Читать книгу Speaking Private Authority - Roberto J. Flores - Страница 9
ОглавлениеPrivate Authority in Network Society
Introduction
There is broad consensus in the literature that private actors are playing a more important role in international politics than ever before.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Beyond merely being able to influence decision makers and rule makers, they are actually becoming rule makers themselves. However, there is little systematic and explanatory knowledge describing how they have been able to make that transition. This transition is one where private governors have moved into subject positions wherein they can make and enforce rules. Perhaps even less has been said on why some private actors, once in these positions, have become more widely accepted than other competing private actors. The understanding of these two processes, taken together, can present a much broader and significant understanding of private authority.
A brief overview of the process by which this book argues that private authority is generated is as follows: Private governors must first cultivate a discourse that places them in a subject position from where their exercising of private authority becomes possible, as a private actor wielding authority is something that does not materialize from structural or material conditions. Rather, it is something that originates as an idea that is then manifested through discourse. Discourse shapes the possibilities for acting within the world, for both the private actors and the political actors that surround them alike. A constitutive part of this process is meaning-making, and leveraging discourses to make sense of a dynamic, social world. Through this meaning-making process, the identities of those actors engaged in the discourse adapt to the emergent world around them. This is a critically important part of private authority that must be included as part of its narrative. For it is through this process that materially weak actors can regulate the behavior of the more powerful. In constructing nodal points around which other actors converge, weak actors give meaning to the actions of those acting around them. So, for example, if a private environmental governor constructs, or defines, what it means to be acting sustainably, then actors seeking to be perceived as acting sustainably must adjust their behavior accordingly. The private actor creates an implicit rule structure that others must follow to be considered to be acting sustainably—as acting sustainably is merely the manifestation of an idea that is being enacted by way of a set of constructed social practices. This manifestation is, again, not due to any material or structural condition external to the social relationship; rather, it is due to the social process by which meaning was made.
This book seeks to explain this process in two ways. First, by looking at the emergence of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), within their respective sectors (forests and fisheries), to show how they were able to strategically shape the discourse within these sectors and, in doing so, place themselves in subject positions from where they were legitimated as authorities. Second, by looking at how, from these positions, they expanded their base of authority by constructing sets of articulating practices that other actors then abided by. Cumulatively, through these discursive maneuverings, the FSC and the MSC, acting as network connectors, were able to force other actors to abide by their rules because doing so was intimately related to identity formation.
Part One: Framing the Argument within the Appropriate Macro Context
Social processes are co-constituted with the structural features within which they are embedded—thus framing them appropriately is critical. While the aforementioned approaches to private authority have been framed within the context of dyadic relationships, taking place within hierarchically structured political sectors, I argue that this frame no longer tells a sufficient part of the story, and thus an expanded understanding is necessary. The world is undergoing a rapid growth of decentralized forms of governance, based on networks and networking logics. This growth has opened up opportunity structures wherein actors can seek to exercise private authority. That is not to say that states are losing power (nor sovereignty) to non-state actors seeking to challenge them. Rather, it is to say that the technological advancements that developed symbiotically with the spread of capitalism have led to some fundamental changes of the global political system. One such change has been the increasing prominence of information as a source of power in relation to control over resources and material commodities. Whereas all three have always historically been sources of power, and remain so, they are weighted differently in the contemporary era (i.e., information is becoming a more important source of power relative to possession of material resources). This development, considered in parallel with the increasing capacity of non-state actors to generate, aggregate, and use information as a source of power, means that non-state actors are now better equipped to wield authority in select political sectors than ever before.
Another such change brought about by the proliferation of global capitalism is the breaking down of communication barriers, which, among various other factors, has imbued political behavior with an economic logic (based on efficiencies and instrumental utility).8 Under such conditions hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations have become less capable of resolving the issues they face due to the rigidity of their structures. Rigidity prevents an organization from efficiently managing and acting upon large sets of complex information. In response, organizations across the globe are moving toward greater decentralization. Under these increasingly decentralized forms, in an increasingly information-centric world, power and authority are becoming more distributed—and shared—for the sake of greater efficiency and effectiveness in achieving objectives. The political logic generated by this transition has come to challenge that of the old bureaucratic state-centric model, thus problematizing the state-centric frameworks that most contemporary work analyzing governance, power, and authority rely on. Such approaches give little consideration to the social dynamics of the current historical period through which governance takes place, which is that of networks.9 Therefore, to better understand any political sector of society today, this book argues that a contextualization and consideration of network logics is critical.
Network society—the moniker used by Manuel Castells (1996)—consists of networked social actors facilitating the flow of information, and by extension social forms of power, within and across networks. As the process of power transference here is as much about social connectivity as it is about any particular material status, it is important (in understanding and explaining the logics and processes within network society) to consider the role played by social positioning and identity. However, as social positioning and identity formation are dynamic processes that occur over time, and are socially constructed, any effort to explain them must consider their emergence. Or, better stated, the process by which private actors emerged into subject positions from where they could wield private authority must be considered. Once this process is adequately presented it should become clearer how these actors were able to arrive at these subject positions from where they could wield authority, as well as how they were able to garner and expand that authority once in that position.
