Speaking Private Authority. Roberto J. Flores

Approaching the subject in this way treats private authority as a finished good or commodity that is exchanged among actors based on utility calculations. In other words, it treats private authority as only being viable in circumstances where actors find a clear benefit in adapting their practices to meet the guidelines established by private authority schemes. While this approach can do well at explaining private authority under clearly delineated structures of power, at set points in time where decision-making calculations are evident, it does not do well at explaining the phenomenon in a complex and dynamic world where power flows dynamically and remains in constant flux. As I argue that global power is increasingly becoming more dynamic and fluid, as its flows across global networks, I find it essential then to relook at how private authority is explained within such a context.

      I argue that private authority in the contemporary world is an outgrowth of what Manuel Castells calls network society.³⁹ Network society is a social structure that is based on networks that rely on advanced communication technologies for organization and operation.⁴⁰ These networks constitute the new “social morphology” of the current era, as they are based on a “networking logic that substantially modifies the operation and outcomes in processes of production, experience, power and culture.”⁴¹ Furthermore, for Castells, “networks are open structures, able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able to communicate within the network, namely as long as they share the same communication codes.”⁴² Thus, in dynamic societies that revolve around information flows—as does modern society today—switches connecting the networks are privileged instruments because they serve as key facilitators of the flow of power. In their role as switches, wherein they translate interoperating codes between networks, they become the “fundamental sources in shaping, guiding and misguiding societies.”⁴³ This is because in network society—unlike in societies based on bounded groups in hierarchical structures—power and authority are dynamic. They are in constant flux, based in transmission flows rather than in the traditional forms that tend to be used to frame contemporary problems of global governance.⁴⁴ Therefore, as the global political system continues to disperse power across the system—away from the traditional forms—studying it within this updated context is important. Here, then, I study private authority in the context of networks.⁴⁵

      This book aims to make three specific contributions by adopting this approach. First, it offers an updated framework for contextualizing private authority: a framework that considers more closely the multidirectional flow of power across hubs, spokes, and nodes, in parallel with the strictly vertical movement of power that has been the focus of most other studies on the topic of private authority. The approach adopted in this book allows for a more expansive conceptualization of power flows, which in turn opens up a more analytical space within which to examine social processes. However, in order to examine private authority in such a way—through its constituent social parts—it is important to properly dissect the network into digestible components. This can be difficult because of the constant contestation of meanings that takes place within political spaces. As meanings are never fixed but are constantly evolving, it is, therefore, particularly difficult to place actors within fixed locations in order to study them. Therefore, to get at the logics that drive distinct sectors and fields, and to place actors within them, this book maps out certain political spaces by taking a historical look at how competing actors emerged and socially constructed these spaces through the strategic leveraging of distinct discourses. The key element will be to show how certain actors were able to define key sectoral concepts that other actors then used as a standard to identify and position themselves within that respective sector. However, in order to define a complex and contested political space effectively, one needs a methodological tool that is versatile and that can disentangle the social variables that underlie the problem set. This book adopts discourse analysis as the primary tool for achieving this objective. Discourse analysis allows the investigator to organize political spaces by positioning actors around important discursive concepts and demonstrate relational changes between actors over time—as information flows changed meanings and, by extension, identities, actors’ positions also changed.

      Second, and following from the first, this book introduces a newly conceptualized type of private actor—a governing body apart from the states—identified as a network connector. Network connectors are private governors that have actively sought out a subject position that situates them as nodes in between networks. These actors are granted distinct forms of authority based on their ability to position themselves to connect networks, and through this, be able to transfer distinct forms of power across those networks. In placing themselves there, positionally, they are able to retain certain elements of that power for their own use. However, in order to tap into this power these actors must construct interoperating codes, or key concepts that others can then organize themselves around without disassociating themselves from their adapted identity. For it is only through these codes (or concepts) that actors across distinct networks can be connected, and through which authority can then flow. Upon successfully constructing such codes, these actors come to operate as nodes. Yet, from in between networks, these private actors are operating apart from any clear source of traditional, hierarchical authority, and thus are ideal subjects of inquiry. It is difficult to conceive of how private actors could possibly exert true authority under the traditional, hierarchical construct. Relying on explanations limited to the manipulation of incentive structures excessively narrows down the scope of explanation. By considering the network perspective, it opens the door to better understanding and explaining private authority, through analysis of the struggles private actors undergo to gain and maintain authority by way of their social positions; particularly those operating in between networks. While private governors are often granted distinct forms of authority, they are not granted any authority without stipulation. As a result, they are constantly forced to balance networks (or coalitions) in order to maintain whatever authority they may possess. Focusing on network connectors—as they have explicitly staked out positions in between networks—will bring visibility to the mechanics underlying this social process. After all, it is their ability to connect distinct networks that garners them the authority to govern. Examining social interactions within these spaces will reveal a more nuanced understanding of the messy politics that is private governance in networked society. It will also provide insight into the full spectrum of strategic possibilities for private governors, and the interplay of different sources of authority.

      Third, it leverages the tools of discourse analysis in order to unlock the social foundations of the phenomenon that is private authority. The discourse approach adopted here aims at explaining how actors respond to changing meaning in the world through a thick description that “encompasses not only things said but also things done, that is, practices envisaged as meaningful actions.”⁴⁶ Also, this thick discourse approach provides a way for understanding how actors “construct the world around them, the possibilities for acting within it, and their own identities.”⁴⁷ As discussed in Castells (2000), in an increasingly globalized world of interconnecting networks, identity becomes the source of social meaning. Actors organize their meaning “not around what they do but on the basis of what they are, or believe they are.”⁴⁸ Yet operating within the seams of competing networks requires identity balancing or maintaining the integrity of one’s own identity while trying to mold others toward a common purpose. Thus, a more thorough investigation of identity will be a critical component of this book’s contribution. Doing so moves it beyond imposing assumed meaning on material facts and allows for a more thorough examination of how private actors navigate between competing discourses in strategic pursuit of authority.

      Approaching the book in this way allows for an explanation of not only the multiple loci of authority that exist in environmental politics (and global politics more generally) but also how that authority dynamically flows. While the focus of the book will be on network connectors, it considers actors that operate in other parts of the network as well. Thus, while focused on one particular type of actor, it also considers the experiences of a broad array of actors dispersed across networks and their interactions in both the private and the public realm.

      Framing the Concept of Private Authority

      In order to examine the nature of private authority in environmental governance, it is important to first understand what private authority