Language, Power, and Politics: Revisiting the Symbolic Challenge of Movements1 Dominique Masson Carleton University There certainly has been a sea change in social movement theory since McCarthy and Zald (1977) bluntly dismissed the symbolic dimension ofmovement activity from the establishment ofthe Resource Mobilization (RM) paradigm Reducing move- ments' symbolic constructs to grievances and treating these as only marginal components ofcollective action has become inde- fensible today. 'Neo' resource mobilizationists, New Social Movement (NSM) theorists and political scientists all converge now to give greater weight to movements' subjective construc- tions in theorizing social movement activity. Internal controver- sies and debates spawned by an increased recognition of the limitations ofthe RM model2 have led theorists to reappraise the role ofsolidarities, movement goals and cognitive frameworks in movement mobilization. The emergence of the New Social Movements approach as a contending paradigm in the field, granting a central status to the cultural and the symbolic (see Cohen, 1983, 1985; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Touraine, 1988; Melucci, 1989) has redirected attention toward the production by movements of 'alternative meanings,' such as new identities, cultural innovations, and oppositional discourses. Political scien- tists, for their part, have noticeably shifted their treatment of symbolic issues away from 'the history of ideas' and into the terms of representational, democratic, and identity politics (see for example Young, 1990; Jenson, 1989, 1993; Dalton and Kuechler, 1990). As questions previously subsumed under the O Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 appellation of 'ideology' and relegated to a secondary plane of explanation have come to the forefront, scholars in social move- ments studies are insistently called on to paymore attention to the symbolic dimension of collective action. Yet, for all the talk about discursive hegemonies and iden- tities, interpretive frames and other "fightin' words" (Johnston, 1 992), social movement theory has tended to by-pass the analysis ofthe specifics ofmovements meanings—or, paraphrasing Stain (1992:96), the social semiotics ofprotest. Also crucially lacking is a clearunderstanding ofhowthese symbolic constructs operate within the social struggles in which movements are engaged. How are we to describe movements' symbolic constructions and how are we to trace the processes through which they are produced and changedhistorically(Escobar andAlvarez, 1992:6)? And maybe more importantly, how are we to analyse their workings and consequences in a field of power relations and struggles? These are all questions that ought to be asked ifwe are ^^ to understand, as is increasingly contended, 'the symbolic" as an intrinsic dimension ofthe exercise ofpower, and ofstruggle over power (Alvarez and Escobar, 1992; Slater, 1994;Jenson, 1989; Melucci, 1989). Dissatisfaction with the sparse theoretical and methodologi- cal apparatuses available to pursue this inquiry has sent social movement scholars in search ofmore precise, or more adequate frameworks. Recent suggestions include drawing from ethnogra- phy and ethnosemiotics (Escobar, 1992;Starn, 1992), sociology ofeveryday life (Escobar, 1992), postmodern andpoststructuralist analyses of discourses and subjectivities (Slater, 1994; Starn, 1992), ethnomethodology and American sociolinguistics (Johnston, 1991, 1992;Donati, 1992;Larana, 1994). Thepresent article is part of this quest. It endeavors to contribute to the current re-evaluation of the role played by interpretations and representations in movement activity, strategy, and politics by bringing to bear on social movement theory some propositions developed within a European tradition3 oflanguage studies, and Massort/ Language, Power and Politics in particular by scholars identified with critical perspectives on language and discourse. Ifwe are, as I will argue, to take the notion ofthe symbolic challenge of movements seriously, we have to revisit this chal- lenge not only as a truly political struggle, but as a political struggle of a special sort. That is, as one which is fought, characteristically, over the modalities in which power relations are embedded and enacted through social systems of signs and meanings. To do so, we have to understand why the specifics of the language in which movement representations are couched should be considered, what exactly is at stake in the 'symbolic struggles, in which movements are involved, and how this goes beyond contests over 'meanings,' 'naming,' and 'framing.' Some of the answers to these questions can be found in social movement theory's attempts to deal with movements' symbolic activity. The most influential frameworks from a NSM perspective are those ofMelucci (1989) and Laclau and Mouffe (1985). In RM theory, the 'collective action frames' approach ^^ prevails and is responsible for a fast growing body of literature. A critical assessment ofthese frameworks is the object ofthe first section ofthis article. The second section explores some ofthe avenues through which European approaches to language and discourse can help further our understanding of language as a distinct level ofanalysis. Language, it will be argued, operates as a power-laden mode of action that has direct consequences for social relations and for movement politics. This article advocates the need for a more linguistically- sensitive, empirically-grounded, and politically-oriented analysis than has heretofore been the case in social movement studies. In doing so, it echoes the voices that currently call for a closer and rigorous scrutiny of the role of 'the symbolic' in movements' practices and struggles. Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Symbolic Challenge and Symbolic Politics in Social Movement Theory Challenging Codes, Challenging Power: Alberto Melucci We owe to Melucci the first formulation of "the symbolic challenge" of movements. Melucci' s notion of symbolic chal- lenge is linked to his conception of power in today's societies. Melucci (1989:45) argues that we live in "complex societies" characterized by a heightened capacity to produce signs and social meanings. Complex societies are also characterized by a pronounced social differentiation that sets greater needs for integration and control. Integration and control are exerted through signs and meanings, as these are expressed, according to Melucci, in the form of societal norms, standardized codes, and offormal frameworks ofadministrative and technological knowl- edge. Indeed Melucci's argument (1989:76-77) goes further: power in complex societies is "signs," power is transformed and ^^ concealed within sets of signs that codify and regulate social relations. Actors mobilize to regain hold ofthe meanings and condi- tions oftheir action against complex societies' always expanding and increasingly anonymous forms of power. Individuals and groups mount what is termed by Melucci a symbolic challenge to the dominant codes, norms, identities and other "sets of signs" that regulate social life. This symbolic challenge encompasses two main aspects. The first is the production of alternative frameworks ofknowledge and meaning in the process ofcollec- tive action. The second is the experimentation ofnew ways of living and new forms of relationships in the daily practice of movements' "submerged networks." Moreover, the very exist- ence of the movements is considered a symbolic confrontation with the technological rationality ofthe system(Melucci, 1 989: 60). This because movements themselves become "signs": the Irving proo£ so to speak, that social change and alternative interpreta- Masson/ Language, Power and Politics tions of society are possible. Bythrowing into light the arbitrariness ofcomplex societies' cultural modes of regulation, movements' symbolic challenge renders visible the power inscribed in these (Melucci, 1989:76- 77). Melucci' s fundamental contribution lies precisely in this notion that signs and social meanings are part ofthe ways power is exerted and, consequently, are also part ofthe ways power can be, and is contested. Signs, meanings and power are, it is suggested, intimately intertwined. In Melucci' s argument, the symbolic ceases to be merely a portrait, a mirror of the social order to become impheated in society's very ordering. Move- ments' attempts at reinterpreting and challenging dominant "codes" by proposing "a different way ofperceiving and naming the world" (Melucci, 1989:75) are to be considered, in this sense, attempts at altering not only the "symbolic" order ofsociety, but the social order itself Although very insightful, Melucci' s