{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022139160437032776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031627372052903968, 'mean_word_length': 5.325454545454545, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Humor & Nonviolent Struggle in Serbia. By Janjira Sombatpoonsiri. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2015. xvii, 264 pp. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. Chronology. Index. Tables. $44.95, hard bound.

Euroscepticism operates at different levels of analysis. For example, Euroscepticism may reflect the opinion and attitudes of individuals, social groups, political parties, civil society, or of a whole country about the European Union. The study of Euroscepticism has included mainly two specific areas: party-based Euroscepticism and public Euroscepticism. What the book under review has successfully attempted to articulate is that in addition to party systems and public opinion there is a need to focus on civil society, as non-party actors have an important function in shaping the general EU discourse. As the author clearly demonstrates, analysis of civil society-based Euroscepticism is vital to the diagnosis of the confidence crisis faced by the European Union. By focusing on Turkey’s candidacy to the EU, the on-going struggles between different political camps in Turkey, and the general western discourse, the author investigates the construction of Eurosceptic discourses in civil society and shows that civil society-based argumentative strategies are very influential on the EU. Although different civil society entities have different opinions about the EU, the leadership is considered to be crucial and the most important locus where discursive strategies are determined. The author argues that there are multiple Eurosceptical argumentation strategies in the discourses in Turkey, varying according to ideological background and proor anti-AKP (Justice and Development Party) positioning. The book is well-written and well-structured. The introductory chapter identifies the main goals of the project and describes the way in which those goals will be attained. The literature review and the theoretical approach are presented in the second chapter. After summarizing the current state of both the theoretical and case-study research on Euroscepticism, Occidentalism and the Gramscian view of civil society are presented as the theoretical foundations of the study. The book includes a very strong and well-developed methodology that is laid out in the third chapter, where the research design is also presented and the case selection is justified. Multiple methodological tools are used for collecting data that are then categorized based on Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA); survey results are evaluated via elements of Content Discourse Analysis (CDA). Through interviews, the empirical part of the study sets out the ways in which Europe and the EU are systematically constructed. The hypotheses are applied to the Turkish case. The conclusion brings together the arguments of the preceding chapters, signifying new arguments that place the empirical findings in relation to the broader conceptual debates on Euroscepticism. This is an excellent book. Taking into account the fact that Euroscepticism takes several forms and its sources differ among European countries, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of the concept. Hence, it provides a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the study of Euroscepticism. The book would be of great interest to scholars and practitioners interested in the EU, as well as to graduate students attending general or specific courses on European politics and European integration.