provides a solution for problems of social order because indi-
viduals regulate their ‘actions by something other than the promptings
of [their] own egoism’ (Durkheim, 1997 [1933], p. 331). Inspired by
Durkheim’s work, the literature on solidarity has diversified as increasingly
more theoretical approaches have been introduced (Arnsperger & Varo-
ufakis, 2003; Banting & Kymlicka, 2017; Hechter, 1987; Lindenberg,
1998; Scholz, 2008; Thome, 1999; Tranow, 2012; Van Parijs, 2017).
Most approaches share the fundamental assumption that solidarity refers
to a transfer of resources to ensure social cohesion within the society.
However, the precise nature of solidarity remains highly contested.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Solidarity in the EU
The European debt crisis has sparked a renaissance of the concept of
European solidarity both in political rhetoric as well as in academic
discourse (Lahusen & Grasso, 2019; Wallaschek et al., 2020). It has
prompted a plethora of studies looking at the mechanisms of Euro-
pean solidarity across academic disciplines (Borgmann-Prebil & Ross,
2010; Kleger & Mehlhausen, 2013; Lahusen, 2020a; Lahusen & Grasso,
2018; Sangiovanni, 2013). However, the quest for European solidarity
is as old as the EU itself (Lynch & Kalaitzake, 2020). The preamble
of the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community—
in 1951—names European solidarity as one of its fundamental goals to
ensure peace on the European continent. The term is later picked up
in the Maastricht Treaty (1992, p. 202) by emphasising the ‘task of
promoting economic and social cohesion and solidarity between Member
States’ without further clarifying what the term actually means. Shortly
thereafter, the Amsterdam Treaty conceives the ‘spirit of mutual solidar-
ity’ (1997, p. 10) as a guiding principle so that member states ‘refrain
from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely
to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations’
(1997, p. 14). Following the lineage of solidarity within EU treaties, the
Lisbon Treaty of 2007 adds conceptual substance to the term solidarity
by defining it narrowly as a form of mutual emergency assistance ‘if a
Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural
or man-made disaster’ (Lisbon Treaty, 2007, Art. 222).
This shows that, so far, solidarity has been formalised mostly in a loose
way at the constitutional level of the EU. Current political and academic
debates, however, question the factual existence of solidarity in the first
place. Does cooperation between member states at the institutional level
constitute solidarity? When do reciprocal transactions among European
citizens at the individual level actually fulfil the requirements to be labelled
as solidarity? These are the conceptual questions that have spurred lively
debates. The multifaceted answers to these and other questions about the
fundamental understanding of what European solidarity actually is are
exemplified via the European debt crisis. It is precisely in the response
to the debt fallout in 2008 that we can witness the bright and dark side
of the European community and the important role that solidarity plays.
On the bright side, the debt crisis caused an unprecedented redistribution
of financial resources within the EU. Member states invested large sums
4 C. STARKE

to bail out highly indebted member states and save their economies from
financial default. In the eyes of many, this marked a new shift in European
solidarity at the institutional level (Auer, 2014; Gerhards & Lengfeld,
2013). However, the debt crisis also entailed a dark-sided response.
Besides bailout payments at the institutional level, the crisis revived some
of the worst stereotypes among Europeans, prompting a resurgence of
nationalism and xenophobia (Calance, 2012; Risse, 2014). Hence, while
solidarity policies were (reluctantly) implemented at the political level,
they arguably lacked the civil underpinning of public support from the
European population (Auer, 2014). As a response to this crisis, politicians,
researchers, non-governmental organisations and journalists commonly
voice the demand for more solidarity from EU member states and their
citizens. In light of the myriad of current challenges, it seems that more
than ever, the EU is in dire need of European solidarity. This call for soli-
darity is reflected by the conclusion of the reflection group initiated by
the European Commission:

Strengthening of pan-European solidarity is one of the most important

long-term tasks of European politics. In trying to accomplish this task, we
should not labour under the illusion that the need for solidarity can be
satisfied by institutional measures alone. Rather, all institutional measures
must be sustained by the readiness of the population to manifest their
own spirit of solidarity. It is thus important to give solidarity an active
and prospective, rather than passive and retrospective, dimension: we must
define it in terms of the new common tasks that Europe must address –
rather than with respect to past achievements in sharing our wealth with
the existing members of the Union. (Biedenkopf, Geremek, & Michalski,
2004, p. 10)

To answer this call for more European solidarity, this study zooms in
on individual citizens and investigates the conditions under which indi-
vidual European solidarity emerges as well as the relevant individual and
situational drivers of this process.

Explaining Individual European Solidarity

In political communication research, this issue has primarily been
addressed from the perspective of European public spheres (Koopmans
& Erbe, 2004; Kriesi & Grande, 2015; Risse, 2010). It is argued
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

that even though the European debt crisis triggered substantial disputes
among EU member states and fuelled mutual stereotypes between cred-
itor and debtor countries, the economic crisis may ultimately contribute
to bringing European citizens closer together (Risse, 2014). The empir-
ical literature suggests a gradual Europeanisation of nationally segmented
public spheres over the past decades. This means that the national media
in each European country is increasingly covering European issues and
giving other European actors room to voice their arguments and concerns
(Koopmans & Statham, 2010; Wessler, Peters, Brüggemann, Kleinen-von
Königslöw, & Stift, 2008). The European debt crisis has accelerated this
process even further by putting European topics and actors on the front
pages of national media all across Europe. These public discourses provide
a forum where European identity is constructed. By creating a common
sphere of communication, news media are able to promote feelings of
identification towards the EU (Risse, 2014) as well as public support for
European integration (Scharkow & Vogelgesang, 2009). A strong and
reliable European identity possibly marks the most pivotal resource for
individual European solidarity to develop, as multiple empirical studies
suggest (Kuhn & Stoeckel, 2014; Verhaegen, 2018).
This study builds upon insights from the literature on European public
spheres but extends the argument even further. Instead of investigating
how media coverage of the EU contributes to boosting individual levels
of identification with the EU, it looks at the content of people’s Euro-
pean identity. It marks a shift from quantity to quality. In other words, I
argue that for European solidarity to emerge, it is not only important that
European citizens have more European identity but also that they have the
right kind of European identity. Thereby, European identity is conceived
as a highly dynamic process through which European identity can mean
different things to different people at different times. This reasoning
essentially locates this study in the realm of the framing approach. More
precisely, it looks at identity frames that provide interpretations of what
kind of community the EU essentially is. Through frames, the EU can
be construed as an economic community, a value-based community, a
constitutional community, a geographical community and many more
(Lichtenstein, 2014; Lichtenstein & Eilders, 2014, 2019). To understand
the importance of this link between media frames, European identity and
European solidarity, we need to take a closer look at the pivotal role that
news media play in this constellation. The media shape certain identity
6 C. STARKE