conception of move- ments' symbolic challenge is problematic, however, regarding ^^ the interface of 'signs' and power, of the symbolic and the political. Three important problems can be underlined. Firstly, as Bartholomew and Mayer (1992) have remarked, Melucci's no- tion ofpower is too unspecified. Crucially missing is an under- standing ofthe grounding ofmovements' symbolic challenge in the fractured field ofunequalpower relations betweenpeople and groups ofpeople. Howparticular hierarchies and forms ofpower relations operate—and are contested — via signs and meanings lingers as the theoretical and empirical question to be answered. Secondly, the symbolic challenge ofmovements has to be rein- stated within a broader vision of the political. Melucci's too narrowunderstanding ofpolitics as state-based and his erroneous view ofcollective action as located mostly outside politics have been criticized as unduly bounding movements to culturalvenues and to civil society issues. Finally, another important problem is that movements' symbolic challenges remain enacted in an essen- tially expressive manner. The existence of movements and the © Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 experiential "practice [of] the alternative meanings of everyday life" (Melucci, 1989:71) are limited to signal ("announce," "publicize") an opposition which, within an immanent and disem- bodied version ofpower relations, is never otherwise played out. In contrast, I contend that as a challenge to power relations, the symbolic dimension of movement activity should rather be analyzed as an intrinsic part ofmovement politics. That is, as part ofthe struggles over power in which concrete actors are engaged in the variety ofsocial sites where unequal power relations are at play. In addition, I suggest that understanding movements' symbolic challenge as being—partly4—a 'politics of signs and meanings' directs us towards the semiotic5 aspects ofthis chal- lenge. One of the main avenues to reconceptualizing and to investigating 'the symbolic challenge of movements' is, I will argue, to analyse this challenge as a struggle whose domain is linguistic and discursive practices, and whose stake is the power relations built into them Laclau and Mouffe's Discursive Politics: The Symbolic As Contingent In this perspective, Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) conception of "struggles for hegemony" throws more light on the notion of movements' symbolic challenge in terms of discursive politics. The authors strongly assert the political character of symbolic struggles. Laclau and Mouffe draw on postmodern claims that place "discourse" at the origin ofthe constitution ofthe subjects, objects, and relationships ofthe social. Struggles over discourse, or more largely over the definition ofthe meanings we attach to lived social relations, thus occupy the very center of social conflictuality. Laclau and Mouffe argue that social relations ofpower have no set meanings outside ofthe discourses that enable us to make sense ofthem Social antagonisms, they contend, are polysemic. They can bear as many different significations (i.e., meanings) as there are discourses to constitute them Whatever significations Masson/ Language, Power and Politics do get fixed are so within discursive struggles forhegemony. That is, within struggles for the political imposition of constructed significations. The authors firmly state that neither the collective identities of the political subjects, nor their projects, issues or interests are pre-given. Rather, these are all contingent: they are not determined in advance by the social structure, but they vary as a result ofthe discursive struggles for the hegemonic fixation of social meanings. This fixation is always partial and tentative. Concretely, the attempts to "effect closure" on significations is realized, accord- ing to Laclau and Mouffe, through a process of"articulation." In this process, dissimilar elements are linked through discursive strategies that establish among themwhat the authors call "chains ofequivalence." Through these chains some discursive elements become substituable. They are also placed in a relation of difference or opposition with regard to other discursive chains. It is through such mechanisms, Laclau andMouffe argue (1985:62- 65), that identities such as "the people," or "the working-class" ^^ have become tentatively fixed among the various and intersecting subject positions that are occupied simultaneously by any indi- vidual. Similar sequencing operations offer the potential to transfer, or to "displace" meanings made historically available, they argue, by the liberal-democratic discourse to new areas whichthey re-signify andpoliticize (Laclau andMouffe, 1985: 154- 171). The notions of hegemonic struggle, articulations and discursive "chains ofequivalences" can be useful, as the authors suggest, in tracing the constitution ofcoalitional politics and the emergence ofnew issues. More importantly maybe, Laclau and Mouffe' s claim about the contingency of symbolic constructions should be taken on board by social movement studies. It is worth underlining that, despite its definitively poststructuralist flavor, the view that identities, interests, and political projects are contingent rather than ascribed is also compatible with more fluid versions of contemporary Marxism In this case, the notion that there exist Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 structural limits to discursive constructions is to be retained. Such limits include the weight ofthe past, the balance offerees, and the nature ofthe unequal relations ofpower at play (Jenson, 1989:75). To these I would add: the availability of existing meanings to signify and re-signify, which is also constrained, and constraining. The combination of these factors have as a result that not all discursive constructions are possible. Acknowledging the contingent character ofthe symbolic dimension of collective action has important implications. The definition of identities—the 'self-naming' of movements—is increasingly acquiring an explanatory status in social movement theory (see Melucci, 1989; McClurg-Mueller, 1992; Buechler, 1993; Jenson, 1993). Yet, if the lived experiences ofthe social subjects are criss-crossed by different types ofpower relations, the identity ofa political actor—a movement—cannot be seen as following directly from the social structure. Heterogeneous, rather than unified subjects become politically assembled under ^fr the label ofa movement' s name. Peasant movements for example, Starn (1992:93) argues, are not a "cut-and-dried affair of class mobilization." Rather, who qualifies as "peasant" in a given peasant movement varies and shifts according to an internal process ofpolitical hegemony6 where "negotiation, choice, and imposition" are intertwined (Starn, 1992:96). Seemingly similar political identities—such as 'native peo- ples,' 'women,' or even 'workers'—are not dennedthe same way in different times and places, and within movements. Criterias for inclusion and exclusion differ. We need to knowthe more precise terms under which a movements' 'name' is defined and the meanings attached to it ifidentities are to be in any way explana- tory of movements' goals, strategies, access to the political opportunity structure, and the like. In this perspective, it also has to be stressed that the construction of interests and political projects cannot be seen as flowing directly from the choice of an identity, or a name. If movements indeed construct claims and interests "in accordance Masson/ Language, Power and Politics with the logic of [their] name," as Jenson (1993:343) contends, this very 'logic" is itself discursively and diversely constructed. Contemporary feminist works, for instance, have clearly asserted the diversity of 'women's' experiences. This diversity translates into diverse logics, thus giving rise to the political expression of widely diverse 'women's interests' 7 within largely heterogene- ous, fragmented, and multi-form 'women's movements.' Moreover, as Laclau and MoufTe (1985 : 168-169) point out, interests and projects are susceptible to being articulated within and to widely different discourses, with divergent or even contra- dictory implications in terms of the direction of struggles. As contingency and multiplicity ofpossible discursive articulations combine, movement politics acquire a more ambiguous outlook. Most movement initiatives, Starn (1992:95) aptly remarks, "defy neat categorization as hegemonic or counterhegemonic." The meaning of "democratic struggles" fluctuates in the context of complex, historically specific imaginaries and is contested amid contending discourses (Slater, 1994). Contingency