Before moving forward, it is important to note that there does exist a healthy amount of literature in the field of international relations that uses social network analysis to explain a diverse array of political outcomes.10 More particularly, existing literature explains either how social positioning within a network determines certain constraints and opportunities, and the effects this has on performance, behavior, and/or beliefs, or how outcomes are explained by the structure of connections within the network. The tendency in these studies, however, is to treat networks independently, either as structures or as actors.11 As structures, networks are seen as interconnected nodes that influence the behavior of their members and produce consequential outcomes.12 As actors, they are seen as consciously designed organizations with clear membership boundaries that compete with markets and/or hierarchical bureaucracies.13 While both of these approaches are compelling, they tend to focus on how nodes within the network are shaped by the position, namely, how constraint and opportunity structures of the network shape the behavior of the node. Little consideration is given to how nodes can shape networks, and even less is given to how actors can link separate networks and, in the process, shape political sectors and outcomes. There is literature that does address the former (i.e., how nodes can shape networks); however, it remains in the minority.14,15,16,17,18 Nonetheless, it is important to address the critical contributions made by it. Emanating from this literature is the notion of the “political entrepreneur,” or agents able to affect political change through leveraging the social relations they have built within a network. Most prominently, they are able to do so by filling “structural holes” that exist within network structures.19 They do so through the development of innovative ideas that can reframe agendas and connect distinct nodes of the network.20 While these approaches take agency more seriously than the others previously discussed, they maintain their analytical gaze within networks. Yet, I argue that by remaining within networks such approaches do not promote agency enough. Networks function based on common operational codes (i.e., symbols, knowledge, language), and thus there tends to exist a general compatibility of goals and interests among actors within networks. Therefore, staying within networks limits the entrepreneurial actor to “within network” change. Approaching it as such omits the possibilities for change across entire sectors by actors that can bridge gaps or “structural holes” that exist in between completely separate networks. This book distinguishes itself then by attempting to examine and explain the possibilities for affecting political outcomes open to actors linking separate networks. While it will use the tools and concepts of social network analysis that have been built up through this rich literature, it will focus on actors operating in between networks. In these political spaces there is no common denominator in terms of language, function, and/or objectives between actors. Nor is there an established political order per se. Rather, the actors that operate in these spaces compete to define the norms and practices of these spaces through the development of discourses. By constructing discourses around which actors across networks can converge, they come to regulate the behavior of the actors surrounding them. This is regularized through the creation of rules that are then adopted by other actors, or, in other words, exercising private authority. Thus, these actors, and their discourses, become the focus of this book. As these actors strategically position themselves in these spaces in between powerful networks—unbound by either end—they can leverage this flow of power to translate social capital into authority. This book seeks to show how this process allows these actors to play an outsized role through their shaping of the identities of powerful players across networks—doing so in ways that seem, at least intuitively, beyond their capacity (particularly, in comparison of their resource bases to those of the networks they operate in between).
To explain this further, an apt starting point would be a discussion on networked governance. As previously discussed, private authority is an outgrowth of the increased networking of society. Therefore, before delving into a discussion on the social processes surrounding private authority, it is important to first expand upon the explanation of network society provided in the previous chapter.
Networked Governance
Barney (2004) aptly describes the process of properly contextualizing any social phenomenon as “gather[ing] the particularities of the historical situation and abstract from them a concept that would articulate the principle animating human practices and relationships.”21 That concept here is that of networks. In basic terms network society manifests when “the constitutive principles of networks . . . become the animating force of individual, social, economic and political life.”22 Manuel Castells (1996) describes the networked nature of society as “a historical trend [where] dominant functions and processes are increasingly organized around networks. Networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies, and the diffusion of networking logic substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power and culture.”23
The idea of a society coming to adopt the structure of a network speaks of three interrelated trends (which emanate from a vast array of sources): a move toward decentralizing power, the expansion of markets, and the rapid advancement of communication technology.24 There are several historical events and factors that have driven these trends and institutionalized their logics across society, including, most importantly: (1) the spread of global capitalism; (2) increasing globalization; (3) the end of the Cold War; (4) the increasing importance of information in the modern economy; (5) the rapid development of advanced technological processing capabilities; and so on. However, by no means does this insinuate determinism. Actors have agential qualities that they can employ to manipulate and shape these technological innovations as they see best fit. The point to be made here is simply that in a socially constructed society, agents and structures are mutually constituted, and uncovering the process by which these historical developments evolve, and the political outcomes that result, requires an understanding of the social forces driving the process. Yet, because explaining the process by which network society historically developed is beyond the scope of this book, I will rely on the work of other scholars who have argued extensively, clearly, and convincingly that the networking of society is taking place across political sectors.25,26,27,28,29,30,31
I will proceed through the remainder of this section by first providing a general overview of the fundamentals of network governance, as represented by the cited scholars. I will then show how these fundamentals are manifest within the environmental sector. After developing the social framework that guides this book, I will discuss the sources of authority within this networked sector, and further how network connectors can arise within this frame to generate private authority. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion on the special role played by identity.