frames about the EU in the public discourse on European issues (Lichten-

stein, 2014). They may influence how citizens think about the European
community, which aspects of identity they emphasise and which ones they
dismiss. Even though they fulfil a crucial mediating role, to date, media
identity frames about the EU have received surprisingly little attention
both in the literature on European public spheres and in the framing
literature. This study, therefore, sets out to investigate whether different
identity frames may have different effects on people’s individual Euro-
pean solidarity. I use the European debt crisis as a case in point because
it ‘provides a unique opportunity to test the extent of solidarity among
European citizens, as measured in a very tangible way: who should pay
the bill?’ (Beaudonnet, 2014, p. 2).
Hence, this book asks the following superordinate research question:
How does exposure to media identity frames about the EU affect people’s
individual European solidarity? This book contributes to the existing liter-
ature on theoretical, methodological and empirical dimensions as follows.
First, by drawing on the interdisciplinary theoretical literature on soli-
darity, I introduce a novel concept of individual European solidarity
(theoretical contribution). Second, I suggest an empirical operationalisa-
tion of this novel concept using vignettes. This measurement is specifically
tailored to the research interest at hand, the European debt crisis, but
can easily be adapted to other political problems requiring European soli-
darity (methodological contribution). Third, I further contribute to the
empirical literature by investigating the effects of media identity frames
on individual European solidarity using a large online experiment (empir-
ical contribution). This crucial aspect has not been tested and enhances
the understanding of the key drivers of European solidarity between
EU citizens. Ultimately, I suggest a moderated serial-mediation model
running from exposure to media identity frames through perceived impor-
tance of cognitive identity frames and attitudinal European solidarity to
behavioural European solidarity. To test the assumptions of this model,
I conducted a single-shot online experiment with 1611 German respon-
dents using a between-subject design with two experimental manipula-
tions and one control group. Experimental research designs are suitable
for testing causation between independent and dependent variables under
controlled conditions. The results suggest that respondents who were
exposed to a news article framing the EU as a community of political
values show more attitudinal European solidarity compared to respon-
dents who were exposed to an economic identity frame of the EU.
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

Furthermore, high levels of attitudinal European solidarity are associ-

ated with high levels of behavioural European solidarity, confirming the
expected serial-mediation effect. This effect, however, is conditional upon
citizens’ perception of the benefits that European solidarity yields for their
own country.

Structure of the Book

In this book, I argue the following: Exposure to media identity frames
portraying the EU as a community of political values leads to more indi-
vidual European solidarity compared to media identity frames depicting
the EU as an economic community. This argument is substantiated by an
in-depth review of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature as well
as novel experimental empirical data. Let me briefly outline the structure
of this book, encapsulated in seven chapters. The second chapter provides
a detailed look at the European debt crisis and outlines the crucial role
that European solidarity played in it.
Deriving from this discussion, the third chapter is dedicated to the
concept of European solidarity. In the first step, I provide an interdis-
ciplinary review of the existing concepts and definitions of solidarity,
applying them to the European context. Based on this interdisciplinary
review, I crystallise the following three requirements for a suitable concept
of individual European solidarity: (1) different levels, (2) different dimen-
sions and (3) different types. These requirements subsequently form the
basis for a novel norm-based concept of individual European solidarity,
that is, the solidarity of individual citizens in the EU. Herein, I integrate
the theoretical work of Hechter (1987), Lindenberg (1998) and Tranow
(2019) and apply it to the European context. Let me outline the broad
strokes of the concept of individual European solidarity proposed in this
book, as follows:

1. Different levels: Individual European solidarity is a political concept

as individuals primarily show their European solidarity through
solidarity policies decided at the institutional level.
2. Different dimensions: The attitudinal dimension reflects people’s
supportive attitudes towards solidarity norms, that is, acceptance of
solidarity policies. The behavioural dimension refers to acting upon
solidarity norms, that is, a personal sacrifice of personal resources in
cases where the solidary policy gets implemented.
8 C. STARKE

3. Different types: With regard to the fundamental function of soli-

darity to solve social problems, I distinguish four different problem
situations that capture all solidary behaviour (collective good situ-
ations, sharing situations, need situations, loyalty situations). All
problem situations are applicable to the pressing challenges the EU
currently faces, especially the European debt crisis.

In the light of this theoretical framework, I review the empirical litera-

ture and extract the main individual and situational drivers of individual
European solidarity.
Chapter 4 then sheds light on the concept of European identity. First,
I distinguish between social identity and collective identity. While the
former refers to the identity of individuals, the latter describes the iden-
tity of groups. At the individual level, I review the theoretical literature
on the social identity theory and explain how national identity and Euro-
pean identity relate to each other. Then, the pivotal question of how
strongly EU citizens feel to be Europeans (intensity of European iden-
tity) will be addressed based on the existing empirical literature as well
as available Eurobarometer data. I continue by arguing that European
identity always refers to specific social representations or identity frames
coexisting in the minds of European citizens (content of European iden-
tity). I address European identity at the collective level by linking the
literature on European identity with the literature on European public
spheres and argue that the construction of collective European identity
takes place in public discourses. The intensity of collective identity refers
to the degree of Europeanisation of national public spheres as well as
identity claims within the discourse. The content of collective identity
can be conceived through identity frames existing in the media discourse.
Chapter 5 then explores the concept of media identity framing. I
briefly outline the main reasoning of the framing approach, distinguishing
between (1) strategic frames , (2) media frames and (3) cognitive frames
(‘Framing European Identity’ ). As this study investigates the effects of
frames, I then apply the process model by Scheufele (1999) to media
identity framing about the EU. To that end, I outline the following three
stages of framing effects: (1) identity frame building, (2) identity frame
setting, (3) individual-level effects of identity framing.
In Chapter 6, I tie the different strands of literature together by
deriving the final moderated serial-mediation model and formulating the
corresponding hypotheses.
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

The seventh chapter outlines the method used to test the hypotheses.
First, each measure used in the empirical analysis is extensively explained.
In the subsequent step, I discuss the sampling procedure and the
fieldwork. Finally, I outline the data analysis strategy.
Chapter 8 is the centrepiece of this book as it contains the results of the
empirical analysis and discusses the implications of my findings. I start off
with the descriptive results. Then, the results of the final model and the
corresponding hypotheses are presented and thoroughly discussed. The
chapter concludes by outlining promising avenues for future research on
individual European solidarity.
This book closes with a general discussion of the results and a conclu-
sion to integrate the empirical findings into the academic discourse on
European solidarity.

