Social Power and the Inflation of Discourse: The Failure of Popular Hegemony in Nicaragua

Full text

Sage Publications, Inc.
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Perspectives.
http://www.jstor.org
Social Power and the Inflation of Discourse: The Failure of Popular Hegemony in Nicaragua
Author(s): B. Lee Artz
Source:
Latin American Perspectives,
Vol. 24, No. 1, Liberalism's Revival and Latin American
Studies (Jan., 1997), pp. 92-113
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634238
Accessed: 25-04-2015 17:36 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social
Power
and the Inflation of
Discourse
The Failure
of
Popular
Hegemony
in
Nicaragua
by
B. Lee
Artz
To critique
Ernesto Laclau's conception
of hegemony and
social change
is no
easy
undertaking.
His
poststructuralist
argument
that discourse creates
social relations
and
social movements
in
the absence of class
position and
political
interests
is
sophisticated
and
complex.
His theories of articulation,
difference,
contradiction,
and
negativity
provide ample
material
for
budding
intellectuals to
exercise their academic
skills on.
In
fact,
if
it were only
scholars
who
appropriated
those theories
I would
probably
stay
out of the
fray-Laclau
is a very
clever fellow.
Unfortunately,
the
practical
application
of
his
theoretical
perspective
in
Latin America has
placed
lives
in
the
balance,
and
therefore
an
appraisal
of his
arguments
on discourse
and social
practice
is
urgent
and
necessary.
This article is
my
modest
contribution.
One
can enter a
Laclau text at
almost
any point,
discover
insightful
and
useful
observations,
and
gain
a
sense of
liberation
from outmoded constructs.
In Laclau's
world of
abstraction,
however,
one sacrifices
precision,
consis-
tency,
and
clarity.
Indeed, any
encounter
with Laclau
immediately
reveals
that
while
he offers "theoretical
premises
which
make
it
possible
to
think" in
new
ways (1983:
39),
he is short on concrete
examples.
Rather than
conduct
an
exhaustive
investigation
of
the internal inconsistencies
of
his
arguments,
I
rely primarily
on the
Nicaraguan
revolution
from
1977 to
1990
to
illustrate
his theoretical
misdirection.
This
choice
of
a
course of
action rests
on the
assumption
that
the
ultimate
test of
any theory
and its
consequences
for
human
agents
is its best
applica-
tion.
My
choice
of
an
example
is
dictated
in
part by
Laclau and
his
followers.
Laclau
(1985)
explicitly places
Latin
American
social
movements
within
his
theoretical
construct.
Elsewhere,
other
postmarxist
thinkers
(Coraggio,
1985;
Molyneux, 1985;
Mouffe, 1984;
Nufiez, 1988; Slater, 1985) present
the
1979
Nicaraguan
revolution as
an
exemplar
of how a mass-based
popular hege-
B. Lee Artz
is an assistant professor
in and
the
chair
of
the
Social
Justice
Task Force
in the
Department
of Communication
at
Loyola
University,
Chicago.
His Ph.D. dissertation
was
entitled
"Power
and Communication
in
Nicaragua."
LATIN
AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES,
Issue 92,
Vol. 24 No. 1, January 1997
92-113
C 1997
Latin
American
Perspectives
92
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz /
SOCIAL POWER
AND DISCOURSE 93
mony may supplant class-based
historical agency.
Further, while I do not
suggest that the Frente
Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (Sandinista
Na-
tional
Liberation
Front-FSLN)
was influenced
by
Laclau's ideas, leading
theorists
of the revolution (Coraggio, 1985; Nufiez,
1988; Gorostiaga, 1989)
have justified
and
explained
Sandinista activities
in
similar
postmarxist terms.
For example, Xavier Gorostiaga
has described the Nicaraguan
revolution as
a
pluralist political project
with nonclass historical
subjects (1989: 5).
Work-
ing within the same theoretical
frame, Jose
Luis
Coraggio
has cited Laclau
as
an
authority
on class and
hegemony (1985: 38).
Consequently,
I
focus on
the experience
of
the
Nicaraguan
revolution as a way
of
unpacking the
meaning
of Laclau's
perspective
for
social movements.
I begin
with
a summary
of Laclau's basic tenets as
they apply
to social
change
and continue
with a brief theoretical
critique.
I
then examine
signifi-
cant events
of the
Nicaraguan
revolution
in
relation
to
hegemony
and social
change, including
the
attempts by
the
FSLN
leadership
after 1984 to construct
a
popular hegemony
discursively,
without
regard
to class
position
and social
interests.
LACLAU ON DISCOURSE AND SOCIAL CHANGE
According
to Laclau
and
Chantal
Mouffe,
"new
social movements" articulate
diffuse social
relations that
have a clear "differentiation
from workers'
struggles,
considered
as class
struggles" (1985: 159).