means that ^) movements' symbolic dimension bears no external guarantees. A closer examination of movements' discursive constructions is thus in order. Yet, Laclau and Mouffe's framework is not readily applica- ble to the task. Relying heavily on some ofthe recent develop- ments in postmodern and poststructuralist theory, Laclau and Mouffe's proposition suffers from similar ailments, in particular a too abstract approach to 'discourse' (Poynton, 1993). Conse- quently their work has been conducive only to an impressionistic view ofthe way different discourses and meaningsjostle, merge, yield or win, in the "struggles for hegemony." Unspecified and detached from the concrete modalities through which they are socially realized, discourses in this version appear utterly disembodied from the materiality of the linguistic means that express them They are also delinked from the institutional locations and the social activity that permit their existence and that found their effectrvity. Despite the acknowl- Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 edgment that discourses find their realization, in great part, through language, detailed accounts ofactual processes ofmean- ing-construction in linguistic forms are eschewed by Laclau and Mouffe. Therefore, they do not have much to offer, beyond "chains ofequivalence" set at the level ofthe overarching themes of"equality," "difference," 'justice" and 'liberty," to probe into the specifics ofthe partial fixation of social meanings. Furthermore, the notion that the positions, relations and other regularities ofmeanings constituting discourses need to be actively enacted to take effect is lost from sight. Discourses are not omnipotent nor agentless. Rather, they draw their authority and social efficacy only from the repeated utterance or perform- ance oftheir elements by people speaking from particular socio- enunciative positions or institutions inscribed within a field of power relations. The argument that the subjects are also 'consti- tuted in/by discourses' should not detract from concerns for agency and its exercise. This involves analysing the level ofthe ^^ written and spoken symbolic production by and through which concrete agents reproduce, struggle over and alter the terms of discourses in specific institutional, political and strategic con- texts. Resource Mobilization Theory and The Framing of Collective Action The reappraisal ofthe importance of social meanings under the labels of "social constructivism" or of a re-vamped "new social psychology" approach has led a whole body ofRM scholars to stress the role of social movement organizations (SMOs) in appropriating cultural symbols and in constructing schematas of interpretation in a way that can be made relevant for the mobili- zation of people, opinion, and resources. Sparked by Snow et al.'s (1986) reformulation of Goffman's concept of "frame" the recent works on framing share the assumption that meanings are constructed (Tarrow, 1994: 1 19). Not only do people behave in accordance with a perceived reality but these perceptions are the Masson/ Language, Power and Politics locus ofa variety ofinterpretations. Proposing selective interpre- tations of social reality and gaining support for these then becomes a crucial task for movement organizations (see also Klandermans, 1988, 1989). Collective action frames are complex ensembles of con- structed meanings assigned to events, individual and collective experiences, and social situations. They are generally seen to include problem identification and system attributions, the defi- nition of solutions and strategies, as well as a rationale for participation (Benford, 1993:199). McCarthy's (1994) "Drunk Driving frame" and "Auto- Safety frame" are closer to the under- standing offrames as ensembles of 'problem attribution/solution identification' templates. Other versions of 'frames' have more affinity with the loose utilisation ofthe term "discourse": either pointing to distinctive ways ofusing language (of saying things) from particular socio-enunciative positions (Radical Feminist frame and Student Left frame in McAdam, 1994), or to styles and rules for making claims appropriate to particular institutional ^^ sites (Equal Opportunity frame and Rights frame in Tarrow, 1994). Making SMO's frames congruent with prospective partici- pants' (or interlocutors') frames is the object ofdeliberate "frame alignment" efforts by movement organizations. These attempts may even go as far as transfonning significantly the initial frame in the course of collective action (Snow and al, 1986). The relational character of framing activity has to be underscored here. The positionality ofthe actor (the frame producer) and of the target audience (be it supporters or state agencies) and the immediate context oftheir interaction all play a role in constrain- ing or foregrounding specific elements ofthe symbolic repertoire ofprotest that can be drawn upon (see Tarrow, 1994). Although frames are constructed at the organizational level, they can also be diffused within and among movements, in the latter case constituting a "master frame" that makes sense of reality and organizes collective action for a whole generation of activists Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 (Tarrow, 1994; McAdam, 1994). The main interest of the current work on 'frames' and 'framing' resides in its constructivist perspective, and more precisely on its concern for the strategic dimension ofmeaning- making practices at the meso-level ofmovement organizations. Deliberate and sometimes shrewd crafting ofsymbolic constructs to "resonate" with an audience is indeed an integral part of SMO's action (see Benford, 1993:202), as the case of Greenpeace's watery-eyed baby seals eloquently illustrates. The purposeful 'framing' ofprogressive projects within the—usually much less progressive—'language offunding agencies,' a famil- iar practice within Quebec popular movement organizations, is another example ofobvious manipulation ofmessages for strate- gic ends. These types of strategic issues in symbolic politics NSM-related works typically do not address. Empirical studies offrames, however, are too often diverted towards, and reduced to a strictly rhetorical view ofmovement ^fi meanings. The focus rests on the persuasive communication techniques" whereby coldly calculating movement "entrepre- neurs" (Tarrow, 1994) design or manipulate (Donati, 1992; Benford, 1987) symbols, metaphors and interpretive frames as "tools for detaching people from their habitual passivity" and for ''transforming quiescence into collective action" (Tarrow, 1992: 191). Frames then appear as customized, highly negotiable products, launched on a free-market ofideas to attract reluctant individuals. Yet, if frames indeed display rhetorical and negotiable aspects, framing practices are also shaped by the wider social processes, structures, and relations of power from which they participate. And this occurs in ways that more often than not remain opaque to movement activists. The hegemony of domi- nant ways of signifying social relations, for example, or the prevalence of certain institutional discourses (i.e., the discourse ofrights—see Tarrow, 1994: 129-130), or movements' symbolic constructions ofa higher order such as movement identities (the Masson/ Language, Power and Politics 'logic of the name') should all be brought to bear in explaining why certain frames are adopted, why they 'resonate' or not, succeed or not, or why they are produced at all. The framing literature also tends to focus on mobilizational imperatives to the detriment of movements' social attempts at socio-political change as these are fought for in the arenas ofthe state and civil society. The political success ofthe 'reframing,' within the Canadian women's movement, ofthe abortion issue in terms of "women's freedom of choice" rather than as "free abortion on demand" makes a case for the relevance of a strategic-instrumental analysis ofprotest meanings (see Brodie, Gavignan and Jenson, 1992). In this example as in others how- ever, it must also be stressed that the institutionalization of particular claims and ways of framing claims has very real, material consequences, as Mayer suggests (1991:469). The consequences of specific framings have to be assessed as part of a more politically-oriented analysis of frames. This would require furthering Tarrow's hint (1992:196) about "ac- ^^ tionable symbols" and McAdam, McCarthy and Zald's acknowl- edgement (1988:727-728) that "meanings are acted upon" in ways that have implications for movement action, the political system, and the daily life of people. Also required would be a detailed, discursive analysis of the language of frames—and