Historicizing and Quantifying Europeanization: Methodological and Analytical Approach

Since the 1990s, research on Europeanization has been primarily guided by the deepening and widening of European political integration and governance. During this period, Europeanization has often been narrowly conceptualized as an EU-centric process whereby national policies and institutions adapt to EU norms – a process sometimes referred to as ‘EU-ization’. Although this interpretation has proved analytically useful in certain specific contexts, its restricted focus and limited historical scope fail to capture the broader ideational, normative, and sociological dimensions of Europeanization across different historical periods and geographical spaces, thus jeopardizing our understanding of the concept’s complex origin and transformations, and obscuring the temporal ruptures, contradictions, and inconsistencies that have characterized its historical development (Flockhart Reference Flockhart2010).

From the perspective of intellectual history, Europeanization should be understood as an evolving intellectual construct shaped by competing historical frameworks, cultural traditions, and political transformations. Its earlier usage has emerged from and becomes entangled with diverse intellectual movements – ranging from Enlightenment cosmopolitanism to post-colonial critiques of Eurocentrism. These intellectual currents have profoundly influenced how Europeanization has been conceptualized and deployed over time and across academic fields, including political science, law, sociology, anthropology, and history (Hirschhausen and Patel Reference Hirschhausen, Patel, Conway and Patel2010). In this wider view, Europeanization is a dynamic, multifaceted, and multidirectional phenomenon (Conway Reference Conway, Conway and Patel2010: 271). As such, Europeanization is not merely a process of political adaptation, but it also reflects the diffusion of cultural practices, identity formations, and power relations that have unfolded through historically complex interactions and contestation.

This broader understanding of Europeanization led scholars to emphasize the need for more empirical research that goes beyond abstract theorization, uses robust methodological and conceptual frameworks, and rigorously engages with the historical context of Europeanization (Greiner et al. Reference Greiner, Pichler, Vermeiren, Greiner, Pichler and Vermeiren2022: 12). There remains a pressing need for studies that explore the specific historical and intellectual contexts in which Europeanization discourse has been articulated, critiqued, and transformed.

In response to this call, we employ a methodological approach that combines traditional historiographical inquiry with computational discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. Specifically, we adopt a bottom-up, usage-based, and corpus-driven approach, prioritizing inductive analysis to identify frequent, meaningful, and salient word usage patterns in historical discourse without relying on predetermined assumptions (McEnery and Hardie Reference McEnery and Hardie2012). This approach allows us to uncover significant meanings and associations that may remain unnoticed or difficult to discern in qualitative analyses of only a few articles (Brezina et al. Reference Brezina, McEnery and Wattam2015: 141; Baker Reference Baker2023: 136). Two methodological principles guide our analysis: first, the collocation principle, which assumes that a word’s meaning can be inferred from its co-occurrences with other terms in the text (Baker Reference Baker2023: 136), and second, the principle of temporality, which posits that changes in word co-occurrence patterns over time can signal broader shifts in discourse trends (Lind and Kloster Reference Lind and Kloster2016; McEnery et al. Reference McEnery, Brezina and Baker2019: 413). By applying these principles to a corpus of historical academic texts, we explore how Europeanization has been understood and deployed over the twentieth century. We acknowledge the shortcoming inherent in this methodological approach, particularly its tendency to oversimplify and decontextualize complex conceptual narratives (Hill Reference Hill2017: 5). To address these limitations, we focus our analysis on sentence level, allowing for a more accurate investigation of the immediate context in which the term is used. Additionally, we supplement our quantitative findings with qualitative insights, providing contextual interpretations and illustrative quotations from the literature.

We first compiled a dataset of scholarly articles referencing Europeanization using the Constellate platform, which grants access to large databases such as JSTOR and Portico, which contain a wealth of historical scholarly works spanning multiple disciplines and earlier historical periods.Footnote ^a By conducting a full-text search using the query Europeanization OR Europeanisation, we found 1882 academic articles related to Europeanization published before the 1990s, which contained 2580 unique sentences. Despite its relatively small size, the specificity of the dataset – focused exclusively on Europeanization discourse – ensures its thematic relevance and analytical depth.Footnote ^b As Baker (Reference Baker2023: 57–69) notes, the quality and content of data in specialized corpora are as important, if not more so, than the quantity. However, text from digitized historical documents may present issues such as optical character recognition errors, typeset discrepancies, and spelling variations, which may hinder accurate analysis. To ensure the accuracy and consistency of the corpus, we engaged in data preprocessing and cleaning by removing typographical errors, normalizing spelling variations, standardizing the use of accented characters and the spelling variations across British and American English, removing punctuations and converting all words to lowercase.