References
Arnsperger, C., & Varoufakis, Y. (2003). Toward a theory of solidarity. Erken-
ntnis, 59, 157–188.
Auer, S. (2014). The limits of transnational solidarity and the eurozone crisis in
Germany, Ireland and Slovakia. Perspectives on European Politics and Society,
15(3), 322–334.
Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2017). Introduction. In K. Banting & W. Kymlicka
(Eds.), The strains of commitment: The political sources of solidarity in diverse
societies (pp. 1–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beaudonnet, L. (2014). Take one for the team? A study of the individual bases
for European solidarity in times of crisis. 10th European Community Studies
Association—Canada biennial conference, Université de Montréal.
Biedenkopf, K., Geremek, B., & Michalski, K. (2004). The spiritual and cultural
dimension of Europe. Concluding remarks of the reflection group initiated by
the president of the European Commission. Vienna/ Brussels.
Borgmann-Prebil, Y., & Ross, M. (Eds.). (2010). Promoting solidarity in the
European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calance, M. (2012). The resurgence of nationalism in the European Union (CES
Working Paper No. 1). Iasi. Retrieved from http://www.ceswp.uaic.ro/art
icles/CESWP2012_IV1_CAL.pdf.
Durkheim, E. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
Gerhards, J., & Lengfeld, H. (2013). Wir, ein europäisches Volk? Sozialintegra-
tion Europas und die Idee der Gleichheit aller europäischen Bürger. Wiesbaden:
Springer VS.
Hechter, M. (1987). Principles of group solidarity. Berkeley/ Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
10 C. STARKE

Kaufmann, F.-X. (1984). Solidarität als Steuerungsform—Erklärungsansätze bei

Adam Smith. In F.-X. Kaufmann & H.-G. Krüsselberg (Eds.), Markt, Staat
und Solidarität bei Adam Smith (pp. 158–185). Frankfurt am Main: Campus
Verlag.
Kaufmann, F.-X. (2002). Sozialpolitik zwischen Gemeinwohl und Solidarität. In
H. Münkler & K. Fischer (Eds.), Forschungsberichte der interdisziplinären
Arbeitsgruppe “Gemeinwohl und Gemeinsinn” der Berlin-Brandenburgischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vol. 2, pp. 19–34)., Gemeinwohl und
Gemeinsinn: Rhetoriken und Perspektiven sozial-moralischer Orientierung
Berlin: Akademischer Verlag.
Kleger, H., & Mehlhausen, T. (2013). Unstrittig und doch umstritten—
europäische Solidarität in der Eurokrise. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 54(1),
50–74.
Koopmans, R., & Erbe, J. (2004). Towards a European public sphere? Vertical
and horizontal dimensions of Europeanized political communication. Innova-
tion: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 17 (2), 97–118.
Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (Eds.). (2010). The making of a European
public sphere. Media discourse and political contention. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kriesi, H., & Grande, E. (2015). The Europeanization of the national polit-
ical debate. In O. Cramme & S. B. Hobolt (Eds.), Democratic politics in a
European Union under stress (pp. 67–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T., & Stoeckel, F. (2014). When European integration becomes costly:
The Euro crisis and public support for European economic governance.
Journal of European Public Policy, 21(4), 624–641.
Lahusen, C. (Ed.) (2020a). Citizens’ solidarity in Europe: Civic engagement and
public discourse in times of crises. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lahusen, C., & Grasso, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Solidarity in Europe: Citizens’
responses in times of crisis. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lahusen, C., & Grasso, M. T. (2019). Solidarity in Europe-European Solidarity:
An Introduction. In C. Lahusen & M. T. Grasso (Eds.), Solidarity in Europe:
Citizens’ responses in times of crisis (pp. 1–18). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lichtenstein, D. (2014). Europäische Identitäten. Eine vergleichende Unter-
suchung der Medienöffentlichkeiten ost- und westeuropäischer EU-Länder.
Konstanz/ München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
Lichtenstein, D., & Eilders, C. (2014). EU-bezogene Identitätsframes in
der Verfassungsdebatte 2005: der Deutungswettbewerb zwischen politischen
Akteuren, Zivilgesellschaft und Journalisten in vier EU-Mitgliedsstaaten. In
F. Marcinkowski (Ed.), Framing als politischer prozess (pp. 79–93). Baden-
Baden: Nomos.
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

Lichtenstein, D., & Eilders, C. (2019). Lost in uncertainty: How the Euro crisis
affected European identity constructions in national media discourses. The
International Communication Gazette, 81(6–8): 602–622.
Lindenberg, S. (1998). Solidarity: Its microfoundation and macrodependence.
A framing approach. In P. Doreian & T. J. Fararo (Eds.), The problem of
solidarity. Theories and models (pp. 61–112). New York: Routledge.
Lisbon Treaty. (2007). Treaty of the European Union. Brussels & Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty.html.
Lynch, K., & Kalaitzake, M. (2020). Affective and calculative solidarity: The
impact of individualism and neoliberal capitalism. European Journal of Social
Theory, 23(2), 238–257.
Maastricht Treaty. (1992). Treaty of the European Union. Brussels & Luxem-
bourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Parsons, T. (1966). Societies. Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Preuss, U. (1999). National, supranational, and international solidarity. In K.
Bayertz (Ed.), Solidarity (pp. 281–289). Dordrecht/ Boston/ London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Risse, T. (2010). A community of European? Transnational identities and public
spheres. New York: Cornell University Press.
Risse, T. (2014). No demos? Identities and public spheres in the Euro crisis.
Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(6), 1207–1215.
Sangiovanni, A. (2013). Solidarity in the European Union. Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, 33(2), 213–241.
Scharkow, M., & Vogelgesang, J. (2009). Effects of domestic media use on
European integration. Communications, 34(1), 73–91.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
Scholz, S. J. (2008). Political solidarity. University Park: Penn State University
Press.
Thome, H. (1999). Solidarity: Theoretical perspectives for empirical research. In
K. Bayertz (Ed.), Solidarity (pp. 101–132). Dordrecht/ Boston/ London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tranow, U. (2012). Das Konzept der Solidarität. Handlungstheoretische
Fundierung eines soziologischen Schlüsselbegriffs. Wiesbaden: VS Springer.
Tranow, U. (2019). Solidarity as a system of norms. In J. Althammer, B.
Neumärker, & U. Nothelle-Wildfeuer (Eds.), Solidarity in open societies
(pp. 25–55). Dordrecht: Springer VS.
Treaty, Amsterdam. (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on
European Union, the treaties establishing the European Communities and
12 C. STARKE