of "counterframes." Such an analysis is still an exception in the field (c.f, Johnston, 1991). RM scholars' treatment of frames too often limits itselfto identifying 'frames' without exposing much oftheir content or the implication oftheir institutionalization. Language-As-Action: a sociolingtjistic contribution As we can appreciate from the previous section, the three main frameworks developed within social movement theory for grap- pling with the symbolic dimension ofmovement activity all take as their starting point the assumption that meanings are socially Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 constructed and the object of contention. They also all throw light, albeit differently, on the stakes ofmovements' struggles in the field of social significations. At issue through movement actors' contests over "culture" and cultural symbols are, following Melucci's insight, the modalities and directions in which power is exercised, and the very constitution of the social order. Laclau and Mouffe's important contribution points more directly to the centrality of the discursive realm and ofstruggles over discursive articulations in constructing not only "social meanings," but social reality itself. Hegemonic and 'oppositional' definitions of social antagonisms, collective identities, and political projects, in par- ticular, thus become problematized as highly contingent. Finally, Resource Mobilization's work on ''framing" focuses on the strategic-instrumental use ofmeaning construction by movement organizations, and briefly hints at the link between 'meanings' and action. ^^ Furthering these frameworks, I have argued in various ways, requires a closer examination of the specifics of the symbolic politics in which movements are involved. More specifi- cally, I have suggested that such an endeavour calls for an inquiry into the language8 in which particular forms ofpower are coded, inscribed—tentatively fixed—and contested in the variety of social sites where power relations are at play. TTus inquiry is imperative not only to account for the variability, ambiguity, and open-endedness of the ways movement politics develop and unfold, but because language itself possesses its own effective- ness within social relations and, thus, "merits its own level of analysis" (Weir, 1995:52). The theoretical propositions on which are premissed critical approaches to discourse analysis, among which can be included the influential views ofFrench social theorists Bourdieu (1991) and Foucault (1984) 9 , stress the particular "effectiveness" of language. In this they can contribute, as I will try now to show, to ground more solidly and to advance some ofthe main theoreti- Masson/ Language, Power and Politics cal issues raised so far, to a different extent, by social movement theorists. TTiese issues can be summed up as: the link between language and power, the constitutive dimension of meaning construction, and the consequential character of language for movements' political action. Drawing on critical approaches to discourse analysis, I will present a conception oflanguage as a mode ofaction in its double dimension oflinguistic practice (the practice ofmaking meaning through 'texts' 10 ) and of discursive practice (the enunciation of these texts as a social 'event'). First, I will propose that we see language as a material mediation, embedding and enacting social relations ofpower, and whereby what we call 'social reality' is — partially, at the very least 11—constituted, reconstituted, and potentially altered. Second, I will suggest to further the notion of language-as-action as it can be brought to bear on movement politics, underlining some ofthe ways in which political actors' discursive practices "do things with language," in particular through the power of "performatives" and the "actionable" Q) character ofauthorized language. Finally, building onFoucauldian insights, I will argue that language-as-action is bounded by social "effects ofclosure," limiting the possibilities to signify and to act on social reality. ITiis closure is an important part of what is contested through movements' linguistic and discursive prac- tices. Language: From 'Representing' to 'Making' The World Constructed meanings and interpretations do not hover above people in an ethereal world of ideas, as classical or idealistic versionswould have it. Nor are they encapsulated in the cognitive structures of the mind (Lemke, 1990:192-194) as many RM theorists suggest. Rather, as critical discourse analysts claim, they exist in the material form ofsemiotic practices, one ofthese being language use in the form ofwritten and spoken utterances. Language is not a clear window on the world, but a material mediation through which 'reality' is socially constituted and Alternate Routes, Volume 1 3, 1 996 enacted. Standing between human beings and the world, lan- guage mediates in two ways: it refracts and it signifies. Meanings constructed in language refract social reality rather (or more) than they reflect or mirror it. Language is a complex and dynamic system ofmeaning-making resources. As a consequence, language is inherently polysemic (Volosinov, 1973; Bourdieu, 1991; Fairclough, 1992). Much like a prism refracts daylight in different colors and directions, language has the potential to deploy a diversity of significations about social situations, groups ofpeople, or social relations. There is no one possible meaning for each and every ofthese but many—some- thing which Laclau and Mouffe have also pointed out, as we have seen. Language is understood as "refracting"not only in the sense that it allows the production ofa variety ofsignifications, but also in the sense that this variety is linked to the existence ofdifferent enunciative positions—there is no view from no where. These positions are taken up by concrete actors within a field of jT% conflictuality and unequal power relations. Language is also conceived as a mediation because it signifies social reality. Language doesnot merelyrefer (Fairclough, 1992:42) to a world that would 'make sense' de facto, bearing significations that only have to be "dressed in signs" (paraphras- ingFoucault, 1984:124)tobemadeinteh'igible. Rather, language is a social practice ofconstructing meaning fortius world. Giving this assumption its full weight implies that in 'signifying the world' not only do people construct meaning, but construct social reality itself 12 Both Melucci and Laclau and Mouffe have argued, albeit in different terms, such a symbolic constitution of the social order. In the same vein, critical discourse analysts contend that constructing meaning for the world is also organizing and order- ing this world (Mishler, 1991: 105-1 06; Maingueneau, 1991:196). Text-internal forms and meanings assign and assert asymmetrical positions between language participants. They define categories and classifications schemes, identities and relationships, the Masson/ Language, Power and Politics actions and processes that are under the control ofthe agents or that are done to/imposed on them, delimiting the fields and the objects to which their interaction conventionally applies (Fowler, 1991; Halliday, 1989; Fairclough, 1992). In so 'ordering the world,' actors actively build power structures and power rela- tions through codes of signs (Fowler, 1991; Fairclough, 1992). The profound heterogeneity and the power dynamics of social life imply that there are always different ways and possibili- ties to signify. Yet, the power to impose "what is to be counted as real and true" (Yeatman, 1990:155) is unequally distributed amongpeople andgroups ofpeople, and only certain significations are given broad legitimacy, and accede to dominance. Language then appears as a meaning-making and reality-creating social practice that is intrinsically non-neutral, and laced with power relations. CD analysts argue that speaking and writing practices not only embed but also enact social relations ofpower. It is the active enactment of linguistic practices—the fre- quent speaking and writing—that allows categories, identities, ^p relations, processes, etc. constructed in language tobe objectified, legitimated, and naturalized as part ofthe social world (Fowler, 1991:82, 94). The mundane, day-to-day, repetitive practice of language participates in the constant making and remaking of social 'reality' (Fairclough, 1993:139). Linguistic practices play an important role in organizing and sustaining social structure (Fairclough, 1992:58). Language then becomes site and stake in a struggle that aims to unmake and alter the symbolic construc- tions that embed, enact, and reproduce dominant power rela- tions. 