A discourse-oriented model for the study of nation-building

It has been emphasized that nations are historical products as well as social constructs and that nation-building is carried out discursively, in terms of social practices situated across time-space. According to the moderate version of social constructionism adopted, nations can be partly considered substantive social facts shaped by the continuous reproduction of certain discursive practices. At the same time, nations can be partly seen as contingent products, given that the discursive practices which shaped them may change or even disappear over time. It has also been stressed that the discursive construction of the nation operated on two fronts: it shaped the national mode of organization, that is, the social basis upon which nationalism operated. It also led to the creation and diffusion of narratives constituting national identities. Given this centrality granted to discourse in nation-building,

89

it is important to define what discourse means in the context of the present research. In this section I propose a working definition of discourse and outline a theoretical model for explaining the discursive construction of the nation based primarily on the insights of Giddens’s theory of social structuration. The model proposed incorporates Sewel’s contribution to such theory as well as some key ideas on modernity and its consequences, one of which has been the emergence and consolidation of Nation-States across the world as key institutions of a broader world-capitalist system.

Defining “discourse” is not easy. Indeed, the concept of discourse has proved difficult to

conceptualize because it often means different things for different scholars. Fairclough (1992), Blommaert & Bulcaen (2000) and Schiffrin et al (2001) distinguish various categories of definitions. In the narrowest sense discourse is defined as text, more specifically as text beyond the sentence level. This way of conceptualizing discourse is more amenable to the kind of focused idiographic linguistic analysis placing the emphasis on the description of text, mostly in its written variety. It does not pay much attention to alternative –and complementary- forms of semiosis commonly found in communicative exchanges; it

does not venture much into the analysis of context and it may even tend to avoid the formulation of generalizations about the language system or about the social aspects of language use. In a second category of definitions, discourse is understood in much broader and imprecise terms, as “language in use” or as “practice”, generally meaning that the

analysis of discourse should not be reduced to the –chiefly descriptive- linguistic analysis of text. It should also include the nomothetic –partly descriptive but also partly interpretive- study of “context” and discuss for instance the conditions for the production, circulation,

90

interdiscursivity. This broader category of discourse is more accommodating with the work done in the emerging area of multimodal discourse analysis which in part exposes the limitations of a monomodally conceived world where language is perceived as the only means of encoding meaning in human communication (Kress & Van Leeuven, 2001; 2006; Kress, 2003; 2010; Levine & Scollon, 2004; O’Halloran, 2004; Jewitt, 2009).

The issue, therefore, is which of these two approaches to discourse best captures the complexity of the phenomenon of nation-building as theorized before. The principle of conceptual pragmatism invoked earlier on dictates that the working definition of discourse adopted should be applicable to all key aspects of nation-building. It should be able to account for the emergence and development of the national mode of organization, the social milieu where nationalist movements operated with great or little success. Also, this working definition of discourse should explicate the elaboration and diffusion of nationalist doctrines in the form of narratives which formed the basis of Spanish identities. Arguably a narrow language-based definition of discourse which disregards other forms of semiosis and ignores extra-linguistic factors described as context cannot satisfactorily explain the discursive construction of the nation in all its complexity. This is so because social action in nation-building may not always be accomplished linguistically. What is needed, therefore, is a broader social-semiotic approach to communication understood as multimodal semiotic work carried out in the domain of the social, often involving speech or written text but also gesture, action or even image, colour or music (Kress, 2010). Accordingly, discourse should be defined in broader terms for the purpose of this research: as social practice, in the form of material action operating across time and space, which is semiotically mediated. Naturally, language –spoken or written- continues to be the primary tool in human communication

91

despite the growing importance of multimodal forms of semiosis in an age dominated by computer technology. This means that any material practice implicated in nation-building which may have been originally enacted through non-linguistic means – a military parade, an exhibition in a museum, a financial transaction- may likely end up being reported as text in the form of a news report or in face to face conversation.

As Blommaert (2005) argues, this richer notion of discourse is by no means an unproblematic one. It requires complex forms of analysis and exposes the limitations of linguistic evidence in explaining the discursive construction of the nation in its totality. At the same time, it reveals the need for discourse analysis to become an interdisciplinary field of scholarship where semiotic work and social practice can be linked. Furthermore, given the conceptualization of social structuration as a duality- and not a dualism-, the study of the discursive construction of the nation should be based neither on the experience of individual actors, nor should it presuppose the existence of any form of societal totality. It should be centred instead on the analysis of social practices ordered across time-space. That in turn implies that the focus of such analysis should never be the nation as an end product, be this the result of the narrated experiences of individual actors or of agent-less structural processes involving material changes, but rather the focus should be on nation-building understood not only as a historical phenomenon but also as an on-going process recreated by reflexive social actors which constantly reproduce the structural conditions which make nation-building possible. Figure 2.1 illustrates how this discursive construction of the nation may operate according to the theory of social structuration expounded by Giddens (1984; 2005).

92

Figure 2.1.