Overview of Network Governance in Contemporary Global Politics
At the base of network society has been the economic transition from an industrial goods economy based on production to an economy based on knowledge and information. According to the OECD, “economies are increasingly based on knowledge and information. Knowledge is now recognized as the driver of productivity and economic growth, leading to a new focus on the role of information and technology.”32 They go on to explain that “[t]he existence of information technology and communications infrastructures gives a strong impetus to the process of codifying certain types of knowledge. All knowledge which can be codified and reduced to information can now be transmitted over long distances, across vast networks, at minimal cost.”33 This puts a premium on the control and management of information, as profit margins are becoming based more on efficiency and know-how, and less on control over physical/material resources. The economy is thus increasingly driven by information flows, across advanced communication technologies, rather than by mere material production capacity.34
The political transitions of network society mirror the economic transitions just discussed. However, instead of material production, it is political power that is transitioning to information and knowledge as opposed to material capacities. Within networks, power is a function of access to networks and inserting oneself in the pipeline of flows. Castells writes that “networks also act as gatekeepers. Inside the networks, new possibilities are relentlessly created—outside the networks, survival is increasingly difficult.”35 Thus, those actors that can insert themselves in between networks carve out a special place within the network society. Access to significant networks is crucial, and therefore nodes that can connect powerful networks hold special value. This is because nodes within (and in between) networks can hold different levels of power based on their function within the network.
These processes have led to a trend toward a decrease in states’ insistence on exercising authority both exclusively and hierarchically, even within their own borders, and even more particularly in the international arena. As a result, international institutions and organizations (or non-state actors more broadly) have grown exponentially to deal with the host of transnational and deterritorialized issues that have arisen—human rights and environmental issues, for example. In this arena, power and authority have been largely decentralized among an increasing number of non-state actors—included in these emergent actors are the private governors that are the focus of this book. Network governance is thus the representation of an underlying social structure that operates based off networks running on information and communication technologies. These networks “generate, process, and distribute information on the basis of the knowledge accumulated in the nodes of the networks.”36
Part Two: Framing the Argument within the Appropriate Micro Context
The Networked Environmental Sector
The environmental sector is information driven. Understanding the human impact on environmental change requires the monitoring of complex ecosystems with advanced technologies, and then further using those technologies to process and manage the information in a way that is conducive to achieving one’s objectives. Herein lies the power of environmental networks. The vast amounts of sorted data—only recently made available by the power of technological breakthrough—are only sortable and manageable through the networking of this political space, so much so that governments have proven ineffective in governing this space not just because of political differences but because they lack the specialized knowledge to regulate the space. They have more often sought out other actors for their expertise and technological prowess rather than manage environmental issues independently. In doing so, they opened up political space for a diversity of non-state actors to form separate networks aimed at affecting change in this space—apart from states. These non-state actors include environmental NGOs, private environmental governors, and industry.
Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) serve their constituencies by providing expertise and applying such to serve as stewards (or protectors) of the environment. To an eco-conscious citizenry, this brings them a great deal of symbolic power—as protectors of the environment. The power that this brings is not vested in only a select few actors but rather across the ENGO network. Within this network, like actors share information, collaborate on projects and operations, attend and observe the same summits and conferences, and oftentimes even share funding to achieve common objectives. Due to this overlap, and because they leverage advanced communication technologies to communicate, they are tightly connected into what is deemed by this book an environmental preservation network. Power flows through this network as the distinct nodes bring attention to their cause by processing complex data on environmental damage and then broadcasting these findings to mass audiences. For example, natural disasters, or, more so, man-made environmental disasters (i.e., oil spills, toxic chemical spills), present opportunities that must be seized upon by these groups to spread their message broadly and quickly. Yet not only are the primary and secondary effects of these disasters extremely difficult to interpret and project, but, moreover, local events are oftentimes undecipherable by global organizations. As a result, these groups branch out into cooperative relationships with other concerned actors, operating within networks to provide input, but also maintain local branches so as to understand local needs and problems. The authority of these groups comes from their ability to use the information attained to shape the public discourse in a way that influences the wider public toward preservation, and the practices that promote what they consider preservation. Yet this entire process is only possible through the technologies that facilitate mass communication.
Additionally, because of the dynamic nature of environmental events, this network is highly decentralized. Hierarchical structures cannot manage such complexity in an efficient manner, and therefore a decentralized network is the more effective form of political organization. Hierarchies require centralized command and control, with action items only being acted upon after several layers have authorized action. This cumbersome approach has worked historically because information was limited, and thus more easily controlled. However, in today’s information society, where technology has allowed for the rapid spread of highly complex and evolving information, such cumbersome approaches to dealing with information are highly limited. As complex information spreads rapidly and prompts distinct responses across vast networks, governing actors are better prepared to deal with responses through decentralizing power. This allows independent nodes of the network to formulate and tailor responses to evolving political dynamics.