Although
the
egalitar-
ian
concerns
of
the
historical movements
of
the 19th
century
still resonate
in
modern social movements,
new
historical
agents
are
responding
to new forms
of subordination
and domination
(1983: 44). Specifically,
the
marketplace,
the
state,
and the
media have
replaced
centers of
large-scale
economic
production
as the
primary
sites for
forging
social relations and collective
identities. New
subject
identities-feminist, ecologist,
ethnic
minority-are
articulated
in
response
to the
processes
of
"commodification,"
"bureaucrati-
zation,"
and "cultural
massification" that
dominate
late
capitalism.
Although
Laclau clearly projects
his
own version
of
social
history,
he
rejects "society
in
general"
as a
"legitimate object of
discourse" (1983: 40).
He
contends
that
no
totality
of
social relations and discrete
processes
is
possible,
asserting
that since
the late 19th
century,
social formations have become
essentially
autonomous
from
the social structure of
production
and
reproduc-
tion.
In
this
postmodern
flux,
all
social relations are a
consequence
of the articu-
lation of
differences
by
decentered
subjects
resisting
the
above-mentioned
processes
of subordination.
Indeed,
in
the
contemporary world,
all social
relations are
ultimately
arbitrary
because
everything
social is discursive.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

94 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
From this vantage point, Laclau draws
three crucial conclusions. First,
social classes have been completely
displaced as the "self-evident protago-
nists of social change" (1983: 44).
Indeed, there is
"no
logical connection what-
soever" (Laclau and Mouffe,
1985:
84)
between class
position and political
action. For
instance,
the
political
conflict between worker
and employer "is
not internal
to
capitalist relations"(Laclau,
1990: 9) because a worker's
identity is determined not by socioeconomic
position but by competing
discourses and
conflicting
behaviors
articulated as consumer, ethnic group
member, neighborhood resident, parishioner,
etc.
In
fact, such "autonomous"
ingredients
have become
so prevalent
that it is virtually impossible to identify
any orderly
and coherent
system
of
"subject positions" at all (1985: 28).
Rather, subject positions
now arise from the interplay between competing
political
constructions
that bear no relation to
any pre-given social category.
Class
position
and
ideology
are
simply
the
contextualproducts of situational
discourse.
Secondly,
as a consequence
of
discursively
formed autonomous
social
agency,
the
development
of new
social movements
does not follow
any
neces-
sary,
ordered
progression (1985: 29).
Diachrony
died with the
passing
of
modernity.
There are no
"stages"
of
development
that can
logically
be
assigned
to
subject positions
or social movements.
Instead,
the
contradictory
and dis-
jointed
elements
of
subject
identities
create
spaces
that
can
be
filled
by
a
variety
of
political
discourses
and
ideological
constructions. Political
struggle
itself
is only a nonsequential
"war of
position"
between
antagonistic meanings-a
process of semiotic disruption
and
change (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 131).
Given these
two characteristics of
change
in
the
postmrodern age,
Laclau
adds a corollary:
Social
movements
no
longer
can claim to
represent
the
"objective
interests"
of social actors
based
on some
preexisting
and identifi-
able
social
position (1985: 29-30).
"Objective
interests"
per
se are nonex-
istent. As noted, society
is not a
legitimate
object
of
discourse. By extension,
therefore,
it
cannot
be a site
for
locating potential
and
likely supporters
of
emerging political
demands.
Indeed,
if
subjects
create their own
identities
through discourse-regardless
of
their material existence-then these
newly
formulated
identities must
necessarily
articulate their
own
interests
without
regard
to some
illusory objective
criteria.
As
collectivities
discursively
coa-
lesce out
of their own
political
articulations, they
write the
identity papers
for their own
participants.
For
subject
actors,
all
meaning
is
relative and
relational,
born
of
the
positioning
of
the elements
of
discourse. The bounda-
ries of
ideology
and
perceived
"interests"
are thus
contingently imposed only
by
discourse.
Theorists
such as David
Slater,
Scott
Mainwaring,
and Klaus Eder have
taken
these
proffered
dimensions
to be the "central feature
of the
historical
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz / SOCIAL
POWER
AND DISCOURSE 95
novelty"
of new social movements (Slater,
1985: 6). Given the
apparent
freedom of
discursively
organized
reality, they
see modern
social
movements
as expressions
of a more open
and pluralistic
form of democracy
than
was
characteristic
of
movements of the past. Slater,
for
example,
finds
that the
peace
movement and
the
ecology
and antinuclear
movements
developed
without
reference
to social
position
and without
regard
to
past organizational
norms
and raised
political
demands
that ignored
the "objective
interests"
of
any
social class.
As further evidence
of the
pluralism
of new social
forma-
tions,
Slater
notes
that
they
share a concern for improved
governmental
decision-making
processes,
wider
media access,
and fuller
public
discussion
as an integral part
of their
response
to
postindustrial
society.
According to
Slater,
this concern
for
"basis-democracy"
even takes
on an organizational
expression
as these
new movements
tend toward internal
cooperation,
toler-
ance
of social
difference,
and democratic
decision-making procedures.
Sig-
nificantly,
he cautions
that
"we must not assume
that there
exists
a linear
relationship
between
new
movements and a
progressive
political
orientation"
(1985:
7).