related acts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities.
Van Parijs, P. (2017). Solidarity, diversity and social justice. In K. Banting & W.
Kymlicka (Eds.), The strains of commitment. The political sources of solidarity
in diverse societies (pp. 420–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhaegen, S. (2018). What to expect from European identity? Explaining
support for solidarity in times of crisis. Comparative European Politics, 16(5),
871–904.
Wallaschek, S., Starke, C., & Brüning, C. (2020). Solidarity in the public sphere:
A discourse network analysis of German newspapers (2008–2017). Politics &
Governance.
Wessler, H., Peters, B., Brüggemann, M., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., &
Stift, S. (2008). Transnationalization of public spheres. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
 CHAPTER 2

The European Debt Crisis and the Quest

for European Solidarity

The European debt crisis marks one of the most fundamental crises the
EU has ever faced. Starting in 2009, it became clear that certain member
states of the Eurozone (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain)
had become highly indebted, bringing them to the brink of financial
collapse. Due to low economic growth rates, these countries were unable
to deleverage on their own, and many creditors feared that the loans
the debtor states had borrowed on the capital market would never be
repaid. As a consequence, the major bond rating agencies downgraded
the credit status of those Eurozone countries, making it even more diffi-
cult for them to receive the necessary loans to cover government spending
(Gerhards & Lengfeld, 2013). As the national economies in the EMU
are tightly intertwined, the risk of adverse cross-country spill-over effects
was looming (European Central Bank, 2011). Moreover, the EMU lacks
institutional oversight and a common European fiscal policy. Thus, ‘a debt
default of an EMU country will have catastrophic consequences for their
own economies’ (Fernandes & Rubio, 2012, p. 20). The collective fate
of the Eurozone members ultimately put the EU to its utmost stress test
(Marsh, 2013). On one hand, the creditor states blamed the debtor states
for failing to collect taxes and spending money beyond their means on
pensions and public administration. On the other hand, the debtor states
argued that the creditor states profited most from free trade within the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

Switzerland AG 2021
C. Starke, European Solidarity Under Scrutiny, Palgrave Studies
in European Political Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67179-2_2
14 C. STARKE

EMU through exports and that the EU undercuts national sovereignty in

fiscal policies.
Yet, the European debt crisis not only led to discord between EU
member states (Marsh, 2013); it also spurred discussions about Euro-
pean solidarity. As Beaudonnet (2014, p. 3) puts it, ‘the strong economic
interdependence within the Eurozone and beyond, as well as the varia-
tion in the crisis’ impact on national economies, has raised the question
of a common answer of the EU’s members, and of financial solidarity
among them’. As the crisis required collective problem-solving strate-
gies that were not in place at its breakout, the European debt crisis soon
turned into a political crisis of substantial magnitude. This debate circled
around the pivotal question of if and to what degree EU member states
should help each other in times of crisis and thereby ultimately around the
question of European solidarity (Galpin, 2015, 2017; Verhaegen, 2018).
Indeed, ‘since 2010 […] the Eurozone crisis has forced member states to
make some steps in the exercise of inter-state solidarity that were unimag-
inable just some years ago’ (Fernandes & Rubio, 2012, p. 19). After slow
negotiations among the member states, the EU took measures to bail
out the highly indebted countries. However, these financial bailouts were
not unconditional but rather tied to strict austerity measures imposed by
the EU. In the spring of 2010, the European Central Bank (ECB) and
some financially strong member states, together with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), launched their first multibillion euro credit aid for
Greece and later for Ireland and Portugal (Gerhards & Lengfeld, 2013).
Through the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) and
the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), the EU implemented
European institutions to ensure and organise inner-European assistance
on a provisional basis. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) then
replaced those institutions and permanently established instruments to
issue loans and manage other forms of financial assistance (European
Central Bank, 2011). The ESM was inaugurated in 2012 and has a
maximum volume of 500 billion euro. However, many experts assume
that safeguarding the Eurozone will require an increase in the EMS’s
lending capacity in the future. To further counter the potential fallout of
the crisis, the ECB started to buy seemingly valueless government bonds
from those countries most affected by the European debt crisis. In 2020,
with the aim to mitigate the economic consequences of the COVID-19
pandemic, the EU reached a deal on an unprecedented recovery package
of e1.8 trillion over seven years. Similar to the ESM, the negotiations
 2 THE EUROPEAN DEBT CRISIS … 15

among EU leaders revealed considerable dissent over the terms of the

recovery package mainly with respect to the question of whether and how
loans should be tied to economic and financial reform in the receiving
countries.
Many authors point out that the motivation for implementing such
measures was largely based on the member states’ self-interest. For
instance, Fernandes and Rubio (2012) argue that those efforts followed
the reasoning that some indebted economies could collapse without assis-
tance from the other member states and that this collapse would cause
detrimental domino effects for all members of the EMU. The vital role
of self-interest as a motivation for the bailouts can be illustrated by the
fact that the EU did not take action as long as only Greece, a relatively
small European economy, had been affected. Only when it became clear
that the ‘Greek problem’ was in fact an ‘EMU problem’, threatening
to bring down several EMU economies, did the EU start to tackle the
crisis by implementing measures of support (Fernandes & Rubio, 2012).
Still, many refer to the ESM as a form of European solidarity (Auer,
2014; Fernandes & Rubio, 2012; Gerhards & Lengfeld, 2013; Lengfeld,
Schmidt, & Häuberer, 2015; Verhaegen, 2018). Whether or not trans-
fers of resources based on the motive of self-interest fall under the scope
of solidarity is one of the most disputed questions in the literature on
solidarity and will be extensively discussed in the next chapter. Putting
this question aside for the moment, the ESM marks the largest redis-
tribution of financial resources in the history of the EU. More affluent
member states support the debt-ridden countries by offering loans and
thereby safeguarding those economies from financial default. This form
of European support is unprecedented both in volume and institutional
establishment.
Yet, implementing the ESM and other support mechanisms during the
European debt crisis has not only caused political and economic contro-
versies but also has pivotal legal implications. Article 125 of the Lisbon
Treaty explicitly states that neither the EU nor a member state shall ‘be
liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional,
local or other public authorities’ (Lisbon Treaty, Article 125). By violating
this so-called ‘no bailout clause’ as well as the monetary financing prohi-
bition (Lisbon Treaty, Article 123), critics rightfully argue that the ESM
broke fundamental European law. The bailouts and the corresponding
austerity measures, therefore, led to strong discord between the member
states and stirred up mutual resentment as well as deep-rooted stereo-
types. For instance, popular media outlets in Germany referred to Greeks
16 C. STARKE

