Articulations of Self and E S Y R RU Politics in Activist Discourse AO N C I LS A Discourse Analysis of Critical PDI I C Subjectivities in Minority Debates N S DIS I TE SI OD PU Jan Zienkowski T S Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse Series Editors Johannes Angermuller University of Warwick Coventry , United Kingdom Judith Baxter Halsecombe House Minehead , United Kingdom P ostdisciplinary Studies in Discourse engages in the exchange between discourse theory and analysis while putting emphasis on the intellectual challenges in discourse research. Moving beyond disciplinary divisions in today's social sciences, the contributions deal with critical issues at the intersections between language and society. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14534 Jan   Z ienkowski Articulations of Self and Politics in Activist Discourse A Discourse Analysis of Critical Subjectivities in Minority Debates Jan Zienkowski Institute for Culture and Society University of Navarra Pamplona, Navarra , Spain Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse ISBN 978-3-319-40702-9 ISBN 978-3-319-40703-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40703-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016955557 © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2017 Th is work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and trans- mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Th e publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Cover image © Yagi Studio/ Getty images Printed on acid-free paper Th is Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature Th e registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland Th e registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Introd uction D iscourse is a slippery t hing. Th e range of theories and disciplines that try to explain how it functions, what its basic elements are and how we may objectify it is wide and full of contradictory positions. At the same time, it is agreed that discourse is ultimately about meaning. Th e discourse we use informs the way we conceptualise and create the contexts in which we move, as well as the outlook with which we approach these realities. It not only tells us what objects we can speak about, it also provides us with the semiotic options and strategies that allow us to articulate who and what we are ourselves. Discourse, I will argue, is fi rst and foremost a multilayered practice of articulation. Th e concept of articulation has a long history in the English language. Th roughout this history some meanings have been forgotten and others have been recently recovered and reconceptualised in social and politi- cal theory. At times, the concept is used in order to designate a practice of linking discursive elements to each other. In this sense, articulation consists of practices such as linking vowels, words, sentences, narratives , texts, identities and ideologies to each other. But the concept of articula- tion can also be regarded as a notion of performativity. It is a particular way of quilting such elements together in a poetic and public perfor- mance. We all perform both types of articulation simultaneously when we talk about our world and about ourselves . v vi Introduction When studying political discourse, it is therefore important not to lose track of these two aspects of articulation. Meaning is not produced in a mechanical way . It is not a matter of encoding and decoding messages as if the message itself can be abstracted from the context in which it was produced, mediated and interpreted. Language is not a puzzle that guarantees only one possible outcome as long as some uniform rules of interpretation and construction are followed. On the contrary: the vari- ous ways in which we perform the practice of linking elements to each other impact on the way we construct meaning. In this book, the focus will be on the relationship between politics and subjectivity as articulated in activist discourse. H uman beings defi ne a great deal of who and what we are through discourse. We constantly renegotiate and appropriate the way we can and should interpret each other’s words and practices by rearticulating voices, statements and stories that are not our own. In the context of political communication this principle becomes especially relevant. We rely on the discourse of others in order to position and defi ne ourselves. Entire debates can be described in terms of discursive processes of reart- iculation. Debates about issues such as migration or fi nancial debt are about the way we connect societal elements, functions and meanings to each other. Social actors struggle over the p ower that allows them to reshape societies in the image of a preferred sense of self and other. Th ey articulate categories such as ‘politics’, ‘culture’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘ community ’, ‘integration’ or ‘ neoliberalism ’ accordingly in political debates and p erformances. Th e use of such a bstract categories is not a prerogative of academics and politicians. Such notions also fi gure in everyday language use. Th is can be exemplifi ed with reference to the F lemish debates on integration and minorities discussed in this book. Even critics of h egemonic interpre- tations of concepts such as identity or integration are not always able to avoid using such notions altogether. Critique does not so much rely on a strict refusal to use problematic terms altogether as on the capacity to undermine the logics informing hegemonic understandings of terms that support the current status quo . Public debates are inherently multilayered. Th ey take place in a variety of institutional settings and involve a multiplicity of actors. However, this Introduction vii variety is not completely eclectic. It is always possible to discern recurring arguments. Some arguments will be valued over others and some voices will be granted more authority than others. Th ere are regularities in the dispersion of statements within every public debate. Th ese regularities can be described in terms of logics. Th is does not mean that large-scale debates are completely predictable or static. Th ey are not. But it is not easy to infl uence them as an isolated citizen. Th e political success of a counter discourse can be assessed with reference to the extent to which it manages to be articulated with and within competing discourses in the public realm. Anyone who follows up on a mediatised topic for some amount of time will notice that similar actors make similar arguments time and time again. Some aspects of a discourse may change—for example, its expressions, slogans or m etaphors— but quite often