'Doing Things' With Language Implicated in the making of social reality and its ordering, language is further conceptualized by critical discourse analysts as a mode ofaction on this reality. To advance our understanding of language-as-action, we need to refer to language use and to struggles involving language not only in terms of contention Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 among different sets oflinguistic practices (ofpower-laden, text- internal meanings), but as discursive practices. Discursive prac- tices—the actual saying or writing oftexts by social agents—do not only 'speak of (i.e., express) or enact particular sets of textual meanings. They 'speak from' (from a particular position) and they 'speak to' (to a particular audience), within institutional and social sites located in space and time: they are acts of language. They are events occurring in contexts and doing something in these contexts, with consequences for movement politics, wider socio-political processes, and power relations. One the one hand, this entails analyzing movements' texts as strategically produced within specific relational contexts, that is: as attempts to realize certain ends. For example, as Resource Mobilization scholars have aptly noted, for mobilizing people's participation or institutional support around particular issues. On the other hand, besides the manifest intent, or the action immedi- ately effected by the discursive practice itself the analyst should ^^ consider more broadly what is being accomplished through a particular act of language. The notion of the performativity of political speech, as developed by Bourdieu, and a focus on the actioriability ofauthorized language help to highlight some other important ways in which political actors "do things with lan- guage." The conception oftheperformativity oflanguage originates from Speech Acts Theory (Van Dijk, 1985a). In the founding work ofAustin ( 1 962), performatives are understood in linguistic terms as utterances that effect what they enunciate through the very act of enunciating (Fowler, 1991:87-88). Moving beyond Austin, French social theorist Bourdieu advocates the grounding ofperformatrvity in social and political struggles. Political perfor- matives are "statements which seek to bring about what they state" (Bourdieu, 1991:225). They are utterances that aspire to bring into existence that which they enunciate. Performatives are central elements in the struggle to bring into existence, or force out of existence elements of social reality. These attempts to Masson/ Language, Power and Politics institute social reality, or deinstitute what is instituted, are inseparable from struggles "to make and unmake groups," to impose as legitimate a vision or a revision ofthe divisions ofthe social world (Bourdieu, 1991:221). The expression of collective identities by movements, in particular, can be analysed in this light as discursive practices that do a certain number ofthings. First, the enunciation ofmovement identities is a performative act that brings into existence the actor of politics — "that who represents." At the same time, these enunciations participate in the creation ofthe very subject who, it is claimed, "is supposed to be represented" (Hark, 1994:3), as the pronouncement ofan identity performatively states the prec- edence ofa specific subject position over many. The enunciation of collective identities by movement actors also works towards de-instituting already instituted categories and the social hierar- chies they express and enact. Simultaneously, movements' repre- sentations operate to re-institute identity categories "under new terms" (those of a reappropriated, positive identity—Young, ^% 1990:159-161), giving them new saliency. From 'indians' to 'First Nations,' from 'homosexuals' to 'lesbians and gays,' social groups are made and unmade through movement performatives and political actors are established. As a result, the balance of power ofthe social hierarchies these identities index is defacto altered. By directly linking performatives to political struggle, Bourdieu more explicitly than most theorists oflanguage, shifts the location ofthe "power ofspeech" fromlanguage to the agents oflanguage. The constitutive properties oflanguage, the effec- tiveness ofperformatives (or of any other linguistic feature) are not to be derived fromlinguistic constructions alone, nor fromthe sole communication skills ofthe speakers. Rather, the power of language is a form ofdelegated power. It is a power bestowed on speech either by the authority of a social institution, or the authority of the group ('those who are represented') which authorizes certain sets oflinguistic practices by authorizing itself Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 to use them (Bourdieu, 1992:109,129). Another way in which language functions as a mode of action is through its actionability. Linguistic practices are indexi- cal of social action. Not only do they point to certain types of actions in given contexts (Lemke, 1990:189), but the social meanings encoded in language are acted upon. This actionability is not a property oflanguage in itself^ but a property "authorized" by institutions and groups. The way identities, relationships and categories ofthe social are denned in language matters: it makes a difference for the type and direction ofpeople's action—or inaction (Purvis and Hunt, 1993:474; Bourdieu, 1982:127-128). More fundamentally, the war of interpretations in which movements are engaged can be viewed as battles over the power to establish authoritative definitions that imply "acts and interventions" (Fraser, 1989: 166). Walker's analysis ofthe discursive struggle around the issue of wife-battering in Canada is instructive in this regard: © As "Women's movement activists struggled with pro- fessionals for control over the terms in which the issue was to be recognized and acted upon," [...] "the struggle [became] one of contestation over whose knowledge will define the situation, who is to be held to blame, and what kind of action will be taken by whom:' (Walker, 1990:18). (my emphasis) Defining the issue as "domestic dispute" locates the problem within the Criminal Code and the purview ofits law enforcement agencies, whereas 'Tamilyviolence" channels invervention within the practices ofsocial work professionals (Walker, 1990;11, 14). By contrast, 'Svife-battering" refers to Canadian women's groups' struggle for feminist services and for social solutions countering male violence. Ifthe constitutive character oflanguage is the object ofthe struggles for the fixation ofsocial meanings in which movements engage, it is not only from the more abstract point of view of Masson/ Language, Power and Politics embeddingnewidentities, relations and representations in 'norms and codes,' policies and programs, or in the 'democratic project.' The discursive practices of the actors also generate and enable (Weir, 1993:242)—or conversely, foreclose and preempt—so- cial action. The legitimation, if not the institutionalization, of specific actionable meanings has consequences for the subse- quent pursuit ofmovement politics—as well as for the daily life ofpeople (as the example from Walker also suggests). Language As a Bounded Mode of Action As a social mode of action, language typically operates within parameters that pose limits to the possibilities to signify and to re- signify. The limits placed on 'what can be said' are also limits on 'what can be done' by social agents engaged in social struggle. The bounded nature of linguistic and discursive practices is another important feature of language as a dimension of the exercise o£ and struggle over power. Movements' efforts to (re)constitute social reality and to impose new actionable mean- g§± ings run against and have to breakthrough these limits, or 'effects of closure,' embedded in language-in-use. A first series of effects of closure are the limits placed on speech before speech can be there, limits that preempt the alternative to be expressed. I£ to paraphraseFoucault (1984: 127), discourse, or language, is a violence we do to things/to the world, the ways we arrest the flux ofsocial reality potentially also arrest our possibilities of knowing and acting on the world within certain types ofpatterns. More specifically, these limits take place at the level ofthe doxa. That is, at the level ofthe classification schemes, categories, relationships, etc., that are the most en- trenched in what we call 'common sense.' Widespread and largely accepted, elements ofthe doxa usually go unquestioned (Maingueneau, 199 1:247-248; Angenot, 1989:14, 160). Women organization's counter discourse production, with its explicit objective of "changing the mentalities" (Masson and Tremblay, 1993: 177), is