Sociology of DiscourseDiscourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture (DAPSAC) ISSN 1569-9463 ‘The editors invite contributions that investigate political, social and cultural processes from a linguistic/discourse-analytic point of view. ‘Ihe aim is to publish monographs and edited volumes which combine language-based approaches with disciplines ‘concerned essentially with human interaction ~ disciplines such as political science, international relations, social psychology, social anthropology, sociology, economics, and gender studies. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see hutp:{/benjamins.com/catalog/dapsac General Editors Ruth Wodak, Andreas Musolff and Johann Unger Lancaster University / University of East Anglia Lancaster University wodak@lancasteracuk; A Musolif@ueaac.uk and junger@lancateracck Advisory Board Christine Anthonissen Konrad Eblich (Christina Schaffner Sieleabosch University Free University, Bevin Aston University Michael Billig JR Martin Louis de Saussure Loughborough University University of Sydney University of Neuchitel Piotr Cap Jacob L. Mey Hiailong Tian University of Lode Universyof Southern Denmark Tianjin Foreign Studies Paul Chikon Greg Myers University Lancaster University Lancaster Univesity Joanna Taornborrow ‘Teun A.van Dijk Joh Richardson (Cardiff University Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Loughborough University Sue Wright Barcelona Taio Martin Rojo sty of Portsmouth Universidad Autonoma de Madsid ‘Volume 61 Sociology of Discourse. From institutions to social change by Oscar Garcia AgustinSociology of Discourse From institutions to social change Oscar Garcia Agustin Aalborg University John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam PhiladelphiaGSM The paper uted in this publication meets the minimum requirements of| PD the American National Standard for Information Sciences of Paper for Printed Library Materials, axst739.48-1984 por 10.1075/dapsac.61 Cataloging in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: Leow 2015017516 (PRINT) / 2015019011 (E-BOOK) 186 978 9027206527 (ts) 1881 978 90272 68297 (-800K) © 2015 - John Benjamins BV. [No par ofthis book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any ‘other means, without writen permission from the publisher, Joba Benjamins Publishing Co. htps://benjamins.com“Another world is possible”: Yes, but we need a new political discourse. Massimo De Angelis What is at stake is to construct a new generation of institutions which give materiality to the New Deal, that is, the new relationships between politics and production, between movements and governments. Antonio Negri and Giuseppe Cocco, GlobAL To fight the unthinkable, ‘you have to be willing to do the unthinkable. Sara Lance, ‘The Canary’, in ArrowTable of contents Acknowledgments Sociology of Discourse ‘Towards a Sociology of Discourse 3 A theoretical framework 5 Amodel of analysis 1 Structure of the book 14 Social change 11 Institutionalization 18 Ecuador: knowledge as common 24 12 Power 25 Pigueteros: constituent power 32 13. Linguistic ordering 33 V de Vivienda: new language, new rights 41 CHAPTER 2 Discourse 21 Collectivization 46 Strike Debt: new unionism 59 22 Articulation 61 #YoSoy132: Democratizing media 72 23. Performativity 74 Zapatistas: the voice of the excluded 85 cuapren 3 Communication 3.1 Public discourses 91 ‘The World Social Forum: deliberation for diversity 99 3.2. Hidden discourses 100 Undocumented immigrants: dual illegality 110 33. Interconnected discourses 111 Chilean students: manga and anime 124 y a 85vin Sociology of Discourse CHAPTER 4 Institutions 27 4.1 Institutional facts 129 Pura: social currency 143 4.2 Imaginary institution of society 145, Tute Bianche: social imaginary for autonomy 158 CHAPTER 5 “Yes, We Can’: The Platform for People Affected by Mortgages in Spain 161 5.1 Economic crisis and the emergence of the PAH 163 5.2 ‘Ihe collective discourse of the right to housing 169 53. Popular Legislative Initiative: Citizens and institutions 176 5. Stop Evictions: Insttutionalizing resistance 181 55. Escraches: Insttutionalizing real democracy 186 5.6 Obra Social: Institutionalizing the right to housing 193 5.7 Towards new institutions for housing 196 Condlusion 199 References 205 Index asFigures Figure 1 Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6 Figure Figure 8 Figure 9. Figure 10. Analytical model From institutions to insttutionalization Conceptualization of power Conceptualization of discourse Overview of communication processes Relations between dominant and subordinate groups (own elaboration based on Scott, 1999) Levels of genres (own elaboration based on Fairclough, 20036) Institutionalization: institutional facts and social meanings Analysis of PAH processes of institutionalization Discourses from hegemony to alternatives 8 7 46 en 103 8 160 14Acknowledgments ‘Numerous friends and colleagues have been important in the elaboration of this, book. I want to thank Enrique Balmaseda for helping me from the very beginning of my academic career, Teun van Dijk for insisting on the need for a Sociology of Discourse, Sara Vazquez and Aurea Puerto for their generosity in sharing the extraordinary work that the PAH is undertaking, and the Department of Culture and Global Studies at Aalborg University for institutional and financial support. Talso want to thank the DAPSAC editors, Johann Unger and Ruth Wodak, for taking on the manuscript, the two anonymous referees who reviewed the manu- script and gave me very valuable comments, and Isja Conen for her kind support, patience and encouragement. I am very grateful for the help with the revision of the manuscript given by Mark Hebsgaard, Liv Rolf Mertz, Ashley Kim Stewart, and my talented and unconditional brother Eduardo Garcia Agustin Finally, I want to express my gratitude towards my family. [am always grateful ‘to my parents, my aunts and uncles, and my parents-in-law. My