It is much the same for industry. Industry services the material demands of modern consumer society. In such a capacity they are consistently pursuing new markets, resource bases, and more cost-effective methods for managing global supply chains. Due to the dynamic nature of such tasks, industry also relies on decentralized networks for more efficient operations. Even though the corporations themselves are hierarchically oriented in most cases, they have outsourced much of their functionality by entering into networks that provide essential services in the form of extensive supply chains. Each node in the network (or actor operating along the supply chain) provides a critical task, with many leveraging advanced technological processes, based on information processing, to carry out their specified tasks efficiently.
However, in carrying out such processes in the search for greater efficiencies, industry is being increasingly scrutinized over how they are impacting the environment. Such scrutiny can oftentimes affect their image. This image—in an information society that is networked and where information can be moved across broad networks instantaneously—is constantly under threat. A tarnished image under such circumstances can present an existential threat to an industrial actor. Therefore, image is a high priority for such actors.
While these two networks have similar interests—being seen as stewards over the environment—they have vastly different means by which they achieve that. ENGOs have a far more restrictive view of what forms of practice should be considered sustainable in light of a fragile environment, while industry has a far more liberal approach that focuses on profitability and competitiveness rather than any particular environmental exigencies. These positions will be explained in depth in chapter 3. The general point to be made here, however, is that these differences foreclose in many ways the possibility for cooperation. Therefore, the networks formed by these actors are separate, even though they exist within the same political sector. This reality generates conflict that must be settled politically. As states have pulled back from regulating in the global environmental sector, private governors attempting to serve as network connectors have emerged. These private actors seek to govern broadly, not merely to influence individualized outcomes. However, because these private actors lack the material power of states to enforce regulations, they must seek alternative means of regulation. They do so by first constructing a discourse that places them in positions of authority. From this position they then generate authority in two key ways: First, they construct a discourse around which actors across networks can converge. This gives them the authority to establish what is considered acceptable and what is not, and ultimately to construct rules to enforce these behavioral requirements. Second, they can transfer symbolic power across networks. In the cases under examination in this book, this symbolic power comes in the form of transferring the symbol of environmental NGOs as protectors of the environment to industrial actors in the form of an eco-label. In reverse order, it provides ENGOs symbolic power as they are seen as being effective at changing the behavior of industrial actors toward more sustainable outcomes.
Without network connectors such transfers of symbolic power would not be possible. The extensive organizational structures, specialized expertise, and overall capacity necessary to provide this function (at scale) are beyond the scope of individual actors within each of these separate networks. Moreover, the two sides of the network operate and speak in distinct codes, which makes the establishment of any permanent connection highly improbable. This disconnect presents network connectors with an opportunity to step in and play an essential role toward establishing and maintaining this connection. Network connectors thus not only serve as conduits of information, proving adaptable on both ends, but also serve as bridges for the transfer of identity. By “connecting” the codes of the two opposing sides they allow for the transfer of identity. They construct a common language for both sides to engage in—thus enabling both sides to present themselves in an image that appeals to a wider audience.
Sources of Authority in Networked Governance
In this age, information has more power than ever before. Mass communication now constitutes the public space and presents those that can capture the public attention with an opportunity for power and authority.37 Communication takes place not between individuals and firms, but between institutions and society at large.38 It is thus in this space that discourses are constructed by organizations that shape the public imagination, and images and identities are constituted by the process. It is for this reason that understanding the structure of social networks and the positioning of actors within them becomes so crucial. The social structure of the network, and the position of each actor within the network, creates a certain opportunity structure.39,40,41,42 Depending on the number and quality of connections, trust among actors, obligations of support, and so on, actors in networks will be more or less effective at accomplishing their goals.43 Therefore, it is not just material capital or traditional power structures that can be leveraged by networked actors to affect outcomes, but just as much so social capital.44 Core to this social capital is the construction and generation of trust and legitimacy.45,46 Developing these has as much to do with the network of contacts any given actor(s) has as with the strategic positioning of that actor with that network of contacts. Both can lead to a competitive advantage.
