In Sending (2015), the most socially oriented of those discussed, the author seeks to explain the phenomenon of governance authority by explaining the emergence of governors within hierarchically organized domains, or between superordinate/subordinate actors. The emphasis in this work is on the ability to garner recognition by actors operating in politically contentious spaces. While insightful and illuminating, this work assumes actor intentionality as being based in the quest for recognition. Yet, this assumes that a structure and specific logic presuppose the actors under examination. That structure is competition within hierarchically structured social spaces, and the quest for recognition within these spaces then drives certain, seemingly intuitive, behaviors based in rational choice decision-making.
This book seeks an alternative means that assumes nothing other than that private governors seek to be legitimated as rule makers, so that their rules are followed, and their agenda promoted. However, operating apart from state authority removes hierarchical logics from the equation and replaces them with asymmetric logics. The process by which power is generated thus transcends just instrumental exchange relationships based on clear power structures. Rather, it is replaced by dynamic social flows and the construction of meaning that emanates from strategic employment of discourse. Taking the social approach also takes the second element of the definition of private authority—legitimacy—more seriously. The current literature acknowledges the key role of legitimacy in private governance but simply attributes this “condition” to certain actors without theorizing the process by which this condition arises. Legitimacy, after all, is a struggle over values. Therefore, it would seem that a central role would be given to examining not just the values themselves but also the process through which they develop and are adopted, and/or how they shape possibilities. This book inquires about the role of ideas, identities, and practices in constructing and maintaining private authority. Avoiding these components of private authority forgoes a certain depth/thickness of description, leaving it short in its explanatory power. Thus, rather than contributing to the current body of literature that captures the static components of private authority by pre-assuming attributes, this book looks to analyze and explain the process by which actors arrive at private authority. Further, it aims to explore how, by navigating distinct discourses, private actors position themselves strategically among a diverse array of actors to construct, leverage, and maintain private authority. Such an approach requires a theoretical frame that considers more seriously the social component of private authority as it takes place in network society.
A Theory of Private Authority—the Centrality of Discourse
Before moving forward, it is important to first frame the process by which the book will explain how private authority functions. To tap into this sociological approach, this book will use discourse analysis. It will do so because it aims to understand “how, under what conditions, and for what reasons discourses are constructed, contested and changed,” and then the political effects of such on matters of private authority.70 Discourses give meaning to a social and physical reality, and it is thus through them that sense is made of the world. In other words, things encountered in the world have no meaning other than the meaning given to them through the process of social construction. This does not mean that the world only exists in peoples’ heads, but rather means that meaning is not fixed.71 It is fluid and variable, and thus relationships oftentimes change between actors and objects, as well as among actors, as distinct concepts and meanings evolve. This process results from fluctuating meanings that affect identities and interests.
In order to explain the emergence of actors into select social positions, then, it is necessary to understand discursive practices, as they “systematically form the identities of subjects and objects by articulating together a series of contingent signifying elements available in a discursive field.”72 Actors navigate a discursive field by constructing and molding concepts that then serve to place them in positions of authority, as discursive fields form around nodal points that serve as reference points wherein discourses bind together to form a coherent system of meaning.73 For an example that may bring clarity to this concept, one could look at the 1970s Save the Whales campaign undertaken by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Greenpeace. Through their campaign, Greenpeace was able to shape how the viewing public thought about whales and the practice of hunting whale, that is, whales as intelligent and worth saving and the practices of hunting them as inhumane, as well as what species should be considered whales, and so on.74 Greenpeace’s ability to develop a nodal point of whales as needing saving forced other actors operating in the whaling space to reorient their behaviors in relation to this concept. Greenpeace was outside of the whale industry, and broader society had little visibility over whaling practices. However, Greenpeace was able to navigate into a social position from which they could wield authority through the construction of a discourse that forced change in the industry. They connected the whaling industry and the regulatory bodies overseeing the industry with the environmental movement and concerned citizen networks to effect the change they desired.75 In such a capacity, network connectors operate between networks and draw authority from their ability to build connecting nodal points between social networks. To do this, network connectors must synthesize the operating codes of divergent discourses into a unifying discourse wherein they hold a position of authority.
Within networks, codes must be adaptable in order for connections to be made. Network connectors provide this service by connecting nodal points through discourse. However, as they do so, particularly those entering into a new discursive terrain, they begin to encounter challenges to their identity. As these actors try to make sense of these challenges, and adjust action accordingly, other actors who interpret and judge their actions evaluate them. Oftentimes, this brings into confrontation contending ideas and actions, which threaten the identity constructed by others operating within the same discursive terrain.76 This translates into issues of legitimacy. Returning to the example of Greenpeace, their tactics in bringing attention to whaling—for example, confronting and/or ramming whaling ships—proved controversial and forced supporting environmental groups to decide whether they would side with such tactics, and, thereby, risk isolating themselves from their support base, or condemn such tactics as extreme. Their legitimacy was in many ways tied to their decision on this matter.
As aspiring private governors operate apart from hierarchical state authority, they require the broadest support base possible—across networks. Thus, they must construct a discourse that is widely acceptable across networks. Yet, because this process inevitably challenges the identity of others (as it tries to connect wholly distinct actors operating on distinct codes), this process involves a great deal of complexity. Actors operating within discursive spaces that have their identity challenged by others are put in a position where delegitimating the other actors becomes essential for identity protection.77 Navigating this process—in order to construct a discourse that has broad appeal—is thus the most critical component of private authority. This book seeks to explain such by applying a discourse approach. The interpretive narrative gleaned through discourse analysis will serve as the descriptive background from which a causal story can then be told. Causal mechanisms will be identified via process tracing.78,79 The ideas and social structures constructed by network connectors, based on the movement of actors within the discursive terrain, have causal effects. These effects will be evaluated against empirical evidence. The theoretical approach presented here can generate additional hypotheses regarding private environmental governance, and the findings are generalizable enough to be useful to future studies examining private environmental governors across sectors.
Why Focus on the Environmental Sector?
The contours of any political sector are individually unique because they are patterned on the basis of relationships between actors operating within these sectors.80 Thus, to understand any particular development within a particular sector, it must be understood as a distinct social space—a space whose boundaries are in constant flux, as they