daughter Kira and iy sons, Linus and Marcos, are my main source of joy, and I enjoy every single ‘moment with them. I especially thank my wife Lise for sharing allthis time with ‘me, keeping my motivation high, and using her time to discuss the content of my research and to give me the best advice. I owe her this book,Sociology of Discourse ‘The Occupy Wall Street movement emerged in 2011 as a strong popular move ment with the capacity to mobilize people, redefine the discursive terms of the political game (the 99% against the 1%), and connect similar struggles to one another all over the world. Time magazine even chose ‘the protester, asa synthesis of all the protests taking place in 2011, as its Person of the Year, and claimed in its cover story that “protesters didnt just voice their complaints; they changed the world” (Andersen 2011), It was an acknowledgment that social movements, besides giving visibility to new actors and claims, are capable of fostering social change and influencing people's way of perceiving and acting within the political world, However, some years later, the question of what happened with the Occupy movement, as well as most of the parallel struggles in other countries, is often raised. In her article “Post-Occupied,” the journalist Sarah Jaffe (2014) offers an interesting reading of the situation faced by Occupy, including opportunities and challenges. Jaffe points out that the “magical moment” of occupying squares is gone and has been transformed into multiple and dispersed projects based on ‘more measurable goals. From that original moment, one of the activists, Mary Clinton, recalls the feeling that “whatever idea we had in that space [Zuccotti Park] ‘we could make happen, and we did.” Once the occupation of squares vanished, the issue of collective spaces and new ways of organization remained the same, and attempts to explore it carried the movement in different directions ‘This situation can be seen from another angle, ‘The activist Nick Espinosa ‘explains that the movements are naturally anti-institutional because they “want to dismantle systems of power” which have been “used to exploit and colonize and destroy community all over the planet” However, he adds that “we can't change the ‘world without institutions that are democratically accountable to the movement and that have real power” ‘The Occupier Mary Clinton supports this idea when she comments that itis not a matter of withdrawing from the system but rather of building institutions to develop alternatives based on people's power. “These reflections are very relevant to understanding the purpose of this book Occupy succeeded in creating a surprising political movement as well as a new discourse to comprehend the political scene, divided into a dominant group, called the ‘Party of Wall Street’ by David Harvey, and that ofthe people. This divi sion constituted a new way of understanding global capitalism. This means thatSociology of Discourse change was promoted by social movements against the dominant system and it ‘was done by the creation of anew discourse, capable of challenging the established order and of allowing alternative articulations between newer and older political and social actors. Looking at the evolution of the movement, it started with the creation of ‘occupied squares, which produced communicative and discursive practices in which capitalism was contested and democracy was conceived of in diverse ‘manners, Likewise, the practices in place produced alternative ways of organiz- ing, which were seen as an alternative model (through democratic practices) in opposition to the existing one, However, the protesters’ eviction from the squares and the dismantling of their encampments, including the practices attached to them, raises the question of the need for institutions. It is essential to see that the creation of new institutions is related to the power of the people. ‘This point needs to be emphasized: institutions are not only places that repro- duce power relations; they can be places to channel and develop the power of the people. “The objective of this book is indeed to take up the theoretical challenge out- lined by social movements in recent years. From a perspective of social change from below (from civil society and mainly from social movements), the question, of how to provide continuity and stability to social struggles must be addressed ‘The answer suggested here relies on two key elements: discourses as the pro- duction of social meaning and the articulation of political and social subjec- tivities, and institutionalization, ic. the process of transforming discourses into the modification of existing institutions or the production of new ones. It must, be noted that my conception of ‘institution’ is quite broad, referring to social ‘norms, practices and conventions, Furthermore, institutionalization is not about adapting existing institutions. This is why I address the movement from institu- tions to social change, where the concrete realization of institutions still needs, tobe done I explore the connections between discourse, institutionalization, and social change, with the conviction that discursive practices (such as those of Occupy) aim at the production of social meaning (which allows for the appearance of new institutions) and institutions (which ensure the continuity of those discourses). Furthermore, the notion of ‘power’ relies on people (and particularly on social movements) and their ability to produce alternative discourses and change the world, As we know from the Occupy experience, it did not change the whole ‘world, but social changes are already in motion, To conceptualize social change, I propose developing a Sociology of Discourse, based on the relations between discourse and institutionalization,Sociology of Discourse ‘Towards a Sociology of Discourse In the approach I have developed, Sociology of Discourse must start by consid- ‘ring the interrelations between social change, discourse, communication and institutions, including the social actors that produce discourses and processes of institutionalization and, consequently, carry out social change. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) represents a feasible proposal for explain- ing the relations between discourse and social change, made explicit by Norman, Fairclough. As a multidisciplinary approach, CDA combines linguistic contribu- tions with sociological ones, in the sense that issues such as power and hegemony are translated into the scope of the interest of linguistics in order to unveil how social mechanisms work through language. However, I have two general consid- ‘rations regarding CDA. The first one is the understanding of social change as, a process of domination, mainly, and the implementation of top-down changes, ‘especially attached to the imposition of neoliberalism as the only possible para- ddigm. The emphasis on power has been contested by other discourse approaches, such as ethnomethodological studies, to analyze practices of resistance by focus- ing more on individual actions and on positive cases as described by Positive Discourse Analysis. However, none of them focus on social change and social pro- cesses, although they have contributed to expanding the objective of analysis to new areas such as resistance or solidarity. The second consideration is that, in spite ofits stated interdisciplinary character, CDA is primarily a linguistic approach that has developed sophisticated methods of analysis in order to address the use of lan- ‘guage in texts, My aim is to maintain the centrality of discourse in social change, ‘while giving prominence to the sociological perspective. Sociological theories, thus, work as a general framework within which linguistic analysis must be under taken. Taking a starting point similar to that of Fairclough, I share the intention of showing how social change is carried out through discourses, but differ from him in that I focus mainly on social processes rather than on linguistic aspects, without implying at all that language is not relevant. ‘The need for a sociological approach appears from the moment that dis- course is considered as the constitutive element of the process of institutionaliza- tion. I want to emphasize that the approach is discursive and not institutional, and explores the possibilities offered by institutionalization in promoting social change. Instead of looking at institutions and how they constrain the production of discourses, the main interest consists of the ways in which discourse chal- lenges existing institutions (upon which the existing social order relies) and initiates new processes of creation of social meaning and collective action. Insti tutionalization is not a matter of adapting institutions, but rather the opposite,Sociology of Discourse i.e. institutionalization questions institutions. It is a way of acknowledging that the potential of mobilization or prefigurative practices is significant but insuf- ficient since new ways of organizing collectively and institutionalizing have emerged. Institutionalization opens up a process contrary to the existing institu. tion without foreseeing the result of t (new institutions, the modification of insti- tutions, the absorption and neutralization by dominant institutions), This is the reason why I underline that itis a process and not a result, an openness (that can be further developed and articulated to different extents) rather than a closure. ‘There are two dimensions that are important in the process of institutionaliza~ tion: the achievement of collective acceptance, and the creation of social meaning. Both processes are discursive and comprised by language phenomena of a diverse nature, such as speech acts, metaphors, intertextuality, rlexicalization, etc. All of ‘them must be considered as embedded in the process of institutionalization and to operate by questioning and opposing the established social order, and as con- tributing to constituting an alternative order which is neither definitive nor fin- ished. This shiftis essential to understanding the appearance of new institutions. ‘Without an alternative discourse, grounded on new social meaning and collective acceptance, there is no possibility of imagining other institutions that are opposed to the institutionalized order. Institutionalization makes social change possible, but not all processes of institutionalization lead to social change. In this sense, the degree of collective acceptance and institutionalization is decisive, However, it would be a mistake to ‘expect social change to imply a change in the whole society or the societal order. Social change takes place at different scales and in different situations. The objec tive isto identify the cases, mainly fostered by social movements but also by politi- cal parties and international organizations, in which a questioning or contestation of the dominant order leads to an alternative one. The social meanings that point to an equalitarian or non-capitalist society are probably not going to translate into a new societal order with its institutions, but the creation of this horizon of mean- ing is necessary to give meaning to new institutions that question the dominant logic and can be undertaken only in the space originated by the process of institu- tionalization. The struggles for rights for minorities, housing, migration or right to the city are examples of how the institutionalization of an equalitarian demo- cracy allows for the emergence of new equalitarian institutions, independently of whether or not they are more or less integrated in the existing order. It would be wrong, although possible, to try to measure social change (and social move ment initiatives) in terms of success or failure, due to the difficulties inherent in the self-definition of success (a new government, a new mentality, more