there is an adaptive i nterpretive logic that structures a debate and that resists true change in the sense of a restructuration of social and political relationships. Most contemporary theories of discourse agree that there is no one-to-one rela- tionship between a linguistic form and its meaning. A new metaphor may signal a change in the large-scale i nterpretive logic structuring a particular discourse, but it may also perform an equivalent political f unction . W hether the discourse of a person, an organisation or a movement can be labelled as critical or counter ideological depends not so much on the specifi c characteristics of a particular signifi er within the discourse, but on the question whether the interpretive logic performed and articulated in a concrete discourse challenges hegemonic understandings of a society or a sociopolitical relationship. Th roughout this book, I will provide a heuristic for analysing the logics of large-scale public debates, as well as for analysing the large-scale interpretive logics of language users who seek to challenge the dominant logics of the debates they are involved in. I chose to focus on the way Flemish , Belgian and/or Moroccan intellectuals and activists—they articulated such labels in diff erent ways—established critical modes of subjectivity while engaging with hegemonic voices and statements in interviews on Flemish minority debates in Belgium . I n preparing this book, I was frequently asked to provide some reasons for people to be interested in the minority discourse of a small country such as Belgium . I was also asked to explain why my readers should be viii Introduction interested in the discourse of a minority of activists, within a Moroccan minority, within the Flemish region, within Belgium. After the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, I think it is less likely that I will receive such questions in the near future. Many international commentators turned their attention to this tiny country in the heart of Europe , wondering why Belgium has the largest percentage of foreign fi ghters in Syria per capita, why there were so many terrorists with proven links to the Brussels district Molenbeek and—to a lesser extent—why Belgium ranks so badly in international and national reports on the integration of minorities into the labour market, the education system and other important areas of life . My book does not answer these questions. But it may provide some context. I conducted all of my interviews in what may seem to be more innocent times. Th e interviews presented here were conducted before the rise of ISIS, before Europe ’s ‘ refugee crisis’, before Trump made his bid for the presidency, at the beginning of Obama’s post-Bush era in American politics. It was only after I conducted my last interview that a radical Islamist group called S haria4Belgium started to profi le itself publicly and gained mainstream media attention. However, a closer look at my inter- views shows that these were not innocent times at all. Homogenising and neo- racist statements have been alienating Flemish / Belgian guest workers, migrants, M uslims and other ‘a llochthons’ for decades, while international research reports continue to address e xclusion mechanisms and outright discrimination in schooling, in real estate and in the labour market. Th is book focuses on M oroccan/ F lemish intellectuals and activists engaging in democratic forms of social and political activism. It is not about Islamism, terrorism or non-democratic forms of radicalism but constitutes an attempt to approach a dense network of issues related to integration, racism , discrimination and migration from the point of view of a politicised minority within a minority. By focusing on the way Flemish /Moroccan activists talk about their preferred and disavowed modes of political engagement , it becomes possible to come to grips with the intricate relationship between self and politics as marked in discourse. As such, I would like to argue that any understanding of the logics that structure our societies should involve an understanding of the pragmatic Introduction ix and interpretive processes that allow us to articulate a more or less coher- ent sense of self . I n reaction to the recent Brussels attacks, F lemish h omogenising and nationalist discourses on integration are back in full swing—even though they never really went out of fashion. Th e far right is on the rise all across Northern and Eastern E urope and attacks on M uslims and refugees are becoming ever more frequent. At the same time, many Europeans see their neo-r acist discourses and attitudes justifi ed by horrible acts committed by terrorists who claim to act in the name of I slam. It does not take a lot of imagination to realise that such developments are likely to fuel feelings of alienation and misrecognition upon which terrorist recruiters capitalise. It is therefore important to steer clear of sensation-driven stereotypes and to listen to the way critical minority members think about themselves, about politics and about the societies they live in. Maybe I did conduct my interviews in more tranquil times, but the statements made by my interviewees have gained rather than lost political signifi cance. Chapter 1 of this book problematises the relationship between self and politics as articulated in activist discourse with reference to concrete inter- view data. As such, it sets the stage for the two theoretical chapters that follow. By focusing on the way my interviewees dealt with abstract cat- egories such as politics and i dentity, I will show that the barrier between a cademic and political discourse is extremely fuzzy. Abstract categories such as politics and identity are not merely analytical categories for social scientists. Th ey also function as social v alues that allow my interview- ees to distinguish between preferred and disavowed modes of politics. With respect to the self, Chap. 1 shows that language users attempt to articulate some degree of c oherence with respect to the multiplicities they are. It off ers an initial delineation of the object of investigation and a list of desiderata for a perspective that allows for an empirical discourse analysis of large-scale interpretive processes and political debates such as the minority debate in Flanders . I will present the theoretical elements for my perspective on self and politics in activist discourse in Chaps. 2 and 3. Chapter 2 deals with the practice of articulation from the point of view of poststructuralist discourse theory . Here, I will focus especially on the ways in which the meanings of self, society and politics can be partially and temporarily