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