rights). However, I find it relevant to be demanding with the notion of institutionalization. ‘The aim is not primarily to create new institutions (as desirable as that may be)Sociology of Discourse but to maintain the constant openness and redefinition of the existing social order. ‘The function of institutionalization is precisely to ensure the possibility of social change and avoid social closure and the institutionalized order, Allin all, Sociology of Discourse needs to pay attention to the ongoing (or former) scenarios of (possible) social change and relate them to societal processes ‘which are challenged by new social meanings. Thus, discourses are not indepen- dent entities but are produced by collective subjects that develop processes of institutionalization to promote social change by questioning the established insti tutions and creating conditions for the emergence of new ones. A theoretical framework With the aim of summarizing this complex sociological approach to discourse, have described a wide framework in which to locate and develop discourse as a constitutive part of the process of institutionalization, Despite presenting the theo- retical chapters in relation to different fields (social change, discourse, commmuni- cation, and institution), it must be stressed that all of these fields are intertwined and, as they are integrated in the whole perspective, they explain social processes ‘more coherently. Social change As was previously mentioned, Fairclough’ understanding of discourse has been a source of reflection and an essential starting point to developing an approach of discourse and social change. One of the main contributions by Fairclough is the consideration of discourse as a social practice in order to move beyond the decon- ‘textualized uses of language and also to connect the level of linguistic production with social structures, I share this idea toa certain extent, and insttutionalization can indeed be considered as a sort of social practice. However, there are two dif- ferences: Fairclough tends to relate social practices with power, hegemony and the reproduction of social structures and, besides, the approach adopted here is, oriented towards the creation of institutions. Therefore i is important to under- stand social change through the relations between power, institutionalization and linguistic order. ‘The focus on institutionalization is inspired by the conceptualization of discourse made by John Dryzck as ‘institutional software’ I find it essential not to disembed discourses from institutions, in a broad sense. Institutionalization entails a process of change which can be fulfilled in the institutional or in the societal sphere or somewhere in-between. Furthermore, it is produced mostly bySociology of Discourse social movements in order to foster change and challenge the dominant social ‘order. To take this direction (ic, moving away from existing institutions towards new ones) its necessary to rethink the concept of power and avoid reducing its use to the reproduction of domination, ‘There is no doubt that power plays a central role in the reproduction of domi- nation and exclusion but if this is the only definition of power to be assumed, it becomes almost impossible to explain social change from below and institution alization as an alternative. In this sense, I assume the distinction made by John Holloway between power-over and power-to-do, While power-over coincides with the idea of power to control what others do, power-to-do relies on the social capacity of doing something. In opposition to the power to command, this creative power is social and collective and is a form of doing together’ One last aspect, which is important in order to account for the dynamics ‘of social change, is to relate this social power to linguistic mechanisms, The distinc tion between destituent and constituent power is applied to discourse to explain, how discourses contribute to different phases of institutionalization. I connect, this dual process with the notion of linguistic ordering used by Roger Fowler and Gunther Kress to talk about the lexical dimension, Two similar linguistic aspects are highlighted: cuphemization and relexicalization. According to Pierre Bour- dieu, euphemization is a process that provides a linguistic form to the relations of power, so that language, legitimated by means of appealing to general interests, hides particular interests. In opposition to this appeal used to maintain domina- tion, relexicalization implies an openness in the field of significations and, there- fore, in the social sphere. Ihave also recovered the concept of ‘anti-language’by M. A.K. Halliday, which is generated by a society that is established as an alternative in situations of resistance, Anti-language is, therefore, a notion close to the one of ‘hidden transcript’ by James Scott. Social groups appropriate words and re-label them or provide them with a different meaning. Those words become widely pop ular and common by means of overlexicalization, which consists of making use of a great number of synonyms in a specific semantic field. This process of moving beyond the critique of the dominant order through lexical production in this case contributes to reinforcing the capacity of constituent discourses to generate new institutions or change existing ones. Discourse ‘The epistemological foundation assumed in this book is that discourse must be ‘understood in relation to the theory of institutionalization; this allows for the combination of the abstract level of production of meaning with the specific level of institutions, expressing or modifying social significations, carried out by collective actors. Although the meaning of discourse is present in other sections ofSociology of Discourse ‘the book (like institutionalization), I want to underline three aspects: collectiviza- tion, articulation and performativity. This gives a coherent sense of how