Yet, as networks tend to consist of actors of similar identities that congregate around discursive nodal points, they bring together those with similar interests.47 As a result, trust and legitimacy tend to be high in these insular networks, which translates into a wide diffusion of social capital.48 In other words, similar actors, with similar identities, tend to trust one another, and legitimacy is given without great difficulty. Information tends to flow freely among these actors, and there is little challenge to that common identity they all hold. Yet in an information society, where competing networks develop that can challenge social identity, or can challenge the legitimacy of competing networks, social capital comes at a premium. Take the case of the ENGO Greenpeace. Greenpeace operates as a decentralized organization within a greater environmental NGO network. The organizations in this network have similar goals, operate on similar premises, as well as have similar identities. Social capital is diffuse within this network, and although all the organizations in the network do not always agree on common strategies, they all have a common goal—the preservation of the environment. Additionally, they all congregate around common discursive nodal points—identified in the chapter 3 as the preservation discourse, and to a lesser extent the sustainable development discourse. Entrenched within the ENGO network, and using the tools provided by networked governance, Greenpeace tended to focus on direct action campaigns that aimed at grabbing media attention; leveraging its social capital to challenge industrial actors, states, and international institutions that possess greater amounts of material power. By using the social capital provided by modern communications technology, along with the information processing technology that allows them to make science-based arguments, Greenpeace has revolutionized the environmental space. In their ability to attract widespread media attention they were able to raise public awareness and direct unwanted publicity on industrial actors targeted by their actions. Thus, it was only through Greenpeace’s position within a highly decentralized network of environmental organizations, and their leveraging of the power of advanced communication and information technologies, that they were able to shape outcomes.49 Therefore, understanding these dynamics of the network is important.
Greenpeace, however, has only made limited efforts at private authority (some of which will be discussed in the empirical chapters). Rather, it primarily aims to wield influence. Greenpeace’s tactics are targeted at certain actors behaving in certain ways, but they are not rule makers. They do not create regulatory systems that can institutionalize specific behaviors within a domain; they simply cannot generate sufficient social capital through their network connections to do so. This is because they have distinct goals, a distinct identity, and operate within the logic of a distinctive discourse, thus they are limited primarily to the resources of the environmental network. They are not sufficiently connected to the industrial network, or other sectoral networks for that matter, to harness the power of multiple networks to their purposes. For Greenpeace, significant gaps exist because the distinctions between networks prevent the sufficient flow of the trust and legitimacy necessary to generate authority. An actor that can bridge this gap, however, can generate sufficient authority to govern. For it is their ability to shape behaviors through meaning-making that then allows them to facilitate the transfer of information, and the flow of power, that grants them the requisite authority to govern. I deem these actors network connectors.
Network Connectors
Network connectors facilitate this flow of information and power across networks by being able to connect competing discourses. In doing so, they not only build trust and confidence across networks but are able to shape discourses, which includes behaviors and practices. This ability to shape ways of being through the creative implementation of language designates certain practices as acceptable, and it is essentially this process that I consider the core component of private authority. The most successful private governors must be network connectors, because outside of their own networks they do not possess sufficient material or social capital to enforce rules. These network connectors are essential to the flow of information between disconnected networks, which when connected facilitate the flow, and then the amplification, of power.
Network connectors take advantage of filling structural gaps between networks to garner the authority required to govern. Since they actively seek out these positions to capture the power generated by the position, to then translate it into authority, it is important to keep in mind that they achieve such subject positions as a result of their entrepreneurial behavior. As social entrepreneurs, they do not simply rest on the influence given them by their position within an established network; rather, they leverage the power that can be generated by shaping the space in between networks to gain authority (as opposed to settling for influence). As their connection is crucial for the two combined networks, now that both have experienced the benefits accorded by maintaining this connection, the network connector can broker between the two to build legitimacy—and by extension social value and later authority.50 They have the option of strengthening the bond of the network, or of weakening it, it is their choice, and this choice is based on what brings strategic value to them and to their mission. An actor arriving at a position in between networks—serving as a connector—arrives there through strategic means—seeking to secure and maintain a productive relationship in order to solidify their position. They do not arrive there because they simply possess any particular ideal-type attribute (such as moral legitimacy, for example) that has been imbued upon them. Therefore, it can be said that attributes are correlated to social positioning rather than vice versa. This point is emphasized in Burt (2009):
Causation lies in the intersection of relations. [Gaps between networks] can have different effects for [actors] with different attributes or for organizations of different kinds, but that is because the attributes and organizational forms are correlated with different positions in social structure. The manner in which a [network gap] is an entrepreneurial opportunity for information and control benefits is the bedrock explanation that carries across player attributes, populations and time.51
Under such premises, understanding network connectors does not require framing actors in terms of what they can provide in practical or moral terms to another actor. Rather, it is about their navigation to a place where they can gain from the benefits provided through connecting networks. Being able to find that middle ground makes the network connector the arbiter of common meaning to be found between competing networks, as well as a conduit for identity transference.
The Undertheorized Role of Identity
In network society, meaning is organized around identity. How actors are portrayed to the public plays a significant role in any given actors’ ability to achieve its objectives. Therefore, being able to shape discourses so that one’s identity is then validated in the eyes of the public is critical to success. As a result, constructing and shaping meanings in discourse are crucial to the process of governing, and important sources of authority as well. Network connectors can transfer identity between networks so that the best of each can be attributed to the other. For example, in the environmental sector, the preservation principles that animate the environmental movement can be transferred across networks to industry by a network connector (the FSC, for example). This is done in the form of a symbol or logo. By putting the logo of the FSC on industrial outputs, the identity of the environmental movement is transitioned across networks to industrial products. In return, the FSC gains the identity of an actor that is able to shape the practices of industry toward greater sustainability.