Following the data collection, we then conducted a detailed analysis of the dataset’s metadata to identify publication trends, the prevalence of Europeanization discourse over time, authorship, and other publication-related issues in the historical discourse on Europeanization. For the collocation analysis, we used GraphColl, a tool within the LancsBox software, to perform collocation analyses and visually map the semantic network surrounding Europeanization (see Brezina and Platt Reference Brezina and Platt2023). We applied the statistical association measure (MI3) and considered immediate word collocations to a distance of five words on either side of the term.Footnote ^c This allowed us to identify systematic and meaningful associations with Europeanization that were (relatively) unique and consistently appeared together, indicating solid and typical connections within the context in which the term Europeanization was used. As a next step, we turned to the temporal analysis techniques to further understand the historical evolution of Europeanization’s intellectual usage and explore how the salience of associated terms fluctuated over time. Using Kleinberg’s burst detection algorithm, part of the SCI2 Tool, we identified specific words associated with Europeanization that experienced sudden increases in frequency, along with the periods during which these ‘bursts’ occurred (Lind and Kloster Reference Lind and Kloster2016).Footnote ^d

The (Western) Intellectual History of Europeanization

The historical trajectory of Europeanization in social-humanities discourse has been uneven, with significant variations in usage over time. Previous studies have noted the scarcity of references to Europeanization before the 1980s, a limitation attributed to narrow search methods that failed to capture the full range of academic output, being restricted to specific scholarly journals or not covering full-text analyses (see, for example, Olsen Reference Olsen2002: 922, fn 1; Featherstone Reference Featherstone, Featherstone and Radaelli2003: 4; Rovnyi and Bachmann Reference Rovnyi and Bachmann2012: 170–171, fn. 1). Our analyses, by contrast, draws on a comprehensive dataset spanning multiple disciplines and a full-text data search, thus allowing for a more detailed exploration of the term’s intellectual history.Footnote ^e

The first recorded instance of Europeanization in our dataset dates back to 1881, with minimal scholarly engagement, evidenced by only nine references across six articles throughout the entire nineteenth century. This limited early usage can be contextualized within the intellectual movements of the time, which were more concerned with nation-state formation and imperial expansion rather than supranational or continental frameworks. The twentieth century, however, witnessed a gradual but steady increase in references to Europeanization, particularly from the 1920s onwards. This trajectory correlates with critical historical events and intellectual shifts, reflecting broader transformations in Europe’s political, cultural, and institutional landscapes. Notably, the use of Europeanization surged dramatically from 1981 to 1990, with over 40% of all recorded instances occurring in this decade alone. This coincided with the political and social upheavals leading to the end of the Cold War and the subsequent reintegration of Eastern Europe into broader European frameworks. The 1970s also saw a significant uptick in references (approximately 20%), marking a period of intensified European integration efforts, particularly in the context of the European Economic Community (EEC) and early discussions on European unification. The 1950s and 1960s contributed roughly 12% each, corresponding with Europe’s post-Second World War reconstruction and establishment of institutions such as the European Coal and Steel Community, which laid the groundwork for modern European political cooperation.

Despite these broad trends, earlier decades were characterized by relatively low usage of the term, with notable exceptions such as the peak in 1937, driven by Hans Kohn’s seminal work on The Europeanization of the Orient (and the subsequent reviews of his work).Footnote ^f Another peak in 1952 is attributed to the status proposal and debates about the Saar region, an issue that highlighted the complexities of territorial and political Europeanization in the post-war era. The most significant peaks in Europeanization discourse appeared in the late 1980s, coinciding with the momentous political shifts preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of East and West Europe. Scholars such as Morten Kelstrup (Reference Kelstrup1990), Martin Saeter (Reference Saeter1985, Reference Saeter1989), Michael Geyer (Reference Geyer1989), Thomas Pedersen (Reference Pedersen1990), and Ole Wæver (Reference Wæver1990) played critical roles in framing Europeanization within these transformative contexts as they explored the theoretical and practical implications of political integration, security, and identity formation (see Table 1 of the Supplementary Data). The sharp rise in usage in the late 1980s reflects an academic response to the imminent political restructuring of Europe, where the concept of Europeanization became central to understanding the integration of formerly communist states into European institutions and frameworks.