as the ‘crooks in the Euro-family’ or ‘bankrupt Greeks’, while media

outlets in Greece portrayed German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a Nazi
uniform (Risse, 2014). As a result, notions of nationalism resurged in
many countries of the Eurozone (Calance, 2012). The consequences were
palpable at the country level as well as the individual level. Taking both
levels into account, Auer argues that the European debt crisis ‘threatens
to destroy European unity by reinforcing latent animosities between its
constituent nations’ (Auer, 2012, p. 60) and ‘erodes feelings of transna-
tional solidarity, which are a prerequisite for any lasting solutions to the
crisis’ (Auer, 2014, p. 322).
The ESM was not only subject to controversial debates between EU
institutions and the Eurozone member states. The issue further extended
to public opinion because citizens soon became aware that the Euro-
pean debt crisis could also have redistributive consequences for themselves
(Baden & Springer, 2014; Verhaegen, 2018). Auer (2014) points out that
citizens in the creditor states often opposed the bailout packages as those
efforts involve a cost for their national economies, at least in the short
term. The individual level is pivotal for understanding the debt crisis
because the ESM is ultimately financed through taxpayers’ money. Yet,
the opinion of citizens only played a marginal role in the debates about
solidarity during the European debt crisis. Moreover, the possibilities for
citizens to actively influence the decision-making process were limited
(Gerhards & Lengfeld, 2013). This is by no means a new phenomenon as
it refers to the general alleged ‘democratic deficit of the EU’. However,
public support is particularly important for redistributive policies of this
magnitude because it legitimises political decision making at the Euro-
pean level (Lucarelli, Cerutti, & Schmidt, 2011). This leads to compelling
questions at both ends of these policies. On one hand, are citizens of
the creditor countries willing to support political decisions that redis-
tribute financial resources to indebted member states? On the other hand,
to what extent are citizens in the debtor countries willing to accepted
austerity policies imposed by the EU? Galpin (2017, p. 2) concludes that
the crisis presents ‘a test of Europeans’ willingness to act in solidarity
with other Europeans and accept further sharing of sovereignty for the
good of the community’. The quest for solidarity in the European debt
crisis therefore entails the two following different levels: first, the institu-
tional level, where political decision making takes place, and second, the
individual level, where those decisions are legitimised by the citizens.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
determined effort to control for good purposes the existing
Republican organization. He chose the latter alternative, and began
a serious campaign to secure his object. There was at the time a
fight in the Republican organization between two factions, both of
which were headed by professional politicians. Both factions at the
outset looked upon Goddard’s methods with amused contempt,
expecting that he would go the gait which they had seen so many
other young men go, where they lacked either persistency or hard
common-sense. But Goddard was a practical man. He spent his
days and evenings in perfecting his own organization, using the Civic
Club as a centre. He already had immense influence in the district,
thanks to what he had done in the Civic Club, and at this, his first
effort, he was able to make an organization which, while it could not
have availed against the extraordinary drill and discipline of
Tammany, was able overwhelmingly to beat the far feebler machine
of the regular Republican politicians. At the primary he got more
votes than both his antagonists put together. No man outside of
politics can realize the paralyzed astonishment with which the result
was viewed by the politicians in every other Assembly district. Here
at last was a reformer whose aspirations took exceedingly efficient
shape as deeds; who knew what could and what could not be done;
who was never content with less than the possible best, but who
never threw away that possible best because it was not the ideal
best; who did not try to reform the universe, but merely his own
district; and who understood thoroughly that though speeches and
essays are good, downright hard work of the common-sense type is
infinitely better.
It is more difficult to preserve the fruits of a victory than to win the
victory. Mr. Goddard did both. A year later, when the old-school
professional politicians attempted to oust him from his party
leadership in the district association, he beat them more
overwhelmingly than before; and when the Republican National
Convention came around he went still further afield, beat out his
opponents in the Congressional district, and sent two delegates to
Philadelphia. Nor was his success confined to the primary. In both
the years of his leadership he has enormously increased the
Republican vote in his district, doing better relatively than any other
district leader in the city. He does this by adopting the social
methods of Tammany, only using them along clean lines. The
Tammany leader keeps his hold by incessant watchfulness over
every element, and almost every voter, in his district. Neither his
objects nor his methods are good; but he does take a great deal of
pains, and he is obliged to do much charitable work; although it is
not benevolence of a healthy kind. Mr. Goddard was already, through
the Civic Club, doing just this kind of work, on a thoroughly healthy
basis. Going into politics had immensely helped with the club, for it
had given a great common interest to all of the men. Of course
Goddard could have done nothing if he had not approached his work
in a genuine American spirit of entire respect for himself and for
those with whom and for whom he labored. Any condescension, any
patronizing spirit would have spoiled everything. But the spirit which
exacts respect and yields it, which is anxious always to help in a
mood of simple brotherhood, and which is glad to accept help in
return—this is the spirit which enables men of every degree of
wealth and of widely varying social conditions to work together in
heartiest good-will, and to the immense benefit of all. It is thus that
Mr. Goddard has worked. His house is in the district and he is in
close touch with every one. If a man is sick with pneumonia, some
member of the Civic Club promptly comes around to consult
Goddard as to what hospital he shall be taken to. If another man is
down on his luck, it is Goddard who helps him along through the
hard times. If a boy has been wild and got into trouble and gone to
the penitentiary, it is Goddard who is appealed to to see whether
anything can be done for him. The demands upon his time and
patience are innumerable. The reward, it is to be supposed, must
come from the consciousness of doing well work which is
emphatically well worth doing. A very shrewd politician said the other
day that if there were twenty such men as Goddard in twenty such
districts as his New York City would be saved from Tammany, and
that in the process the Republican machine would be made heartily
responsive to and representative of the best sentiment of the
Republicans of the several districts.
The University Settlements do an enormous amount of work. As
has been well said, they demand on the part of those who work in
them infinitely more than the sacrifice of almsgiving, for they demand
a helping hand in that progress which for the comfort of all must be
given to all; they help people to help themselves, not only in work
and self-support, but in right thinking and right living. It would be hard
to mention any form of civic effort for righteousness which has not
received efficient aid from Mr. James B. Reynolds and his fellow-
workers in the University Settlements. They have stood for the forces
of good in politics, in social life, in warring against crime, in
increasing the sum of material pleasures. They work hand in hand,
shoulder to shoulder, with those whom they seek to benefit, and they
themselves share in the benefit. They make their house the centre
for all robust agencies for social betterment. They have consistently
endeavored to work with, rather than merely for, the community; to
co-operate in honorable friendship with all who are struggling
upward. Only those who know the appalling conditions of life in the
swarming tenements that surround the University Settlement can
appreciate what it has done. It has almost inevitably gone into
politics now and then, and whenever it has done so has exercised a
thoroughly healthy influence. It has offered to the people of the
neighborhood educational and social opportunities ranging from a
dancing academy and musical classes, to literary clubs, a library,
and a children’s bank—the clubs being administered on the principle
of self-management and self-government. It has diligently
undertaken to co-operate with all local organizations such as trades-
unions, benefit societies, social clubs, and the like, provided only that
their purposes were decent. The Settlement has always desired to
co-operate with independent forces rather than merely to lead or
direct the dependent forces of society. Its work in co-operation with
trades-unions has been of special value both in helping them where
they have done good work, and in endeavoring to check any
tendency to evil in any particular union. It has, for instance,
consistently labored to secure the settlement of strikes by
consultation or arbitration, before the bitterness has become so great
as to prevent any chance of a settlement. All this is aside from its
work of sociological investigation and its active co-operation with
those public officials who, like the late Colonel Waring, desired such
aid.
 Healthy political endeavor should, of course, be one form of social
work. This truth is not recognized as it should be. Perhaps, also,
there is some, though a far lesser, failure to recognize that a living
church organization should, more than any other, be a potent force in
social uplifting. Churches are needed for all sorts and conditions of
men under every kind of circumstances; but surely the largest field of
usefulness is open to that church in which the spirit of brotherhood is
a living and vital force, and not a cold formula; in which the rich and
poor gather together to aid one another in work for a common end.
Brother can best help brother, not by almsgiving, but by joining with
him in an intelligent and resolute effort for the uplifting of all. It is
towards this that St. George’s Church, under Dr. W. S. Rainsford,
has steadily worked. The membership of St. George’s Church is in a
great majority composed of working people—and young working
people at that. It is a free church with a membership of over four