This process is a reflection of what Castells (1997) called project identity.52 Project identity is a process wherein social actors utilize available cultural materials in order to build a new identity that redefines their purpose and position in society. In pursuing such, they are fundamentally seeking to transform the structure of society. This purposive behavior is clear in network connectors because they seek to stake out positions in grey areas between networks. Filling this void requires an actor willing to operate in undeveloped areas wherein there is no connecting logic. In order to connect the networks, then, social actors must create connecting discourses. It is within these discourses that meaning is made as to what is considered acceptable to the two networks, yet in a way that does not threaten or challenge the identity of either network so as to prevent the connection.
The ability to transfer identity in this way is manifest through the control of information. In the case under discussion, for example, the information being controlled can be determined by questioning what is it that defines one as acting sustainably? In the environmental sector, information and control over the discourse is critical because it can be used to shape the mind of the consumer and the concerned citizen over what this means. The networks on both sides of the environmental sector are locked in a struggle to shape the minds of citizens across the globe on this topic. The environmental network needs to cultivate its image as a protector of the environment, or an environmental watchdog, while not seeming unreasonable in its demands. On the other side, industry requires that an increasingly eco-conscious consumer base accept their operational approaches as being sustainable while still operating efficiently within competitive markets. Both sides thus require some compromise, or navigation to a middle social position. Any actor that can construct such a middle position would derive unto themselves great social power. It is in situations such as these, then, that network connectors can insert themselves with great political effect. From such a position network connectors can stabilize identities through the building of interests and values between networks that can then be translated by those networks into power and authority. After all, it is those who code the world in an intelligible and lasting way that gain the authority to govern over its parts.
A Look at the Central Role of Discourse in Explaining Private Authority
A look at discourses shifts the starting point of analysis away from the meanings that social or material facts hold for pre-constituted actors to the way in which certain discourses construct the world for actors operating within it.53 Discourses shape possibilities for acting within the world, and thus, by extension, the identities of relevant political actors. As stated in Howarth (2009), “[social practices] systematically form the identities of subjects and objects by articulating together a series of contingent signifying elements available in a discursive field.”54 Private authority is generated by articulations.55 Articulations are not just utterances but rather any action taken to establish oneself into a position from where objectives can be accomplished. They serve the purpose of shaping relationships between actors that modify their identities in a way favorable to the actor that enacts the articulation(s). Yet, in order to fully understand the power of such articulations, made by actors operating in between networks (where there does not exist a clearly articulated discourse by which behavior is regulated), it is important to first understand the discourses spoken by the distinct networks. As the focus of this book is on environmental political sectors, the distinct discourses shaping this sector must be identified. I identify three broad environmental discourses: (1) the preservation discourse, reflecting the position of ENGOs; (2) the sustainable development discourse, reflecting a middle position wherein meanings were being heavily contested; and (3) the environmental economism discourse, reflecting the position advocated by industry.
Each of these component discourses shapes the scope of acceptable actor behavior to relevant actors because encoded in it are certain social rules. These rules are socially constructed and are followed because failure to do so threatens not only one’s interests but, more importantly, one’s own identity. Such an approach is grounded in what Laclau and Mouffe (1985) deemed nodal points.56 These points are “privileged signifiers,” or reference points wherein discourses can bind together to form a coherent system of meaning.57 Actors position themselves around these nodal points to make meaning of the world, and of their role in that world. Their movement around these nodal points corresponds to shifting identities. These movements can be identified by shifts in their discourse, and discursive practices. As actors navigate this terrain, however, they are constantly challenging the position and identity of other actors as well. This is indicative of the open-ended nature of any social system, including networks. These systems are perpetually open to challenge and reformulation. Actors are constantly striving for their closure, to ward off challenge, and entrench themselves in positions of authority. This invariably leads them to create discourses filled with rhetorical impossibilities and contradictions. As these actors strive to close social systems of signification, to entrench themselves and maintain the status quo, they must try to close out challenges to constructed meanings.58
To account for this process, Laclau and Mouffe present the concept of empty signifiers. There is always a striving toward an impossible ideal. Empty signifiers are the discursive forms such strivings represent. An example coming from the cases examined in this book are the articulations that formed the concept of sustainable development. Such an ideal is impossible because it is all-encompassing. Sustainable development promises to deliver environmental conservation to all parties willing to abide by its essence, essentially representing a commitment to protect sovereignty, while redistributing wealth from the North to the South, and conserving the environment and promoting continued economic growth and free-market capitalism. Through the emptiness of such a concept, certain parties have been able to control meanings and connotations associated with the environmental movement. Under this construct, competing actors present a diverse array of political objectives aimed at fulfilling this impossible task in order to seize the discourse, and the many forms of practice that result from it.59 The fixing of meaning or the filling of the signifier essentially represents the outcome of a political struggle. This process not only creates meaning but also negates alternative interpretations as well. This signals the victory of a particular configuration of meanings and social relations and is reflective of power in action.60,61,62
