欧洲绿色交易的意识形态层面。旧观念被重新包装?

Piotr Burgoński
{"title":"欧洲绿色交易的意识形态层面。旧观念被重新包装?","authors":"Piotr Burgoński","doi":"10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.23.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to answer the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the package of initiatives announced by the European Commission in 2019, called the European Green Deal (EGD), represents a new approach to the mechanistic, sustainability and environmental paradigms. The former two paradigms have provided the ideological foundations for many past actions, including European Union policies, while the latter one is in its nature an intellectual construct proposed for enactment. This study is focused on the ideational dimension and consisted of comparing the EGD with the aforementioned paradigms in four aspects: a) the way it understands human's relationship with nature, b) the way it views civilisational development, c) its attitude towards knowledge, science and technology, and d) in the axiology adopted. The study is based on the literature on the subject and the 27 EU documents from 2019–2022 constituting the EGD, which were examined using a qualitative content analysis method. The study demonstrated that there has been a change in all analysed aspects of the EGD, with the areas where material interests play a role being the least susceptible to it.","PeriodicalId":229183,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd europejski","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ideational dimension of the European Green Deal. Old ideas being repackaged?\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Burgoński\",\"doi\":\"10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.23.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to answer the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the package of initiatives announced by the European Commission in 2019, called the European Green Deal (EGD), represents a new approach to the mechanistic, sustainability and environmental paradigms. The former two paradigms have provided the ideological foundations for many past actions, including European Union policies, while the latter one is in its nature an intellectual construct proposed for enactment. This study is focused on the ideational dimension and consisted of comparing the EGD with the aforementioned paradigms in four aspects: a) the way it understands human's relationship with nature, b) the way it views civilisational development, c) its attitude towards knowledge, science and technology, and d) in the axiology adopted. The study is based on the literature on the subject and the 27 EU documents from 2019–2022 constituting the EGD, which were examined using a qualitative content analysis method. The study demonstrated that there has been a change in all analysed aspects of the EGD, with the areas where material interests play a role being the least susceptible to it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":229183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Przegląd europejski\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Przegląd europejski\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.23.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przegląd europejski","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.23.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在回答这样一个问题:欧盟委员会于 2019 年宣布的名为 "欧洲绿色协议"(EGD)的一揽子倡议是否代表了一种针对机械论、可持续性和环境范式的新方法?前两种范式为包括欧盟政策在内的许多过去的行动提供了思想基础,而后一种范式在本质上是一种为颁布而提出的思想建构。本研究侧重于意识形态维度,包括从以下四个方面对 EGD 与上述范式进行比较:a) 它理解人与自然关系的方式;b) 它看待文明发展的方式;c) 它对知识、科学和技术的态度;d) 它所采用的公理。本研究以相关文献和欧盟 2019-2022 年的 27 份文件为基础,采用定性内容分析法对这些文件进行了研究。研究表明,在所分析的 EGD 的所有方面都发生了变化,而物质利益发挥作用的领域最不容易受到这种变化的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ideational dimension of the European Green Deal. Old ideas being repackaged?
The aim of this article is to answer the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the package of initiatives announced by the European Commission in 2019, called the European Green Deal (EGD), represents a new approach to the mechanistic, sustainability and environmental paradigms. The former two paradigms have provided the ideological foundations for many past actions, including European Union policies, while the latter one is in its nature an intellectual construct proposed for enactment. This study is focused on the ideational dimension and consisted of comparing the EGD with the aforementioned paradigms in four aspects: a) the way it understands human's relationship with nature, b) the way it views civilisational development, c) its attitude towards knowledge, science and technology, and d) in the axiology adopted. The study is based on the literature on the subject and the 27 EU documents from 2019–2022 constituting the EGD, which were examined using a qualitative content analysis method. The study demonstrated that there has been a change in all analysed aspects of the EGD, with the areas where material interests play a role being the least susceptible to it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信