Figure 1 clearly illustrates these peaks in Europeanization usage. The higher frequencies in specific years result from an increased number of articles on the topic or a few articles that reference Europeanization multiple times. The data also reveal how political events and intellectual debate shifts triggered increased scholarly engagement with Europeanization.

Figure 1.

Temporal distribution of article counts and usage of Europeanization (1881–1990).

Note: The frequency of the term Europeanization is at least equal to the number of articles. If the frequency exceeds the number of articles, the term appears multiple times in an article.

Table 1 of the Supplementary Data presents the prominent articles, authors, and journals that have shaped the intellectual trajectory of Europeanization. Martin Saeter and Morten Kelstrup emerge as particularly influential, contributing between 1% and 2% of all instances of Europeanization across the whole dataset of publications. Kelstrup’s work on the theoretical dimensions of the political changes and Saeter’s writings on the peace process and cooperation in Europe highlight how Europeanization was understood not only as a cultural or historical process but also as a framework for understanding European security and integration in the post-Cold War context. Among the foremost intellectuals, Hans Kohn and James Cracraft stand out due to their frequent engagement and substantial contributions to the study of Europeanization. Kohn’s early historiographical work bridged the fields of history, political science, and cultural studies, providing a comprehensive perspective on the diffusion of European norms and ideas across various regions and addressing the challenges and criticisms associated with this process. Similarly, Cracraft’s scholarly work on Europeanization underscores its critical significance in modern Russian history, exploring the cultural, political, and economic transformations and advocating for a nuanced interpretation that differentiates Europeanization from Westernization and Modernization.

The diversity of academic journals in which Europeanization appears – from Bulletin of Peace Proposals and Slavic Review to American Anthropologist and Foreign Affairs – underscores the term’s multidisciplinary relevance and utility across humanities and social sciences (see also Featherstone Reference Featherstone, Featherstone and Radaelli2003: 3; Hirschhausen and Patel Reference Hirschhausen, Patel, Conway and Patel2010: 2; Coman and Crespy Reference Coman and Crespy2014: 12). While much of the discourse centres on political science and history, Europeanization also found resonance in fields as varied as anthropology, sociology, international relations, and area studies. This broad disciplinary engagement also suggests that Europeanization serves as a useful lens for elucidating both specific cultural contexts and broader socio-political transformations.

The term’s utility in describing historical, cultural, and social shifts highlights its flexibility as an analytical framework, although it often remained vaguely defined. In many instances, Europeanization was used descriptively, reflecting an implicit understanding of Europe’s historical development rather than being explicitly theorized as an analytical construct.Footnote ^g

Europeanization: A Plural Concept for (Many) Interconnected Ideas

Europeanization, far from being a singular or monolithic concept, manifests itself as a plurality of interconnected processes that have evolved over time, assuming various forms and acquiring diverse meanings to reflect its role in both cultural and socio-political transformations (Mjøset Reference Mjøset1997; Conway Reference Conway, Conway and Patel2010: 271).

The term process(es), a dominant collocate in its usage, highlights its dynamic and evolving nature, emphasizing Europeanization as a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by interactions across different societal domains. This understanding moves beyond the simplistic definition of Europeanization as merely ‘[t]he process of making or becoming European’ (Whitney Reference Whitney1895: 2030) and situates it within the context of larger transformative processes and the broader intellectual and cultural movements of change (see also Leclercq Reference Leclercq1978; Gehler Reference Gehler2016: 145). The collocation analysis reinforces the view that Europeanization is intricately linked to a spectrum of other transformative processes – Modernization, Westernization, Americanization, Christianization, Secularization, Internationalization, Civilization, Assimilation, Detribalization, Germanization, Anglicization, Democratization, Urbanization, Liberalization, Regionalization – and even forms of resistance such as De-Europeanization (see Table 2 in the Supplementary Material). These associations suggest that Europeanization was not a standalone process but operated within a broader matrix of global cultural exchanges and power dynamics. This plurality is crucial in understanding Europeanization as not merely a homogenizing force but as a process subject to both adaptation and contestation, where local and regional influences intersect in complex ways.

Particularly notable among these associations are the terms modernization and westernization, which frequently appear alongside Europeanization. These terms have often been used interchangeablyFootnote ^h (Rogers and Svenning Reference Rogers and Svenning1969: 14–15; Cracraft Reference Cracraft1982: 629) or as part of a continuum in which Europeanization represents a distinct yet overlapping form of modernization and westernization (Segall Reference Segall1961: 656). This overlap is evidenced in foundational texts such as the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (Seligman and Johnson Reference Seligman and Johnson1930), where the entry for Westernization redirects to Europeanization, signalling the close intellectual ties between these concepts. Historically, Europeanization – like Modernization and Westernization – reflects the spread of modern, Western European ideas, grounded in Enlightenment thought and propelled by the intellectual movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, particularly the diffusion of rationalism, individualism, and industrialism (Kohn Reference Kohn1937: 259).