It is by this process that private governors can generate private authority. Private authority is not a commodity, nor some material-type attribute possessed; it is manifest by the process of creating nodal points around which other actors come to identify and relate themselves. This places the actor constructing the discourse into a central social position that forces other actors to consider them while in the process of identity formation (or reformulation). It is the discourse that demands rule following from the governed, as well as consideration from those on the other end supporting the private governor. For ignoring or discrediting the private governor threatens one’s own identity. Additionally, I argue that it is, in fact, this process that distinguishes actors in terms of success.63 New ideas must take hold in pre-constituted discursive terrain, as there must be some preexistent reference for some actors to make sense of the emergent phenomenon, which in this case is private governance.64 These preexisting references represent the boundaries that are being challenged by emerging actors. They define what can and what cannot be said, and the ability of an actor to challenge those strategically—by taking a middle position between networks—is what I argue explains why the ideas put forward by network connectors are more effective than others. The sustainable development discourse strategically deployed by the FSC/MSC captured the popular imagination not due to randomized structural or material variables, but rather because these private governors were able to connect two distinct discourses spoken by sectoral actors through the creation of a unifying nodal point. The two discourses represented the two separate networks—the environmental movement speaking a preservation discourse and industry speaking an environmental economism discourse. Yet the FSC/MSC were able to recast these two separate discourses, each of which represented sustainability in drastically different terms, into a nodal point that morphed the idea of preserving the environment with that of exploiting it. They did this by speaking of the two as being not mutually exclusive but, rather, complimentary—through reimagined management practices. The ability of a materially weak actor to shape the field in this way is where private authority truly lies. For the adoption of rules is contingent upon actors acknowledging and conforming to the discourse being spoken (or enacted). The re-constituted discourse does not persuade actors; rather, it forces actors to talk and act in a certain way because otherwise they will be perceived as being unreasonable or as acting abnormally.65
In this way, identity is constructed in relation to the discourse controlled by the private governor. This allows the less powerful actor to enforce rules that may not suit the interests of those to whom the rules are being applied. Furthermore, this process works both ways. Where the traditional literature remains focused on dyadic relations between the private governor and those to whom rules are being directly applied, this approach broadens the scope of actors that are part of the private authority process. Private authority is much more than a two-way relationship. It encompasses a broad range of relationships within the context of networks.
It is important to note before moving forward that such a broad conceptualization of private authority holds the risk of being misinterpreted as a conflation between private authority and influence. Yet this broad approach can stay true to the definition of private authority—as rules being enforced upon the governed—because it identifies the social rules that are spoken or enshrined as part of practice by the governors. I reference here the implicit rules that are part of the FSC/MSC sustainable management code—namely, that ENGOs follow certain implicit rules that include no boycotts or protests against industrial actors that were members of each of the organizations. Such instances will be identified in the case studies and rules will be clearly identified as part of the discourse throughout the project.
Conclusion
In order to explain private authority, then, there are a couple of tasks that need to be completed. First, there must be a clear understanding of the discourses that define acceptable behavior within certain networks. These are the nodal points around which actors’ identities and interests converge. Chapter 3 will examine and outline the competing discourses that defined the overall environmental sector in order to provide a general frame from where the research proposed by this book can be conducted. Second, in order to understand the emergence of actors into subject positions from where they can wield private authority it is critical to first identify the demarcating lines between networks. This book executes that task by separating the networks based on the discourses they speak. By using a map of the discursive terrain, the empirical chapters will examine “how” private actors came to fill subject positions from where they could even be considered as private governors. Then, it will look to explain “why,” once in these positions, some actors are able to proliferate more rapidly than others. Before moving to an explanation of the development and manifestation of the distinct discourses, I find it important to provide a brief overview of the analytical framework/methodological approach guiding this book. As there are multiple components, and a number of competing variables to this project, a brief of overview of the framework used to treat these elements will help to place the rest of the book in the appropriate context.
NOTES
1. Haas, P.M. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46, no. 01 (1992): 1–35.
2. Strange, S. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
3. Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
4. Barnett, M. N. and Finnemore, M. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004.
5. Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. “Non-state Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention?” in Kirton, J. and Trebilcock, M., eds., Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment and Social Cohesion in Global Governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2004: 33–63.
6. Lake, D. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.
7. Green, J. F. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013: 26.
8. Several authors have made the more expansive argument for these changes. I am not trying to expand upon these but rather borrow a frame that presents a more accurate context for the social processes that explain private authority. Therefore, I will not expend space recounting these arguments here. For a number of examples discussing this, see: Castells 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2006; Hajer and Hendrik, 2003; Barney, 2004; Bovaird, 2005; Castells and Cardoso, 2006; Benkler, 2006; Knoke, 2012; Van Dijk, 2012; Krieger and Belliger, 2014.