thousand, most of the members having come in by way of the
Sunday-school. Large sums of money are raised, not from a few
people, but from the many. An honest effort has been made to study
the conditions of life in the neighborhood, and through the church to
remedy those which were abnormal. One of the troubles on the East
Side is the lack of opportunity for young people, boys and girls, to
meet save where the surroundings are unfavorable to virtue. In St.
George’s Church this need is, so far as can be, met by meetings—
debating societies, clubs, social entertainments, etc., in the large
parish building. Years ago the dances needed to be policed by
chosen ladies and gentlemen and clergymen. Now the whole
standard of conduct has been so raised that the young people
conduct their own entertainments as they see fit. There is a large
athletic club and industrial school, a boys’ battalion and men’s club;
there are sewing classes, cooking classes, and a gymnasium for
working girls. Dr. Rainsford’s staff includes both men and women,
the former living at the top of the parish house, the latter in the little
deaconess-house opposite. Every effort is made to keep in close
touch with wage-workers, and this not merely for their benefit, but
quite as much for the benefit of those who are brought in touch with
them.
 The church is, of all places, that in which men should meet on the
basis of their common humanity under conditions of sympathy and
mutual self-respect. All must work alike in the church in order to get
the full benefit from it; but it is not the less true that we have a
peculiar right to expect systematic effort from men and women of
education and leisure. Such people should justify by their work the
conditions of society which have rendered possible their leisure, their
education, and their wealth. Money can never take the place of
service, and though here and there it is absolutely necessary to have
the paid worker, yet normally he is not an adequate substitute for the
volunteer.
Of course St. George’s Church has not solved all the social
problems in the immediate neighborhood which is the field of its
special effort. But it has earnestly tried to solve some at least, and it
has achieved a very substantial measure of success towards their
solution. Perhaps, after all, the best work done has been in
connection with the development of the social side of the church
organization. Reasonable opportunities for social intercourse are an
immense moral safeguard, and young people of good character and
steady habits should be encouraged to meet under conditions which
are pleasant and which also tell for decency. The work of a down-
town church in New York City presents difficulties that are unique,
but it also presents opportunities that are unique. In the case of St.
George’s Church it is only fair to say that the difficulties have been
overcome, and the opportunities taken advantage of, to the utmost.
Aside from the various kinds of work outlined above, where the
main element is the coming together of people for the purpose of
helping one another to rise higher, there is, of course, a very large
field for charitable work proper. For such work there must be
thorough organization of the kind supplied, for instance, by the State
Charities Aid Association. Here, again, the average outsider would
be simply astounded to learn of the amount actually accomplished
every year by the association.
A peculiar and exceedingly desirable form of work, originally
purely charitable, although not now as exclusively so, is that of the
Legal Aid Society, founded by Arthur von Briesen. It was founded to
try to remedy the colossal injustice which was so often encountered
by the poorest and most ignorant immigrants; it has been extended
to shield every class, native and foreign. There are always among
the poor and needy thousands of helpless individuals who are
preyed upon by sharpers of different degrees. If very poor, they may
have no means whatever of obtaining redress; and, especially if they
are foreigners ignorant of the language, they may also be absolutely
ignorant as to what steps should be taken in order to right the wrong
that has been done them. The injuries that are done may seem
trivial; but they are not trivial to the sufferers, and the aggregate
amount of misery caused is enormous. The Legal Aid Society has
made it its business to take up these cases and secure justice. Every
conceivable variety of case is attended to. The woman who has
been deserted or maltreated by her husband, the poor serving-maid
who has been swindled out of her wages, the ignorant immigrant
who has fallen a victim to some sharper, the man of no knowledge of
our language or laws who has been arrested for doing something
which he supposed was entirely proper—all these and countless
others like them apply for relief, and have it granted in tens of
thousands of cases every year. It should be remembered that the
good done is not merely to the sufferers themselves, it is also a good
done to society, for it leaves in the mind of the newcomer to our
shores, not the rankling memory of wrong and injustice, but the
feeling that, after all, here in the New World, where he has come to
seek his fortune, there are disinterested men who endeavor to see
that the right prevails.
Some men can do their best work in an organization. Some,
though they occasionally work in an organization, can do best by
themselves. Recently a man well qualified to pass judgment alluded
to Mr. Jacob A. Riis as “the most useful citizen of New York.” Those
fellow-citizens of Mr. Riis who best know his work will be most apt to
agree with this statement. The countless evils which lurk in the dark
corners of our civic institutions, which stalk abroad in the slums, and
have their permanent abode in the crowded tenement houses, have
met in Mr. Riis the most formidable opponent ever encountered by
them in New York City. Many earnest men and earnest women have
been stirred to the depths by the want and misery and foul crime
which are bred in the crowded blocks of tenement rookeries. These
men and women have planned and worked, intelligently and
resolutely, to overcome the evils. But to Mr. Riis was given, in
addition to earnestness and zeal, the great gift of expression, the
great gift of making others see what he saw and feel what he felt. His
book, How the Other Half Lives, did really go a long way toward
removing the ignorance in which one half of the world of New York
dwelt concerning the life of the other half. Moreover, Mr. Riis
possessed the further great advantage of having himself passed
through not a few of the experiences of which he had to tell. Landing
here, a young Danish lad, he had for years gone through the hard
struggle that so often attends even the bravest and best when they
go out without money to seek their fortunes in a strange and alien
land. The horror of the police lodging-houses struck deep in his soul,
for he himself had lodged in them. The brutality of some of the police
he had himself experienced. He had been mishandled, and had seen
the stray dog which was his only friend killed for trying in dumb
friendship to take his part. He had known what it was to sleep on
door-steps and go days in succession without food. All these things
he remembered, and his work as a reporter on the New York Sun
has enabled him in the exercise of his profession to add to his
knowledge. There are certain qualities the reformer must have if he
is to be a real reformer and not merely a faddist; for of course every
reformer is in continual danger of slipping into the mass of well-
meaning people who in their advocacy of the impracticable do more
harm than good. He must possess high courage, disinterested desire
to do good, and sane, wholesome common-sense. These qualities
he must have, and it is furthermore much to his benefit if he also
possesses a sound sense of humor. All four traits are possessed by
Jacob Riis. No rebuff, no seeming failure, has ever caused him to
lose faith. The memory of his own trials never soured him. His keen
sense of the sufferings of others never clouded his judgment, never
led him into hysterical or sentimental excess, the pit into which not a
few men are drawn by the very keenness of their sympathies; and
which some other men avoid, not because they are wise, but
because they are cold-hearted. He ever advocates mercy, but he
ever recognizes the need of justice. The mob leader, the bomb-
thrower, have no sympathy from him. No man has ever insisted more
on the danger which comes to the community from the lawbreaker.
He sets himself to kill the living evil, and small is his kinship with the
dreamers who seek the impossible, the men who talk of
reconstituting the entire social order, but who do not work to lighten
the burden of mankind by so much as a feather’s weight. Every man
who strives, be it ever so feebly, to do good according to the light
that is in him, can count on the aid of Jacob Riis if the chance
comes. Whether the man is a public official, like Colonel Waring,
seeking to raise some one branch of the city government; whether
he is interested in a boys’ club up in the country; or in a scheme for
creating small parks in the city; or in an effort to better the conditions
of tenement-house life—no matter what his work is, so long as his
work is useful, he can count on the aid of the man who perhaps
more than any other knows the needs of the varied people who
make up the great bulk of New York’s population.
Half a dozen men have been mentioned, each only as a type of
those who in the seething life of the great city do, in their several
ways and according to their strength and varying capacities, strive to
do their duty to their neighbor. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down as to the way in which such work must be done; but most
certainly every man, whatever his position, should strive to do it in
some way and to some degree. If he strives earnestly he will benefit
himself probably quite as much as he benefits others, and he will
inevitably learn a great deal. At first it may be an effort to him to cast
off certain rigid conventions, but real work of any kind is a great
educator, and soon helps any man to single out the important from
the unimportant. If such a worker has the right stuff in him he soon
grows to accept without effort each man on his worth as a man, and
to disregard his means, and what is called his social position; to care
little whether he is a Catholic or Protestant, a Jew or a Gentile; to be
utterly indifferent whether he was born here or in Ireland, in Germany
or in Scandinavia; provided only that he has in him the spirit of sturdy
common-sense and the resolute purpose to strive after the light as it
is given him to see the light.
 FOOTNOTES:
[24] Reprinted, by permission, from McClure’s Magazine.
Copyright, 1901, S. S. McClure Co.
 THE WORKS OF THEODORE
ROOSEVELT
Standard Library Edition.
8 volumes, 8º, illustrated each, $ 2.50
Cloth per set, 20.00
Half calf extra, ” 40.00