aimed at the doxa. Their speechrepositions 'women' Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 as subjects and agents ofnon-habitual social processes andinnew relationships with the other actors and objects ofthese processes. These enunciations are attempts to re-open what it is possible to say about women and what it is possible for women to do. The expression ofthe unexpressed is also foreclosed by the existing range ofmeanings socially available to signify the world. Some "ways ofbeing cannot be spoken because the people who live them have no language for them" (Cain, 1994:84), and cannot be acted upon in socially transformative ways until people do have a language forthem A'labour ofenunciation" (Bourdieu, 1 99 1 : 129) has to occur in relation to this emergent speech. Under women's movements efforts, for example, the unease, the shame, the unspeakability of certain social situations have been (re)interpreted and (re)named. The new terms of "'sexism,' 'sexualharassment,' 'marital, date and acquaintance rape,' 'labor force sex-segregation,' 'the double shift,' and 'wife-battery'" have contributed to remake, Fraser argues, "entire regions of social discourse" (1992:179). Proposing new categories, new meanings to reinterpret the group's experience of the social world, as well as bringing into existence some of the ineffable (Bourdieu, 1991:129), some of the unthinkable (Cain, 1994) components of the experience of lived social relations, move- ments constitute a new actionable knowledge in the form ofnew sets of meanings that are made available as basis for political action. Effects ofclosure not only operate on 'speech before speech can be there,' but also on the 'speech that is.' Discourses limit both linguistic practices (the textual meanings that can be enun- ciated) and discursive practices as events (whether andhow these events can occur). There are two main avenues through which 'discourse' is usually acknowledged as effecting closure. The first one stresses the regularities—or fixations—of meanings in the linguistic practices associated with particular socio-enunciative positions that are also positions in a field ofpower. In this sense, 'discourse' is usually understood as sets of conventionalized Masson/ Language, Power and Politics fixations that bound institutionally positioned speakers to par- ticular ways of signifying. Discourses define, describe and delimit what it is possible to say and not to say (and by extension—what it is possible to do and not to do) with respect to the area ofconcern of that institution, whether marginally or centrally. [...] or- ganise and give structure to the manner in which a particular topic, object, process is to be talked about. [...Jprovide descriptions, rules, permissions and prohi- bitions of social and individual actions. (Kress cited in Yeatman, 1990:164). Discourses constrain what can be said and what can be done by given institutional actors. Discourses also impose authorized 'ways oftalking' about areas ofknowledge or social practice on the broader institutional sites where they are hegemonic, and on the other actors wishing to intervene on these sites. A second way in which discourses effect closure is through what Foucault identifies as their "external conditions ofpossibil- ity" (1984:127). That is, through the rules of the discursive economies that bound thevery enunciation ofdiscourses. By this, Foucault points to the implicit inscriptions ofpower that make it possible or impossible for particular statements or meaning- making practices to occur at all in, or from, specific institutional positions. In this perspective, he sums up an ensemble of"proce- dures of exclusion" through which not only the objects of discourse ('what can be talked about'), but also the site, the circumstances and ways of speech, as well the speaking subject her/himself are limited, rarefied, foreclosed. Women's movement organizations in Canada, for instance, venture since the 1980s on the terrain ofeconomic policy. Their discursive interventions re-encode in gender terms the objects of conventional economic discourse such as free-trade or the defi- cit. We can see from Brodie's account (1994:30) that women organizations have been denied so far the status of legitimate i^P C) Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 speakers on the institutional (state) sites where economic policy is discussed. Their alternative discourse is dismissed and its implications therefore preempted. The respective range oflegiti- mate 'women issues' and of appropriate 'economic issues' remains curtailed as well. The effective closure ofthis site on the speaker, its speech and the potential actionability ofthe latter is undeniably an expression and an effect ofthe exercise ofrelations ofpower. Effects of closure on the speech 'to be' and on the speech 'that is' appear as much an important part ofwhat is at stake in social movements' struggles on the terrain ofthe symbolic than the meanings themselves. Among the things that oppositional social actors 'do with language' are discursive practices that attempt, and sometimes succeed, in opening up the fields and the sites of meaning-making production, liquefying closure and setting up new parameters for further political action. Conclusion The recent interest for the symbolic dimension of collective action, and for its intertwining with questions of strategy and politics is among the most interesting developments in social movement theory today. Yet, as a fair number of scholars have remarked, the field remains ill-equipped to fully appreciate the role played by symbolic constructs in movement activity. It is my contention that the pursuit ofthis inquiry requires moving away from Resource Mobilizations' understanding of symbolic con- structions as simple rhetorical 'tools' in the hands ofmovement activists and their opponents. The relationship between 'the symbolic' and power is more intimate, and its reaches have further implications in terms ofsocial life and social structure. As underscored by Melucci and explored in a more detailed manner by Laclau and Mouffe, the symbolic is more adequately concep- tualized as an intrinsic dimension ofthe exercise ofpower, and of the political struggles over the power to constitute social reality. In this light, a promising avenue for social movement theory Masson/ Language, Power and Politics is, I suggest, to engage more extensivelywith the theorizing (and, eventually, the methodologies 13 ) that critical approaches to the study oflanguage and discourse have to offer. This engagement produces a revision ofsocial movement research orientations in particular directions. Namely, it stresses the need for a politically- oriented analysis of movement meaning-making practices that pays attention to the specificity ofthe language in which move- ments' meanings and struggles over meanings are couched. This is not promoting the return to a classical, fine-grained analysis of political ideologies. Nor does it amount to considering move- ments' struggles as a textual "contest betweencompetingtropes" 14 or, in a postmodern fashion, as the disembodied confrontation of contending discourses. Rather, it proposes to understand the ways in which language and discourses are implicated and put to work, as agent-driven modes of action, in political projects of dominance and change. The action perspective I am arguing for directs the attention towards analysing the linguistic and discursive practices of con- Q) crete actors interacting within a political field, and the conse- quences ofthese practices for continuity and change within wider social processes. There are two distinct, although related, com- ponents to this proposition. First, it advocates a detailed form-and-meaning analysis of movements' linguistic practices. In this chapter, I have repeatedly made a case for the analysis of the particulars of movements' representations. I have underlined the contingency ofmovement identities and interests, the variability and ambiguity of move- ment projects and politics, and the relational and consequential character of frames. If language is, furthermore, theorized as a constitutive, performative and actionable mode of action, then the examination ofthe linguistic specificity ofmovement mean- ings cannot be avoided. What social movement research needs is not so much a "descent into discourse" than a linguistically- sensitive analysis of real instances ofpeople saying and writing things (Fairclough, 1992:57) in the course of collective action. Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Second, integral to this proposition is the recognition that text-internal analysis ofmeanings is not enough. Acts oflanguage occur in specific historical, socio-political, and strategic con- texts, and do something in these contexts. Textual meanings have to be located within the "context of situation" (Halliday, 1989) and discursive constraints that bound their production and their enunciation. They must be situated within the political field and the institutional sites where they get played out as the discursive practices of movement actors interacting and struggling with other actors, and examined in their outcomes and consequences in terms ofsubsequent political, institutional, and social action15 . In addition, discursive practices have to be inscribed in the socially and historically located strategies and projects of the social subjects that produce them (Maingueneau, 1991). Finally, these practices cannot be treated in isolation from the larger social processesthey contribute to realize, orto alter (Threadgold, 1989:103). Qk Placing the emphasis on a linguistically- sensitive, politi- cally-oriented approach to movements' symbolic production would certainly enable a more in-depth, sharpened analysis of specific discursive struggles overmeanings, namings, and framings. More fundamentally, however, and as I have tried to make clear in this article, a focus on the language/power relationship opens new grounds for our understanding ofthe symbolic challenge of movements, and broadens the scope of our inquiry into the role played by 'the symbolic' in the unfolding ofmovement politics. Notes 1. This article is the revised version of a chapter to be published in William K. Carroll (ed.) Organizing Dissent (2nd ed.). I would like to thank Lorna Weir, Heather Jon Maroney, Bill Carroll, Antje Wiener, and one anonymous referee for their critical and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. 2. For a brief history of RMTs turn towards issues of meaning construc- tion see Donati (1992: 136-137), or Benford (1993:197-199). For a more in-depth questioning of the rational choice assumptions at the hearth of Masson/ Language, Power and Politics the RM model see McClurg Mueller (1992), and Ferree (1992). 3. The field of sociolinguistics divides into two very different theoretical strands (for an introduction see Van Dijk, 1985a, 1985b). The "Anglo- american" position is influenced by the ethnography of speaking and by micro-interactionist traditions. The "European" (or "Continental") tradition owes more to its engagement with early semiotics, structural- ism, Marxism and poststructuralism. 4. The other route indicated by Melucci under the concept of move- ments' symbolic challenge is the inquiry into the new "ways of life" and "cultural models" developed by oppositional movements. Versions of this line of inquiry have been proposed by Escobar (1992) and Starn (1992). 5. Semiotic systems include linguistic as well as non-linguistic systems of signs (such as dress codes, visual symbols, and non-verbal expres- sions). For an accessible introduction to social semiotics and the study of semiotic practices, see Lemke (1990). 6. The idea that movement identities, interests, and political projects are the object of a process of political hegemony that occurs "internally," amid the heterogeneous subjects and organizations that compose a movement I derive from Michaud (1992: 212-213). 7. The challenge from poststructuralism and from the non-Western feminist critique has made it impossible to speak of "women," or "women's interests" in universalizing terms. On these questions see in particular Riley (1988), Mohanty (1992), Nicholson (1994), Pringle and Watson (1990). 8. Despite much variation in the use of the term 'discourse' nowadays, this notion, as used by critical discourse analysts as well as in Laclau and Mouffe (1985) is not synonymous with 'language.' Rather, dis- courses are expressed through linguistic means—this among other mechanisms. Discourses are, more fundamentally, sets ofrules bounding meaning-making practices, as we will see later in this section. 9. The schools of critical linguistics (Fairclough, 1992; Fowler, 1991), systemic functional grammar (Halliday, 1989; Weir, 1995), social semiotics (Threadgold, 1989), and the French school of discourse analysis (see overview in Maingueneau, 1991), are usually identified with 'critical discourse analysis' (CDA). Reference to earlier theorizing by Bourdieu, and by Foucault (first published in French in the 1970s and 1980s) is a feature of many of these works. For a mapping of CDA's orientations and a brief overview of the different schools, see Van Dijk ^> Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 (1993:249-251). 10. My use of the term 'text' in these pages is limited to its commonsense acceptation and includes written and spoken linguistic production. 11. On this issue, see note 12. 12. The respective weight of language, or discourse, and of "non- discursive" practices in constituting social reality is currently the object of heated debates. Postmodern attempts to present all-encompassing versions of "discourse" as the source of the social (as, for example, in Laclau and Mouffe's version) are resisted by most critical discourse analysts. Their position rather acknowledges that there is a dynamic, dialectical relationship between non-discursive and discursive practices, between lived existence and what can be captured by language and discourse. On this last point see in particular Cain (1994). 13. An overview of the methodological apparatus available for doing linguistically-based discourse analysis can be found in Maingueneau (1991). Good examples of empirical works using these methods include Fowler (1991), Fairclough (1993), Van Dijk (1993), and Weir (1995). 14. A position attributed by Tarrow to deconstructionists (Tarrow, @ 1994:119-121). 15. See Walker (1990) for a good example of this type of work. References Alvarez, Sonia E. and Arturo Escobar 1992 "Conclusion: Theoretical and Political Horizons of Change in Contemporary Latin American Social Movements." Pp. 317- 329. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez (eds), The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America. Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press. Angenot, Marc 1 989 Ce que I 'on dit desjuifs en 1889. Antisemitisme et discours social. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes. Austin 1962 How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bartholomew, Amy and Margit Mayer 1992 "Nomads of the Present: Meluccfs Contribution to "New Social Movement" Theory." Theory, Culture and Society. 9(4): 141- 159. Masson/ Language, Power and Politics Benford, Robert D. 1987 Framing Activity, Meaning, and Social Movement Participa- tion: the Nuclear Disarmament Movement . Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. 1993 '"You Could Be the Hundredth Monkey': Collective Action Frames and Vocabularies of Motive Within the Nuclear Disar- mament Movement." The Sociological Quarterly. 34(2): 195- 216. Bourdieu, Pierre 1991 Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Brodie, Janine 1994 Politics at the Margins: Restructuring and the Canadian Women 's Movement. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Brodie, Janine, Shelley A.M. Gavigan and Jane Jenson 1992 The Politics ofAbortion. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Buechler, Steven M. 1993 "Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory." The Sociological Quarterly. 34(2):217- 235. Cain, Maureen 1994 "Foucault, Feminism and Feeling. What Foucault Can and Cannot Contribute to Feminist Epistemology." Pp. 73-96. In Caroline Ramazoglu (ed.), Up Against Foucault. London: Routledge. Cohen, Jean L. 1983 "Rethinking Social Movements." Berkeley Journal ofSociol- ogy—A Critical Review. 28:97-113. 1985 "Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contem- porary Social Movements." Social Research. 52(4): 663-7 16. Dalton, Russell J. and Manfred Kuechler 1990 Challenging the Political Order. New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Polity Press. Donati, Paolo 1992 "Political Discourse Analysis." Pp. 136-167. In Mario Diani and Ron Eyerman (eds.), Studying Collective Action. London: Sage. Escobar, Arturo 1992 "Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Research." Pp. 62-85. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez (eds.), The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America. Identity, Strategy, and Democ- racy. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press. ^^ © Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Escobar, Arturo and Sonia E. Alvarez 1992 "Introduction: Theory and Protest in Latin America Today." Pp. 1-15. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez (eds.), The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America. Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press. Fairclough, Norman 1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1993 "Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: the Universities." Discourse & Society. 4(2): 133- 168. Ferree, Myra Marx 1992 'The Political Context of Rationality: Rational Choice Theory and Resource Mobilization." Pp. 29-52. In Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Foucault, Michel 1984 'The Order of Discourse." In Michael Shapiro (ed.), Language and Politics. New York: New York University Press. Fowler, Roger 1991 Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge. Fraser, Nancy 1989 Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contempo- rary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1992 'The Uses and Abuses of French Discourse Theories for Femi- nist Politics." Pp. 177-194. In Nancy Fraser and Sandra Lee Bartky (eds.), Revaluing French Feminism: Critical Essays on Difference, Agency, and Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1989 "Context of Situation;" "Functions of Language," "Register Variation." Pp. 3-49. In M.A.K. Halliday and Ruquaiya Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects ofLanguage in a Social- Semiotic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press. Hark, Sabine 1994 "Stakes in the Field of Power. On the Political Limitations of Lesbian Identity Discourses." Paper prepared for presentation at the conference "Organizing Sexuality: Gay and Lesbian Move- ments Since the 1960s." Free University of Amsterdam, June 22-24, 1994. Massort/ Language, Power and Politics Jenson, Jane 1989 "Different but not Exceptional: Canada's Permeable Fordism." Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropology. 26(l):69-94. 1993 "Naming Nations: Making Nationalist Claims in Canadian Public Discourse." Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthro- pology. 30(3):337-358. Johnston, Hank 1991 Tales ofNationalism. Catalonia, 1939-1979. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 1992 ""Fightin' Words": Discourse, Frames, and the Cultural Analysis of Social Movements." Paper prepared for the Plenary Session on Methodology, International Workshop on Social Movements and Culture, University of California, San Diego, June 18-20, 1992. Klandermans, Bert 1988 'The Formation and Mobilization of Consensus." Pp. 173-196. In Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi and Sidney Tarrow (eds.) From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures. London: JAI Press. 1989 "Introduction: Social Movement Organizations and the Study of Social Movements." Pp. 1-17. In Bert Klandermans (ed.) ^fi Organizingfor Change. London: JAI Press. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Demo- cratic Politics. London: Verso. Larana, Enrique 1994 "Continuity and Unity in New Forms of Collective Action: A Comparative Analysis of Student Movements." Pp. 209-233. In Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield (eds.), New Social Movements. From Ideology to Identity. Philadel- phia: Temple University Press. Lemke, Jay L. 1990 "Making Meaning: the Principles of Social Semiotics." Pp. 183- 213. In Talking Science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Maingueneau, Dominique 1991 L 'analyse du discours. Introduction awe lectures de I 'archive. Paris: Hachette. Masson, Dominique et Pierre-Andre Tremblay 1993 "Mouvement des femmes et developpement local." Revue canadienne des sciences regionales/Canadian Journal of Regional Science. 16(2): 165-1 83. ^1 Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Mayer, Margit 1991 "Social Movement Research in the United States. A European Perspective." International Journal ofPolitics, Culture, and Society. 4(4): 45 9-480. McAdam, Doug 1994 "Culture and Social Movements." Pp. 36-57. In Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield (eds.), New Social Movements. From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald 1988 "Social Movements," in Neil Smelser (ed.) Handbook of Sociology. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage. McCarthy, John D. 1994 "Activists, Authorities, and Media Framing of Drunk Driving." Pp. 133-167. In Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield (eds.), New Social Movements. From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald 1977 "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory" American Journal ofSociology. 82:1212-1241. McClurg Mueller, Carol 1992 "Building Social Movement Theory." Pp. 3-25. In AJdon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Melucci, Alberto 1989 Nomads ofthe Present. Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society (edited by John Keane and Paul Mier). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Michaud, Jacinthe 1992 'The Welfare State and the Problem of Counter-Hegemonic Response Within the Women's Movement." Pp. 200-214. In William K. Carroll (ed.), Organizing Dissent. Contemporary Social Movements in Theory and Practice (first edition). Toronto: Garamond Press. Mishler, Elliot G 1991 "Once Upon a Time. . . " Journal ofNarrative and Life History. 1(2/3): 101-108. Massort/ Language, Power and Politics Mohanty, Chandra Talpade 1992 'Teminist Encounters: Locating the Politics of Experience." Pp. 74-92. In Michele Barrett and Anne Phillips (eds.), Destabilizing Theory. Contemporary Feminist Debates. Stanford, Ca. : Stanford University Press. Nicholson, Linda 1994 "Interpreting Gender." Signs. 20(1): 79-105. Poynton, Cate 1993 "Grammar, Language and the Social: Poststructuralism and Systemic-Functional Linguistics." Social Semiotics. 3(1): 1-21. Pringle, Rosemary and Sophie Watson 1990 'Tathers, Brothers, Mates: the Fraternal State in Australia." Pp. 229-243. In Sophie Watson (ed.), Playing the State—Australian Feminist Interventions. London: Verso. Purvis, Trevor and Alan Hunt 1993 "Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideol- ogy..." The British Journal ofSociology. 44(3): 473-499. Riley, Denise 1988 "Am I That Name? " Feminism and the Category of "Women " in History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ^^ Slater, David 1994 "Power and Social Movements in the Other Occident: Latin America in an International Context." Latin American Perspec- tives. 21(2): 11-37. Snow, David A., E.B. Rochford Jr., S.K. Worden, R.D. Benford 1986 "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Move- ment Participation. "American Sociological Review. 51:464- 481. Starn, Orin 1992 '"I Dreamed of Foxes and Hawks': Reflections on Peasant Protest, New Social Movements and the Rondas Campesinas of Northern Peru." Pp. 89-1 1 1. In Arturo Escobar and Sonia E. Alvarez (eds.), The Making ofSocial Movements in Latin America. Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press. Tarrow, Sydney 1992 "Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames: Constructing Meanings Through Action." Pp. 174-202. In Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 1994 'Training Collective Action." In Power in Movement. Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Threadgold, Terry 1989 'Talking About Genre: Ideologies and Incompatible Dis- courses." Cultural Studies. 3(1): 101-127. Touraine, Alain 1988 Return ofthe Actor. Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1985a "Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline." Pp. 1-10. In Van Dijk, T.A. (ed), Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis. Volume 1: Disciplines ofDiscourse . London: Aca- demic Press. 1985b "Introduction: Dialogue as Discourse and Interaction." Pp. 1- 1 1. In Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.), Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis. Volume 3: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press. 1993 "Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis." Discourse and Society. 4(2): 249-283. Volosinov, V.N. 1973 Marxism and the Philosophy ofLanguage [1929]. New York and London: Seminar Press. Walker, Gillian A. 1990 Family Violence and the Women s Movement: The Conceptual Politics ofStruggle. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Weir, Lorna 1993 'The Wanderings of the Linguistic Turn in Anglophone Historical Writing." Journal ofHistorical Sociology. 6(2): 227- 245. 1995 "PC Then and Now. Resignifying Political Correctness." Pp.51- 87. In Stephen Richer and Lorna Weir (eds.), Beyond Political Correctness. Toward the Inclusive University. Toronto: Univer- sity of Toronto Press. Yeatman, Anna 1990 Bureaucrats, Technocrats, Femocrats. Essays on the Contem- porary Australian State. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Young, Iris Marion 1990 Justice and the Politics ofDifference . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.