9. For such examples see: Friedman, 1990; Haas 1992; Barnett and Finnemore, 2004; Cashore, Auld and Newsom 2004; Pattberg, 2005; Avant, Finnemore and Sell, 2010; Risse, 2012; Auld, 2014; Green, 2014; Moog, Spicer and Böhm, 2014.
10. For an illustrative example see: Burt, R. S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, 2009; Kahler, M. Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009; Carpenter, C. and Drezner, D. W. “International Relations 2.0: The Implications of New Media for an Old Profession1.” International Studies Perspectives 11, no. 3 (2010): 255–272; Wong, W. H. Internal Affairs: How the Structure of NGOs Transforms Human Rights. Cornell University Press, 2012; Lupu, Y. and Voeten, E. “Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights.” British Journal of Political Science 42, no. 02 (2012): 413–439; Oatley, T., Winecoff, W. K., Pennock, A., and Danzman, S. B. “The Political Economy of Global Finance: A Network Model.” Perspectives on Politics 11, no. 01 (2013): 133–153.
11. Kahler. Networked Politics, 4–7.
12. Ibid., 4–7.
13. Kahler. Networked Politics, 4–7.
14. Knoke, D. and J.H. Kuklinski. Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982.
15. Emirbayer, M. and J. Goodwin. “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency.” American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 6 (1994): 1141–1154.
16. Gargiulo, M. and M. Benassi. “Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital.” Organization Science 11, no. 2 (2000): 183–196.
17. Burt. Structural Holes.
18. Goddard, S. E. “Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics.” International Theory 1, no. 2 (2009): 249–281.
19. Particularly in the work of Burt. Structural Holes; Goddard, “Brokering Change.”
20. Particularly in the work of Burt. Structural Holes; Goddard, “Brokering Change.”
21. As Barney discusses Weber’s (1958) expectations as a social scientist—Barney, D. The Network Society. Vol. 2. Polity, 2004: 1–2.
22. Barney. The Network Society, 2.
23. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1996: 469.
24. Barney. The Network Society, 26–32.
25. Castells, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2006.
26. Hajer, M. A. and Hendrick, W. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
27. Barney. The Network Society.
28. Bovaird, T. “Public Governance: Balancing Stakeholder Power in a Network Society.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 71, no. 2 (2005): 217–228.
29. Knoke, D. Economic Networks. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
30. Van Dijk, J. The Network Society. Sage Publications, 2012.
31. Krieger and Belliger. Interpreting Networks.
32. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Knowledge-Based Economy. OECD Publications: Paris, 1996: 3.
33. OECD. The Knowledge-Based Economy, 3.
34. Castells. The Rise of the Network Society, 1996: 62; Barney. The Network Society, 28.
35. Castells The Rise of the Network Society, 1996: 171.
36. Castells, M. and Cardoso, G., eds. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006: 7.
37. Castells and Cardoso. The Network Society, 12.
38. Castells and Cardoso. The Network Society.
39. Castells, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2006.
40. Barney. The Network Society.
41. Bovaird, T. “Public Governance: Balancing Stakeholder Power in a Network Society.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 71, no. 2 (2005): 217–228.
42. Castells and Cardoso. The Network Society.
43. Castells 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2006.
44. Epstein, C. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-whaling Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
45. Epstein, The Power of Words in International Relations.
46. Sending, O. J. The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015.
47. Kahler. Networked Politics.
48. Ibid.
49. The example provided was merely to make the point of networks and communication technology. Greenpeace is not a network bridger, nor does it wield private authority. Rather, the example given is one of influence. But it served as a useful example for the point that needed to be made.
50. Burt. Structural Holes, 79.
51. Burt. Structural Holes, 79.
52. Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society: The Power of Identity. Vol. II. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1997: 8.
53. Howarth, David. “Power, Discourse and Policy: Articulating a Hegemonic Approach to Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 3 (2009): 309–335.
54. Howarth, “Power, Discourse and Policy,” 7.
55. The idea of “articulations” was borrowed from the discourse approached presented in: Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985.
56. Howarth, “Power, Discourse and Policy,” 8–9.
57. Howarth, “Power, Discourse and Policy,” 8–9.
58. Ibid., 8–9.
59. Ibid., 8–9.
60. Laclau and Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.
61. Howarth, D. R., Norval, A. J., and Stavrakakis, Y. Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies, and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.
62. Epstein. The Power of Words in International Relations; as found in Abdelal, R., Blyth, M. Constructing the International Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2010: 185.
63. Success in this book is defined simply as proliferation of the private governance program under consideration. Proliferation implicates adoption and acceptance of the imposing discourse, and thus, by extension, shaping behavior in desired ways.
64. Epstein, The Power of Words in International Relations; as found in Abdelal and Blyth, Constructing the International Economy, 183.
65. Epstein, The Power of Words in International Relations; as found in Abdelal and Blyth Constructing the International Economy, 185.