THE WINNING OF THE WEST.

Four volumes, with Maps each, $2.50
From the Alleghanies to the Mississippi, 1769-1776.
From the Alleghanies to the Mississippi, 1776-1783.
The Founding of the Trans-Alleghany Commonwealths, 1784-
1790.
Louisiana and the Northwest, 1791-1809.
“... A lucid, interesting narrative, written with the impartial
soberness of history, warmed and colored by a lively
imagination.... The work is admirably done, and forms a
valuable contribution to the history of the country.”—London
Spectator.
“For the first time the whole field has been covered in one
work by one accomplished and thoroughly equipped writer,
whose book will rank among American historical writings of
the first order.”—Critic.

THE WILDERNESS HUNTER.

 With an Account of the Big Game of the United States, and
its Chase with Horse, Hound, and Rifle. With illustrations by
Remington, Frost, Sandham, Eaton, Beard, and others. 8º.
Standard Library Edition $2.50
“A book which breathes the spirit of the wilderness and
presents a vivid picture of a phase of American life which is
rapidly passing away, with clear, incisive force.”—N. Y.
Literary News.
“For one who intends to go a-hunting in the West this book
is invaluable. One may rely upon its information. But it has
better qualities. It is good reading for anybody, and people
who never hunt and never will are sure to derive pleasure
from its account of that part of the United States, relatively
small, which is still a wilderness.”—N. Y. Times.

HUNTING TRIPS OF A RANCHMAN.

Sketches of Sport on the Northern Cattle Plains. With 27 full-page
wood engravings and 8 smaller engravings from designs by Frost,
Gifford, Beard, and Sandham. 8º. Standard Library Edition
$2.50
“One of those distinctively American books which ought to
be welcomed as contributing to raise the literary prestige of
the country all over the world.”—N. Y. Tribune.
“One of the rare books which sportsmen will be glad to add
to their libraries.... Mr. Roosevelt may rank with Scrope, Lloyd,
Harris, St. John, and half a dozen others, whose books will
always be among the sporting classics.”—London Saturday
Review.