Within this intellectual tradition, Europeanization has been imbued with a normative judgement, where key collocates such as progress(ive) and development carry implicit value assumptions. The process is often framed as universally beneficial, implying that (imposed) changes originating from Europe are not only desirable but inevitable for the progress of societies that adopt them (see Rogers and Svenning Reference Rogers and Svenning1969: 14–18). Yet, this idealization of Europeanization as a pathway to modernity and progress has not been without its detractors. The collocates resist, reject, oppose, and against highlight the resistance that Europeanization has encountered, both within and outside Europe. This suggests that far from being a smooth or uncontested process, Europeanization has been met with significant opposition, reflecting the agency of local actors in negotiating or resisting the imposition of European norms.

The processes of De-Europeanization and Re-Europeanization offer compelling historical examples of the contingent nature of Europeanization. For instance, the American colonies’ deliberate distancing from European traditions following independence (Mjøset Reference Mjøset1997) and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, which represented a form of forced de-Europeanization (Murphy Reference Murphy1990), illustrate how Europeanization can be reversed or suspended in response to geopolitical shifts. The collapse of Soviet influence in 1989 led to a phase of Re-Europeanization in East Germany and Eastern Europe, as these regions re-approached (West) Europe after decades of divergence. These cases underscore that Europeanization is not a linear or one-sided process, but one subject to reversal, adaptation, and re-negotiation based on the socio-political context.

Indeed, Europeanization is best understood as a dynamic and ongoing process, shaped by both external European influences and internal responses. This process involved gradual or rapid changes toward a particular perspective or direction. The success or failure of Europeanization has often depended on the willingness and capacity of local populations to engage with, adapt to, or resist European ideas. As such, Europeanization was rarely a complete or definitive outcome; rather, it operated as a framework for understanding incremental and sometimes contested changes that unfold over time. This is evident in both domestic and international arenas, where Europeanization is often presented as a process still in progress, continually shaping and reshaping social, cultural, and political landscapes.

In the post-Second World War era, Europeanization became increasingly tied to formalized policy domains, as indicated by the prominence of policy in the collocation data. This shift marks a transition from Europeanization as a cultural or intellectual project to a more structured, policy-driven transformation, particularly within the context of European integration. The term became closely associated with specific policy areas such as security, defence, and foreign relations, reflecting its centrality to the Euro-Atlantic integration process. This institutionalized understanding of Europeanization, embedded in governance structures and policymaking processes, underscores its role as a transformative force in shaping both national and international policies, further solidifying its position within contemporary intellectual discourse.

Europeanization: The Spatial Dimension and Thematic Narratives

The historical usage of Europeanization has encompassed a wide range of cultural, social, economic, and political transformations (Coman and Crespy Reference Coman and Crespy2014), unfolding across multiple geographical levels – global, continental, regional, territorial, and local. Earlier scholars understood Europeanization as a process of cultural, social, and political convergence, one that fosters deeper entanglements, interactions, and constraints within and beyond Europe (Beichelt et al. Reference Beichelt, Frysztacka, Weber and Worschech2019).

The temporal analysis of Europeanization identifies distinct thematic narratives and significant shifts in discourse intensity, which align with historical events and geopolitical developments. In the early twentieth century, Europeanization was outward-focused, with collocates such as India, Japan, and Africa and native, people, spread, rapid, great, and civil, highlighting European colonialism, imperialism, and interactions with Indigenous populations. This discourse emphasized the rapid expansion and perceived superiority of European civilization. However, after the Second World War, the Europeanization discourse shifted inward, focusing on Europe’s own processes of unification and cooperation. Collocates such as France, Germany, and territory reflected post-Second World War realignments, highlighting the Franco-German rivalry and the territorial disputes over Saarland. This exemplifies how Europeanization in the post-war era focused on overcoming past divisions and fostering political stability through integration. The Cold War period added another layer to the inward discourse of Europeanization, signifying both the enlargement of the Euro-Atlantic community and the growing political integration of Europe, particularly through organizations such as NATO and the European Community (EC). This contemporary inward phase of Europeanization of Europe has been driven by policy initiatives and was influenced more by American Wilsonian liberalism than European Enlightenment rationalism (Flockhart Reference Flockhart2010: 803).