The discursive construction of the nation

At the basis of this complex process we find innumerable micro-events and event-chains (i.e. a series of associated actions taking place at one single point in time such as a military parade, a New Year celebration, a football match, etc.). Such micro-events are situated along multiple domains of social action which may stand in relative isolation with respect to each

Micro-events (symbolic, cultural, etc.) Micro-events (legal, political, etc.) Micro-events (economic, financial, etc.) Micro-events (communication & media, etc.)

Processes STRUCTURES (Schemas & Resources) Structural shift Social agency

93

other or crisscross in ways which are not always predictable. Some of the key discursive domains and typical events associated with the discursive construction of the nation are listed on table 2.2:

Table 2.2.

Discursive domain Event type

Symbolic i.e. flags, anthems, military parades, national day celebrations, the bull road sign, sports events, souvenirs for tourists, landmarks, archetypal places, etc. Cultural i.e. literary works, musical pieces, movies, pictorial artworks, museums,

tourist brochures, national character stereotypes, sense of humor, etc. Educational i.e. School curricula, teacher training courses, textbooks, lessons, etc. Economic i.e. The issuing of State debt, financial transactions, company mergers,

working schedules, product sales, etc.

Media & Communication i.e. Newspaper articles, TV programs, news bulletins, weather maps, etc. Legal i.e. Laws, court procedures, etc.

Political i.e. Speeches, demonstrations, meetings, policy documents etc. Historical i.e. Historical narratives in books, textbooks, novels, movies, etc.

Some discursive domains at the micro-level of nation-building

This list is not meant to be an exhaustive one. It simply illustrates some aspects of discourse traditionally implicated in nation-building in different areas of social research, those of politics (associated with the State), economics (associated with the market) and sociology (associated with civil society). Wallerstein argues that such disciplinary division does not correspond to social reality, as the phenomena dealt within these separate boxes are “so closely interrelated, that each presumes the other, each affects the other, each is incomprehensible without taking into account the other boxes” (Wallerstein, 2004, p. X).

94

construction and daily reproduction of the nation as an imagined community. As such, they represent “segments of the respective societal ‘reality’ which contribute to constituting and

shaping the ‘frame’ of discourse” (Wodak 2006, p. 177). Some of these micro-events are customarily interpreted and reproduced in the media according to specific conditions for text production and reception that determine not only what is likely to be published but also how the news would be constructed. However, there are also many micro-events that are seldom newsworthy. These are key elements in what Billig (1995) has fittingly called “the banal reproduction of the nation” which often escapes the attention of the very participants in the event: from a history lesson in a school to a casual conversation in a cafe; or a flag being waved at a public building.

Regardless of their media impact, micro-events constitute some form of semiotically-mediated material action. They can be realized linguistically, through written or oral text, and/or by other semiotic means (bodily action, images, motion pictures, etc.). They constitute rich material for empirical observation and analysis thanks to the fact that they operate at the lowest scale in what Wallerstein (1997) has called “episodic geopolitical TimeSpace” or what scholars of the Annales School call “l’histoire événementielle”

(Braudel, 1969). As such, micro-events are clearly situated across time-space and so they can be precisely located and dated. They usually have recognizable agents behind them (individuals, institutions or both) and are also easily quantifiable. The domains of social action where these micro-events occur are never self-contained. Rather, these are interrelated in dynamic ways. Connections between them are in constant flux and as such they are not predictable. We have seen how the axioms of multiplicity of structures and transposability of schemas account for this unpredictability. As Sewel (2005) explains, the structures behind

95

specific social practices do not necessarily operate harmoniously and in a unilinear fashion, while the schemas associated with such practices are not automatically transferred from one instance to another. Take, for instance, the boycott of Catalan cava in 2004-2005 after Carod-Rovira, a supporter of Catalan independence from Spain, called for Catalonia to boycott Madrid's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games in response those who opposed the reform of the Catalan Estatut, echoed also in the international press.13 It was reported that this boycott had a negative impact on the sales of cava and other Catalan products throughout the Spanish territory which lasted for months. Here we can see how a form of social action initially operating at the symbolic level derives in material processes with clear economic implications as well as symbolic ones.

Micro-events may take place once although they may be reproduced by social actors giving rise to complex networks. I will call these event networks “processes.” Processes usually operate at the meso-structural level, an intermediate stage between micro-events and macro-structures. As such, meso-processes are often readily identifiable. They can be roughly allocated in time-space although we may not be able to date them as precisely as micro-events, unless these are triggered by something remarkable such as an act of terrorism with significant repercussions (i.e. the September 11th attacks) or a regime change (i.e. the political transition in Spain after Franco’s death). Being complex networks of events, they

are less amenable to idiographic analysis. Agency here is diluted, quantification is often problematic and so is explanation, since processes usually operate along complex chains of causes and effects situated across different fields of action. A case in point is the formation of modern Nation-States where different theories have placed the emphasis on different

13

96

causes, a process so complex that one cannot easily determine what constitutes a cause or an effect. Thus, whereas Gellner (1983; 1997) or Hobsbawm (1990) see material and economic processes driving ideological ones, Greenfeld (1992; 2001) sees things the other way around. A more recent case of such kind of process related to this research is the de-centralization Spain has undergone in recent decades including the re-alignment of power structures alongside the devolution of powers from the State to the regions, the emergence of new social actors at the regional level and the growing differentiation in regulatory frameworks. While in the case of micro-actions the focus is usually at the lowest time-space scale, meso-processes are best explained in terms of historical cycles, so called “conjunctures” (Braudel, 1969) situated in cyclo-ideological time-space (Wallerstein, 1997).