THE NAVAL WAR OF 1812; or, The History of

the United States Navy during the Last War
with Great Britain.
 8th edition. With diagrams. 8º, pp. xxxviii. + 531, $2.50
“Shows in so young an author the best promise for a good
historian—fearlessness of statement, caution, endeavor to be
impartial, and a brisk and interesting way of telling events.”—
N. Y. Times.
“The reader of Mr. Roosevelt’s book unconsciously makes
up his mind that he is reading history and not romance, and
yet no romance could surpass it in interest.”—Philadelphia
Times.

AMERICAN IDEALS, and Other Essays,

Social and Political.

With a Biographical and Critical Memoir by Gen. Francis $1.50

V. Greene. 12º, gilt top
Standard Library Edition, 8º 2.50
“These essays are energizing, sound, and wholesome.
They deserve to be widely read.”—Chicago Tribune.
“These are papers of sterling merit, well worth perusing,
and deserving their rescue from the files of the periodicals in
which they first appeared, to form a more easily accessible
volume. Mr. Roosevelt’s reputation as a municipal reformer
should secure them a wide sale.”—Detroit Free Press.

ADDRESSES AND PRESIDENTIAL

MESSAGES. 1902-1904.

With Introduction by Henry Cabot Lodge. 12º, $1.50

Standard Library Edition. 8º 2.50
 American Orations
FROM THE COLONIAL PERIOD TO THE
PRESENT TIME

Selected as specimens of eloquence, and with special reference

to their value in throwing light upon the more important epochs and
issues of American history.
Edited, with introductions and notes, by the late Alexander
Johnston, Professor of Jurisprudence in the College of New Jersey.
Re-edited, with new material and historical notes, by James A.
Woodburn, Professor of American History and Politics in Indiana
University.
FOUR VOLUMES,
EACH COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND SOLD SEPARATELY
Crown octavo, gilt tops, per volume $1.25
Set, four volumes, in a box 5.00
Half calf, extra 10.00
Series I. Colonialism—Constitutional Government—
The Rise of Democracy—The Rise of Nationality.
Series II. The Anti-Slavery Struggle.
Series III. The Anti-Slavery Struggle (Continued)—
Secession.
Series IV. Civil War and Reconstruction—Free Trade
and Protection—Finance and Civil-Service Reform.
 “Regarded merely as studies in language, these orations
contain some of the most eloquent and persuasive speeches
in the English tongue. But more than this, the present
collection has a permanent historical value which can hardly
be overestimated. The very spirit of the times is preserved in
these utterances; and, presented in this cogent form, history
in a peculiar sense repeats itself to the reader, who feels the
impulse of past events and the vitality of great principles
behind them.”—School Journal.
 WORKS ON THE CIVIL WAR
THE STORY OF THE CIVIL WAR. A Concise Account of
the War in the United States of America between 1861 and
1865. By John Codman Ropes, Late Member of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, The Military Historical
Society of Massachusetts, Fellow of the Royal Historical
Society. Author of “The Army Under Pope,” “The First
Napoleon,” “The Campaign of Waterloo,” etc. To be complete
in four parts, with comprehensive maps and battle plans.
Each part will be complete in itself and will be sold separately.
Part I. Narrative of Events to the Opening of the $1.50
Campaign of 1862. With 5 maps. 8vo
Part II. The Campaigns of 1862. With 13 maps. 8vo. 2.50
“Among all the accounts of the Civil War, the narrative of Dr.
Ropes is unique in that it treats the subject impartially, and
from the standpoint of both North and South.... As a clear,
comprehensive, and complete survey of the first two years of
the war his history will certainly rank with the best.”—New
York Mail and Express.

THE AMERICAN WAR BALLADS AND LYRICS.

Edited by George Cary Eggleston. A selection of the
more noteworthy of the Ballads and Lyrics which were
produced during the Colonial period, the Indian Wars, the
Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Civil
War. The latter division includes the productions of poets on
both sides of Mason and Dixon’s line. Two vols., fully
illustrated, 16mo.
 “He has gone about it in a wisely comprehensive spirit, and
in his book will be found most of the actual songs that were
popular during the war, as well as the poems and ballads that
best deserve preservation because of their literary
character.”—Philadelphia Times.
ULYSSES S. GRANT, and the Period of National
Preservation and Reconstruction. 1822-1885. By William
Conant Church, late Lieut.-Colonel, U.S.A., author of “Life
of John Ericsson.” No. 21 in the “Heroes of the Nations
Series.” Fully illustrated. Large 12mo, cloth, $1.50; half
leather, gilt top
$1.75
“It is a work of high value for its completeness, for its review
of the period of national preservation and reconstruction, and
for its admirable handling of the great mass of momentous
events with which the career of General Grant was
associated.”—Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
ROBERT E. LEE, and the Southern Confederacy. 1807-
1870. By Prof. Henry Alexander White, of Washington and
Lee University. No. 22 in the “Heroes of the Nations Series.”
Fully illustrated. Large 12mo, cloth, $1.50; half leather, gilt top
$1.75
“... He tells the story of the General’s life in admirable style.
He is intensely earnest, and is interesting from first to last. He
has labored long and faithfully to gather all possible
information and makes judicious use of the materials
accumulated. When the reader ends the volume it is with the
wish that it had been much longer.”—New York Mail and
Express.

New York—G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS—London

 Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation errors and omissions have been silently corrected.
Page 23: “we have produed” changed to “we have produced”
Page 26: “German or Irshman” changed to “German or Irishman”
Page 105: “of ther own” changed to “of their own”
Page 114: “as a politican” changed to “as a politician”
Page 128: “Picnic Assotion” changed to “Picnic Association”
Page 148: “Frst Assistant” changed to “First Assistant”
Page 199: “in the Repubican party” changed to “in the Republican party”
Page 204: “woolly rhinocerous” changed to “woolly rhinoceros”
Page 228: “the Venezulan” changed to “the Venezuelan”
Page 266: “a a fleet of” changed to “a fleet of”
Page 269: “instance of sefishness” changed to “instance of selfishness”
Page 280: “dur-the last” changed to “during the last”
Page 282: “untimately absorbed” changed to “ultimately absorbed”
Page 311: “the unselfihnsess” changed to “the unselfishnsess”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AMERICAN
IDEALS, AND OTHER ESSAYS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.