collective identities are constituted and articulated through demands and how they aim to have a social effect in order to transform reality. Collective identity is one of the major topics that have been vigorously dis- cussed in the literature of social movements, and especially about relations between individuals and groups. It is clearly not possible to talk about institu- tionalization without considering the processes of collectivization through action, and discourse, Understanding collective identities through actions entails replac- ing the capacity of social structures to produce groups with the capacity of actors to define and constitute their strategies and goals through collective action, as pointed out by Alberto Melucci. To this dynamic process of collectivization, we must add the autonomy given to collective subjects by Philip Pettit. Within the collective subject, discourse is important to express collective judgment in the process of deliberation. ‘The concept of articulation is useful to explain how collective identities and claims are connected and shape new discourses. I use ‘articulation’ in the sense formulated by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mout in relation to the logics of dif- ference and equivalence, which are really useful conceptual tools to explain discur- sive formations, the position of the subject and, at the same time, to see how these are constituted in texts. Laclau and Mout claim that these logics applied to dis- course point to the existence of articulatory practices, which define the identities of social subjects. As articulation is a changing process in discourse, social reality, cannotbe one; thatis, it cannot always be the same and fixed. In other words, there cannot be a definite social closure. Discursive articulations prevent such a closure and foster an openness, which allows for the creation of new institutions. Finally, the idea of performativity is associated with that of speech acts, origi- nally elaborated by John Austin. In order to open less well-known ways of under standing this concept, Ihave followed the development of other social researchers: Pierre Bourdieu’s focus on the relation between the performativity of language, the habitus, and domination; Paolo Virno’s reflection on who speaks is related to the notion of the ‘absolute performative; and Judith Butler emphasizes the place ofthe addressee and the effects of the saying. Through this combination, my inten- tion is to reveal how the relation of domination imposed by some discourses can be challenged from the side of both the speaker and the addressee. Communication ‘The understanding of social change, sensitive to the role played by social move- ‘ments, requires an evaluation of the social spaces of production and communica- tion of meaning. An initial distinction must be made from the outset: spaces canSociology of Discourse be public or private (or, more precisely, hidden). This has consequences for the interaction and discourses that are produced, as well as the agency, more centered on collective actors and a coherent discursive production in the case of public spaces, and on singularities and more tactical uses of language in the private one. I must admit a limitation in the application of this theoretical framework; itis dif- ficult to gain access to the hidden sphere and the examples I present (including the analysis) respond to communication in the public sphere. ‘The reflections on the public sphere are guided by two principles: it is a polit. cal and communicative space; and it is not a homogenous space, ‘The existence of counter-spheres and the distinction of audiences, according to Nancy Fraser, imply the possibility of articulating other discursive formations and promoting different significations. The interaction and positions that subjects adopt within the public sphere(s) can be observed according to different models: the delibera- tive and the agonistic. ‘The former understands institutions as a place for discus- sion and reaching agreement, making use of rational arguments; in the latter, institutions reflect and canalize the conflict. If the relations between political actors show the complexity of social spaces, communication delves into how these relations are transmitted and produced discursively. The understanding of politi- cal subjects as subjects of enunciation and interpretation does not only show that the public sphere is heterogeneous, but also that the subject is not homogeneous and constitutes polyphonic discourses. The multiplicity of voices present in the discourses by subjects shapes three different models: the consensual; the agonistic; and the antagonistic, in which consensus and a common frame of dialogue and understanding are renounced. ‘The public character of discourse represents a key dimension, as it is used by subjects to position themselves on general topics and against other subjects. However, discursive practices, as mentioned above, also have a place outside the public space, and opinions defended in the public and the private do not neces sarily coincide, This idea, which complements and explains the public sphere, is developed by Scott with the concepts of ‘public transcript’ and ‘hidden transcript? ‘The behavior of subjects (obviously including discourse) is marked by the rela- tions of domination, which explains why certain groups modify their practices, according to the space they are in. ‘Thus, it is possible to understand the influence of the dominant discourse but, above all, I am interested in how the discourse of resistance is construed and fosters social change. The irruption of the hidden transcript in the public space ferments, then, in hidden or private spaces where situations of domination are not reproduced ‘That said, this does not mean that public discourse is synonymous with the dominant discourse, as it is possible to find in it traces and features of the dis- course of resistance. De