{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0341796875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.446540880503145, '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': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Borders of Orientalism: “Europeanization” in Hungary and Ukraine

In recent English-language social science, “Europeanization” has been used to refer to institutional transformation and it has also been treated as synonymous with processes related to the EU. The mainstream of the relevant literature does not distinguish between “Europeanization” as a process and “Europeanization” as a concept. The institutional/practical and the mythical/ideological dimensions of “Europeanization” are conflated in politics, which provides people with a social myth and a powerful tool for manipulation. We distinguish the two dimensions of “Europeanization” and use the cases of Ukraine and Hungary to illustrate that the concept of “Europeanization” becoming a myth may hinder the process or exist without the real process, thereby creating a simulacrum of “Europe”. We also show that advancing in the process (e.g. achieving EU membership) does not change the dynamics of the concept (Orientalism and its self-imposed varieties).