The structural resource of power plays a key role in determining which events are more likely to be reproduced and which are not. Sometimes the pervasive influence of power leads to processes being carefully regulated, meaning that the reproduction of an event can be the result of established regulatory frameworks which may define to the minutest detail how certain things should be done. Other times processes result from the reproduction of certain events under less strict regulatory conditions, for instance, the ways national symbols are displayed during football matches, where power may still be enacted albeit in a less ordered fashion.

The concept of hegemony as developed by Gramsci (1971) constitutes an important dimension of power where a cultural, intellectual or moral leadership replaces domination as the form of social and political struggle. In any case, independently of whether it is plain domination or subtle hegemony that is constraining or enabling social action, each

97

micro-event carries different weight according to the power invested in it. Blommaert explains the unequal capacities of the different social actors using the notion of “voice”, defined as “the way in which people manage to make themselves understood or fail to do so” (Blommaert, 2005. p. 4). Voice in turn largely depends on the discursive resources at the actors’ disposal and the conditions of use specific to the contexts in which the

communication event occurs. For instance, the government’s decision to place a flag in the centre of Madrid is very different from an individual’s decision to do the same in a balcony

at home. In principle, the more an action is reproduced, the higher the chance its constitutive principles become perpetuated and naturalized.

The macro-levels of the discursive construction of the nation are represented by structures, highly abstract agent-less phenomena situated at the longue durée (Braudel, 1969) or at the higher level of “structural”/“eternal” time-space (Wallerstein, 1997), a scale where change

proceeds so slowly that it may appear almost timeless. As we have seen before, structures in this discursive construction consist of a duality of virtual cultural schemas and actual resources, including human and non-human, which both enable and constrain social action at the micro and meso levels. Structures also vary in terms of depth and breadth in the impact they exert on social action. Deep structures are derived from quasi-static principles and they hardly change over time. Often they can be considered almost like “States of being” or “facts of life”. Macro-structures and micro-actions are also understood as being dialectically

related (Fairclough, 1992; Giddens, 1984) since micro-actions are not only shaped by structures but also contribute to constituting and reproducing these.

98

A key structure involved in the constitution and reproduction of nation-building is “identity”, understood here in general terms: that ineluctable “need to belong” inherent in the social

nature of human beings, something Fishman (1980) has associated with ethnicity and kinship and Guibernau (2001) relates to culture. It has been stressed that identity, once closely associated with another structure, “religion”, particularly during pre-modern times (Pérez Vejo, 1999; Bell, 2001), acquired the form of “national identity” after the

transformation of the religious being defined by Gauchet (1997) in terms of the “disenchantment of the world”, a process which in Spain’s case was particularly problematic

in view of the resistance it generated, as we will see in chapter 3. This disenchantment arguably led to the transfer of some religious features into the newly-emerging identities contributing to the sacralisation of the nation (Gentile, 1996; 2006; Mosse, 1990). Culture and power are two other basic structures in the configuration of social life and constitute essential pillars of any nation-building process together with economic structures related to phenomena such as capitalism and industrialization which have been traditionally linked with the emergence of the Nation-State system. Another structure has to do with the ways we relate to our physical surroundings and how this shapes the way we construct our world, a notion analysed in Braudel’s study of the formation of the French nation (Braudel, 1988) or implicit in Giddens’s notion of time-space distanciation (Giddens, 1990). We have seen

before how the local was practically the only realm available for social action to be enacted in pre-modern times and how time-space distanciation gradually grew accompanied by processes such as urbanization, linguistic standardization, the spread of literacy, the development of an industrial economy and of transportation networks, all of which are directly related to the emergence and consolidation of the national mode of organization.

99

Implicit in the historical dimension of nation-building is the notion of change and how change operates in the context of the social structuration framework detailed above. Change is hardly observable at the highly-contingent micro level of analysis, unless sufficient time has passed between the event and its interpretation. This is because the episodic time-space frame in which micro-actions operate does not provide a sufficiently broad perspective to help us differentiate between the anecdotal and the consequential. Most change at the upper levels of analysis in the discursive construction of the nation takes place gradually, if at all. The higher we go in the structuration scale, the slower change occurs due to the inherently pervasive nature of structures. Sometimes old practices and concepts once being constantly reproduced by social actors may alternate with new ways enacting things. A good case in point is how the current state of distanciation enables the enactment of social action at both the local and global levels of time-space when a few decades ago social action usually took place at the local level. Other times the old may slowly fade away into the realm of history after being substituted by the new. Often though, these old ways do not vanish without a trace. Rather, they may be assimilated within new processes and structures according to their own inner logic until all connections between the old and the new may be forgotten. On occasion change may occur abruptly as a result of transformation at the higher levels of the