Collocation and temporal analysis demonstrate the extensive scale of Europeanization spatial reach. The term Europeanization has been closely associated with physical, political, and cultural spaces, as evidenced by collocates such as earth, world, global, territory, and place (physical); empire, state, country, city, and community (political); and orient, east/ern, west/ern, and tribes (cultural). By the early twentieth century, many intellectuals posited that European civilization had (virtually) spread across the world, reaching every corner of the earth – from the Americas to Africa and Asia, and within Europe itself (see also Berndt Reference Berndt1959: 61). The Europeanization term has been used to characterize distinct phases in the history and development of nations such as Russia, America, Japan, China, India, Argentina, and various European countries, including Spain, Greece, Germany, France, and Britain. However, the extent, pace, and effects of Europeanization have varied considerably across regions (Gehler Reference Gehler2016: 145), unfolding unevenly and exhibiting different scales, speeds, and stages of development (Kohn Reference Kohn and Dickes1936).

Earlier academic discourse has used the term Europeanization to explore a wide range of racial, cultural, social, economic, political, and historical phenomena, employing the term to nearly all aspects of human life (see Figure 3). Based on burst detection analysis, the evolving academic discourse on Europeanization can be grouped into four major narratives, each associated with a dominant overarching theme that reflects broader socio-political and intellectual trends within specific historical periods. These historical narrative phases of Europeanization discourse include racial Europeanization, cultural Europeanization, socioeconomic Europeanization (see also Stavrianos Reference Stavrianos1966: 387–417), and political Europeanization.

Figure 2.

Key collocates of Europeanization within a five-word span.

Note: Figure 2 illustrates the most common and representative words within a five-word distance of Europeanization across the entire corpus dataset. The strength of the collocation (MI3) is depicted by the length of the link, with larger MI3 values indicating closer proximity to Europeanization. Darker shades represent a higher frequency and intensity of the collocation. The position of the collocates is shown relative to whether they appear to the left or right of Europeanization. For a complete list of collocates, refer to Table 2 in the Supplementary Material.

Figure 3.

Temporal representation of Europeanization collocates.

Note: In the temporal bar graph visualization, each burst collocate is represented as a horizontal bar. Each bar has a specific start and end date and is labelled on the left. The area of each bar indicates the intensity, which corresponds to the magnitude of the change in word frequency that triggered the burst.

Early Critique and Counter-narratives of Europeanization

Usage of Europeanization has encompassed a broad range of interconnected dimensions – racial, cultural, social, economic, political, as well as spatial and historical – each evolving through processes shaped by Europe’s internal developments and its interactions with the wider world. As Europeanization became broader in scope, critical reflections emerged, challenging its conceptual elusiveness, historical oversimplifications, and the ideological assumptions underpinning the term. These critiques both stemmed from and reinforced the central criticism of Eurocentrism inherent in the discourse on Europeanization.

The earliest usage of Europeanization has often been critiqued for its conceptual vagueness, particularly its lack of a precise analytical framework with clearly defined boundaries. One key challenge in conceptualizing Europeanization lies in the fluidity of the concept of ‘Europe’ itself (Leclercq Reference Leclercq1978). From its inception, Europeanization has been equated with terms such as Anglicization or Germanization, often confined to the colonial, imperial, or wartime actions of an individual (e.g., English, Portuguese, Dutch, French, and German) or group of (Western) European states or nations. However, reducing Europeanization to the sum of individual nations overlooks its broader collective dimension of Europe as a whole (Shepherd Reference Shepherd1919: 44) and its European-wide regimes of power, socioeconomic activities, and cultural meanings (Geyer Reference Geyer1989: 333). Thus, Europeanization, as an obstinately elusive concept, can only be understood within Europe’s ever-changing historical context, as attempts to define it often result in either overly simplistic statements or become entangled in its self-referential nature (Conway Reference Conway, Conway and Patel2010: 271-2).