Certeau finds in everyday practices ‘ways of operating’ orSociology of Discourse doing things that transgress control and domination. He refers to the opposition between strategies and tactics that, as in works by Scott, points to the practices in the presence or absence of power. Thus, against the predictable practices which follow the conventions of each situation, the tactic used implies a creative use which defies such conventions, In a manner similar to hidden transcripts, these tactics of appropriation do not alter institutions (or the uses of them), but they are very useful for a better explanation of collective action and new social meanings when they become public. One last aspect I include, in relation to the multiplicity of voices present in discourses and the techniques of appropriation, is intertextuality. Following Fairclough, we can distinguish between intertextuality and interdiscursivity. In a general sense, the former helps to identify how social conflict is constituted within discourse (consequently, with a type of public communication), while the latter is related to the communicative conventions of discursive production. In intertex- tuality, the referred or alien discourse and the transmitter or authorial discourse (to use Voloshinov’s concept) coexist. The latter incorporates voices from other discourses and recontextualizes them within their own discourses. On the other hand, interdiscursivity is a more complex notion that affects the conventions of discourses: that is, how we produce, distribute and interpret, discourses, and, despite its relevance, itis usually overlooked in social and polit cal sciences, Fairclough notes that interdiscursivity is produced on three levels: genres, discourses and styles. My main interest is related to the first one: genres. ‘This explains how social conventions, attached to certain communicative codes, are appropriated or changed. Fairclough claims that changes in social practices are translated into changes of the conventions of genres, and originate the creation of hybrid genres where two or mote practices converge. However, from the perspec tive of social change from above, I am more concerned with how these conven- tions are appropriated and re-contextualized to change their implications. In this sense, they contribute to emphasizing the more agonistic or antagonistic nature of communication, Institution Although my conception of institutionalization is discursive, it cannot be com- plete if itis not used in relation with the aim of discourse: the constitution of institutions. I want to emphasize that the notion of institutions used here is quite general (ranging from social practices and norms to the more concrete or mate rial institutions). To account for institutionalization, it is important to highlight that institutions have a dual dimension: rational and symbolic. ‘This means that ‘new institutions are produced to constitute processes of recognition and collective10 Sociology of Discourse acceptance, but also processes of creating social meaning in which those institu- tions make sense and can be accepted as having done so. Therefore, I develop the {dea of institutions based on two different (and, in principle, not compatible) theo- retical frameworks: those of John Searle and Cornelius Castoriadis. Searles account of institutions is grounded on his idea of collective inten- tionality. This is interesting because it emphasizes the existence of a collective subject, albeit one in opposition to my approach to collectivization based on an a priori shared condition rather than on a constitutive process. Nonetheless, Searle's main merit consists of subsuming the complex institutional process into ‘one formula: the constitutive rule X counts as Y in the context C’ This explains the attribution ofa status function to an entity, X, so that it acquires the value ¥. ‘This transformation is only possible if an agreement exists (that is, a group that is willing to assume that °X counts as Y in the context C”) that lasts throughout time and is represented officially, Otherwise, without collective acceptance, the status function lacks efficiency, and no institution would be recognized as such. ‘The importance of the constitutive rule leaves the contlicts between collective subjects unexplained, since there are diverse interpretations of institutional facts at stake, as well as of the contexts in which some social facts can be considered as institutions Even though the perspective of conflict is not included in the institutional fact developed by Searle, power is present both in the imposition of the status function, as well as in its acceptance. ‘There are two types of power: symbolic, which refers to language and its representational function, and deontic, which creates rights and obligations between the subjects. Power is also represented under a simple formula: "$ makes A,’ which can be further developed with the incorporation of acceptance and the assumption of rights and obligations. As power cannot be separated from the institutional fact and it requires collective acceptance, power originates from below. Itcan explain how social movements also have power, such as the power-to-do and the capacity for the foundation of institutional facts. Thus, the collective rejection of existing power opens up the possibility of creating new institutions ‘What I miss the most in Searles theory of institutions is the meaning or imag inary dimension of the process of institutionalization. Neither the dispositions, similar to Bourdieu’s notion of the habitus, nor the collective acceptance of the institutional fact are enough. The maintenance of institutions and therefore their acceptance require some signification that acquires sense within the institution and, in turn, gives meaning to the institution. To Searle, the problem is that his ‘understanding of the symbolic is limited to the representational level; hence it is, not