Critiques also have highlighted the historical oversimplifications inherent in early discussions of Europeanization. Scholars argue that Europeanization has been reciprocal and multi-dimensional, rather than a straightforward, one-directional process of imposing European norms, institutions, and ideas onto non-European regions – whether through direct colonial rule or more subtle forms of political and economic influence. Shepherd (Reference Shepherd1919) noted that Europeanization involved not only the export of European models but also the adaptation and integration of elements from colonized societies back into Europe.Footnote ^j This mutual exchange complicates the narrative of Europeanization as a unidirectional process, revealing the significant ways in which norms and ideas circulated outward from Europe, inward into Europe, and within Europe itself (Mjøset Reference Mjøset1997; Flockhart Reference Flockhart2010). Political scientists and historians alike have emphasized this dialectic of Europeanization, as shaped by both internal and external influences, particularly in the context of European political transformations (see Geyer Reference Geyer1989; Morten Reference Kelstrup1990). The influence of non-European societies on Europe itself challenges the traditional notion of Europeanization as an uncontested, top-down process of norm diffusion (Kienetz Reference Kienetz1977).

In addition to these conceptual and historical critiques, the ideological and political dimensions of Europeanization have drawn criticism. Europeanization, far from being a value-free academic concept, has often functioned as a political tool, organizing knowledge and conveying moral values such as freedom or social equality (Berndt Reference Berndt1959: 68; Geyer Reference Geyer1989: 320). The tendency to equate Europeanization with other global processes such as modernization or civilization had reinforced the Eurocentric worldview, presenting Europe as the source of universally applicable and successful models of development. Such framing marginalized the contributions of non-European societies and overlooked their agency in shaping alternative trajectories of development (Ghosh and Kurian Reference Ghosh and Kurian1979: 157). Colonial-era biases are thereby perpetuated, implicitly presenting Western European forms of governance, socioeconomic structures, and cultural norms as ideal and globally desirable (Cracraft Reference Cracraft1982: 632). Furthermore, in the post-Second World War era, Europeanization served to justify Europe’s continued global influence. Under the guise of spreading democracy and liberal economic models, Europeanization often functioned as a form of soft cultural imperialism, reinforcing historical hierarchies and dependencies between Europe and non-European regions (Weryho Reference Weryho1994: 341–342). Equally important is the way in which Europeanization has obscured the darker aspects of European history. The concept has often overlooked the legacies of Colonialism, Fascism, and Nazism, which are integral to a comprehensive understanding of Europe’s past (Hirschhausen and Patel Reference Hirschhausen, Patel, Conway and Patel2010: 3). These historical realities are essential for interpreting Europeanization not merely as a force for progress and development, but also as one that has been marked by violence, exploitation, and systemic conflict. A more nuanced understanding of Europeanization would necessitate acknowledging these darker chapters and incorporating them into the broader narrative. Doing so reframes Europeanization not as an inevitable or unproblematic force for change, but as a contested process that includes elements of resistance, reversibility, and profound ethical ambiguities.

Concluding Remarks

This article contributes to the growing body of research on the ‘historical turn’ in Europeanization studies by providing a historiographical and quantitative review of the term’s intellectual usages within social-humanities discourse over the past century. Europeanization, as a historical and transdisciplinary concept, has permeated academic discussions long before and far beyond European Studies (Coman and Crespy Reference Coman and Crespy2014: 12; Featherstone Reference Featherstone, Featherstone and Radaelli2003). By exploring its historical evolution, multidimensionality, and earlier contestations, the study enriches our understanding and provides a deeper and quantified context for current research.

Our empirical analyses corroborate that Europeanization has a rich and nuanced history, with significant variations across time and space (Flockhart Reference Flockhart2010). From its early appearance in the nineteenth century, as an outward-focused cultural framework to its post-Second World War shift toward a more inward-looking political process, Europeanization reflects Europe’s changing self-conception and influence. Conceptually, it should be understood as a complex, long-term, and non-linear process of interactions and diffusion that operates across multiple dimensions – racial, cultural, social, economic, political, as well as spatial and historical.

The enduring relevance of the concept continues to drive interdisciplinary research, provoke academic debate, and offer critical insights into the complex processes of transformation associated with the idea of Europe. It (still) remains central to understanding Europe’s changing role and influence both within and outside the continent. As current debates around European identity, integration, and global influence persist, it is crucial to acknowledge that many of these discussions echo the same complexities and critiques that have historically shaped Europeanization. For both the historical and contemporary debates alike, Europeanization remains a multifaceted, multidirectional, and often contested process, with the potential for reversibility and adaptation (Greiner et al. Reference Greiner, Pichler, Vermeiren, Greiner, Pichler and Vermeiren2022: 15).

The conceptual fluidity of Europeanization has allowed for its broad application across various contexts, time, and space, contributing to its interdisciplinary appeal and enduring relevance in contemporary academic discourse.