considered part of the institutionalization of social meaning.Sociology of Discourse Contributions such as the one made by Castoriadis fulfill the need to include this symbolic dimension, Castotiadis distinguishes between the ensidic dimen- sion, or the tendency of societies to define and delimit themselves, and the imagi- nary dimension, where relations are indefinite and a final definition cannot be reached, According to him, society is instituted on Imaginary Social Significations and on material institutions, which together form the instituted social imaginary. As total closure is impossible (or only possible as part of the ensidic dimension), the instituting social imaginary allows for the creation of new meanings and a dynamic of social change, marked by the shift of the instituted to the instituting. As they are social significations, they are the result of collective processes rather than individual ones. Thus, social movements question the instituted significa- tions with the aim of changing the signification of certain practices and their cor responding institutions. All in all, the process of institutionalization is thus made up of two facets the constitutive by means of the application of rules and functions of status, and the social meaning which provides sense to the social significations. Institutional change can also consist of the acknowledgment of a new status or a change in the interpretation and understanding of the social reality. On a political level, Castoriadis also adds the interesting distinction between autonomy and heter- ‘onomy. While the later is identified with societies where it is understood that the institution is granted by others, that is, that its foundation is attributed to an extra~ social authority, autonomy implies the acknowledgment of society itself as a source for modifying the existing institutions and, consequently their questioning. I find it interesting to expand the notion of autonomy, which focuses on the questioning of social significations, and delimit it later in concrete social and political projects, that might turn into a new form of autonomy (being assimilated by institutions or modifying them). In any case, social change starts as an attempt at autonomy by social movements, which challenges the existing social and political structures, and the power-over, and which transforms our creativity into something which is alien to us and is perceived as heteronomy. A model of analysis ‘The theoretical framework exposed in this book is also perceived as an applied framework that could be useful for shedding light on social change from the dis cursive perspective of institutionalization. ‘The question of institutionalization ust be addressed, in order to guide an analysis by a complementary identifica tion of the established order, on the one hand, and of the process of questioningSociology of Discourse and constituting alternatives, on the other. This must also be based on the identifi- cation of the discourses (in the public sphere, but also in the hidden transcript or in-between) and the social actors that produce those discourses. All these consid- erations can be understood in the light of bigger social processes within a concrete social change, from the more-general ones like neoliberalism, to more specific ‘ones such as the financial crisis from 2007/2008 onwards or the new cycle of social protests initiated in 2011, I present a model that can be used as a guide for the analysis in Figure 1. I want to emphasize that discourse in this model has a nar row meaning since all three processes are clearly discursive as part of the overall process of insttutionalization, ‘COMMUNICATION DISCOURSE INSTITUTION Public Discourse Collectivization Institutional facts Hidden Discourse Articulation | Social meanings Interconnected Discourse Performativity “SSINSTITUTIONALIZATION Figure 1. Analytical model It cannot be taken for granted that discourses are produced by a collective actor, or that a collective identity is constituted by discourse, We must, however, pay attention to the collectivization of discourse as a way of creating collective identities and claims assumed by a collective actor, besides relations between the individual and the collective. This becomes important in situations of social change, when the possibility of constituting new collective identities is opened. ‘The articulation of discourse helps in understanding how the social alliances, which make a new collective actor emerge, are fostered discursively. It also places, discourse and institutionalization in a situation of conflict in which different ‘worldviews are opposed, and the discursive openness aims to challenge and over- come the established order. ‘Regarding the social conflict, when it becomes a public matter, discourse is no longer (or, at least, not only) produced in the hidden sphere as a way of resistance,Sociology of Discourse but also in the public sphere, reflecting the processes of collectivization and articu- lation, For this reason, the communicative dimension must be included in under standing the interaction between social actors and their relations. Social change can vary in its scope from small changes in existing institutions to attempts at fostering a more ambitious societal change. In the conformation of the public we ‘must look at the aim of communication to achieve consensus or integrate contlict and the appearance of counter-spheres and their interaction with institutions. In this dynamic, the creation of new institutions, in a broad sense, must be added to complete the explanation of the process of institutionalization, It is espe- cially interesting to identify the moments of institutionalization in which new institutions are named and accepted by a collectivity (not necessarily by the whole society), and when some functions, which did not exist before, are attributed to that institution. Moreover, the creation of social meanings that enhance the appearance of these new institutions explains how it is possible for social actors to constitute alternatives that previously were unthinkable. Social meanings con- tribute to moving the limits between what can be said and not, and represent an ‘openness in relation to the established social order, In social reality these dimensions are strongly intertwined but on an analyti- cal level it makes sense to distinguish between them. The creation of a new social imaginary of democracy (more inclusive, participatory or direct) and its institu tions (the taking over of public squares, the horizontal organization of political discussion by civil society) is produced by the articulation of an alternative dis- course of democracy, as opposed to that which is defended in the name of rep- resentative democracy. This new social imaginary is, atthe same time, in conflict in the public sphere with the main institutions that refuse new understandings of democracy, such as political parties and parliaments as main representative institutions. However, the analytical distinction is useful to show different social dynamics and underline fields (like discourse, communication, and institutions) which can be analyzed in-depth separately. In sum, this proposal of a Sociology of Discourse places discourse as a cen- tral component of understanding and analyzing social change. This perspective is perfectly complementary, besides being inspired by it, to the more linguistically oriented approaches offered, for instance, by CDA. ‘This social study of discourse can benefit from the more linguistic and also the more politically- and socially- oriented approaches which sometimes are not very systematic or do not relate discourse sufficiently to other political and social categories. The emphasis on institutionalization is due to the need to carry out social studies that acknowledge the central role of discourse and how social openness is followed by a collective process aimed to distance itself from established institutions and to explore the possibility of creating alternatives. Sociology of Discourse may shed light on such14 Sociology of Discourse social changes as those experienced after the anti-globalization movement, the indigenous struggles, new claims on property rights, the emergence of new col- lective actors and ways of organizing and, as I have analyzed at length in the last, chapter of this book, the right to housing. All in all, Sociology of Discourse is an adequate framework for analyzing the numerous social dynamics that constantly question the established order and open possibilities for change Structure of the book ‘Throughout the book, a Sociology of Discourse, founded on the constituent role of discourse in the process of institutionalization, is developed. The theoretical framework includes the main dimensions that account for this process: social change, discourse, communication and institution, All sections are intertwined and contribute to understanding a common phenomenon. To explain the differ- ent sections, I draw on different approaches and place them in dialogue with each other, Some of them do not share the same epistemological premises and can even be seen as contradictory. However, my main concern is with how to ingrate all these approaches in the main argument of the book, ic. that discourses constitute alternative institutions to foster and give continuity to social change, and how the approaches can serve to reinforce this argument, Therefore, the approaches are discussed and adapted to this theoretical goal In spite of the interest of theoretically elaborating on the framework, I find it necessary to illustrate all these aspects with some examples of how social changes, are carried out and what sort of institations discourses shape. For this reason, some cases are included (in grey boxes) to exemplify certain aspects of institu- tionalization. I consider the cases very relevant to gain a better understanding of the theoretical framework. They are not to be considered full analyses, but rather illustrations of concrete phenomena that have been explained theoretically. This is ‘one of the ways in which the cases contribute to the book. In addition, all the cases, presented originate in the two waves of global protests (the anti-globalization ‘movement from the late 90s and the Occupy and indignados movement from 2011) and the period in-between, which in Latin America resulted in the so-called ‘Pink Tide! This means that, in the ast twenty years, we have witnessed how social ‘movements have produced new discourses entailing an alternative conception of society and have attempted to create new institutions (or substantially modify the ‘existing ones). Besides the questioning of social order, the tension between open- ness and stability is always present, I use examples of these struggles throughout the book and return to the topic at the end of the book to reflect more generally ‘on these movements.Sociology of Discourse Nonetheless, my aim is also to show the full-fledged analytical potential ofthis approach, applied to one single case. ‘Thus, I analyze the right to housing in the case of the Spanish Platform for People Affected by Mortgages (PAH), whose dis- course has created alternative institutions in times of financial crisis where domi nant institutions remain at the service of the interests of capita. It is interesting to assess the alternative generated by this movement, in order to understand the discursive power of social movements to promote alternative institutions by using the performative effect of language against the dominant order and to create a col- lective sense of identity. Both performativity and collectivity are summarized in the motto of the movement “Yes, we can,” which, coming from the voices of people being evicted, foster social change quite differently than if pronounced by politi- cians whose aspiration is mainly to take power. 5