He thus emphasizes
that
everything
depends
on
the ways
in
which
particular
social demands
and
concerns are articulated to
different discourses
(Mouffe,
1984: 139-143).
In
sum,
discourse constitutes
all
political
mobili-
zations.
Above all
else,
discourse
structures social
struggle,
creates
identities,
articulates interests,
and determines
the outcome of social conflict.
This
inflation
of
discourse
has universal
application,
according
to Slater-
despite
differences
in
priorities
and
orientation,
movements
in
Latin America
and elsewhere
have
already
demonstrated
that class
position
as an indicator
of actual
and
potential
social conflict
has been
superseded
by
discursively
constructed autonomous
social
formations.
Notably,
these movements appear
to be
struggling
for interests
that have no a
priori
connection
to
the socioeco-
nomic order.
"Objective
structural
conditions are, at best,
merely
an enor-
mous backdrop"
(Kowarick,
1985:
81).
The
social
and
political
mobilizations
throughout
Latin America,
for
instance,
are-in Laclau's words-"no longer
based
on
a
model
of total
society
or
the
crystallization
in
terms of
equivalence
of
a single
totality
which divides
the
totality
of the social into two camps, but
on
a
plurality
of concrete demands
leading
to a
proliferation
of
spaces"
(1985:
41).
From
Munich to
Moscow
to
Managua,
discourse
is the
vehicle
of
power.
In the case
of
Nicaragua,
Slater finds
an
important
"tangible
link" between
the ideas
of
Laclau
and
the Sandinista
revolution
(1985:
17).
Where
Laclau
and
Mouffe
note that
a
political
party
may
be "the
organizer
of
dispersed
and
politically
virgin
masses"
and
can
serve
as an "instrument
for the
expansion
and
deepening
of democratic
struggles"
(1985:
180),
Slater
suggests
that
the
FSLN played
such
a role
by
"horizontally"
articulating
"various identities
and their
corresponding popular
organizations"
(1985:
16).
Presumably, prior
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

96 LATIN AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
to the FSLN
courtship
3 million
Nicaraguans
were political virgins awaiting
an attractive
and
persuasive
suitor.
Preexisting
experiences,
social
relations,
class formations,
and
religious, ethnic, and
regional affiliations were sum-
marily
overturned through discourse.
Coraggio
explicitly
cites the
hegemonic project
of
the FSLN
as supporting
evidence
for
the universal
application
of
Laclau's
theoretical tendencies: "We
see the
impossibility
of
establishing a one-to-one
correspondence between
concrete
agents
and specific identities
(determined by gender, class, age,
ethnic
identity,
etc.)."
In
fact,
"effective
hegemonic
practice
does
not presup-
pose
a
given
complex subject
but sets out to
constitute
it
as the
people. This,
in
turn, requires
the
elaboration
of
an articulated
discourse" (1985: 60). The
insurrection
of
1979
and
preceding political
mobilizations were
primarily
discursive events: "the
popular organizations
have served more
as a network
of communication than as a channel for
conducting specific struggles" (1985:
62). The Sandinistas used oral and written
discourse as well
as action to
articulate a classless
popular hegemony.
"The
conjunctural situation, through
a dialectical
relationship
between
revolutionary party
and
mass
organiza-
tions,
determine[d]
which identities
developed,
at what
speed, and
in
which
direction"
(1985: 69). Thus,
the
"material and
ideological
needs of
the
revolution"
determined which
demands of
workers, peasants, women, youth,
ethnic
minorities,
and
others
would be
promoted
(1985: 69-77).
In
short,
the
popular hegemonic
project
was
primarily
a discursive
undertaking:
there
was
nothing structural
that would
prevent
full
liberation.
Whereas Laclau avers
(albeit
somewhat
obliquely)
that
only by employing
his
conception
of
subject positions
can
emerging
social and
political forma-
tions succeed
in
"opening up
the
political system"
(1985: 42), Coraggio argues
that
the
social transformation undertaken
in
Nicaragua
followed
Laclau's
prescriptions
and
predictions.
THE LIMITS OF DISCOURSE
Recognition
that social conditions
change
through
collective action em-
powers
human choice.
Understanding
of
how, why,
and to
what extent
conditions
set limits and
provide opportunities
informs
such choice.
In
other
words, although
the
limits to human choice are often
overstated,
the
possi-
bilities are not infinite. While
correctly
identifying
the
complexities attending
social
life
in
the
contemporary world,
Laclau's theories
and
Coraggio's
depiction
of the
Nicaraguan
revolution suffer
from
parallel problems regard-
ing
social
agency, change strategies,
and the
power
of discourse. The
para-
mount
problem
is that
for
Laclau's and
other
poststructuralist
accounts
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/ SOCIAL POWER AND DISCOURSE 97
"discourse acts upon
people, rather than people acting through discourse"
(1990: 264).
Undoubtedly, the conditions of
everyday
life in
the late 20th century are
radically different from those
of the past. As Laclau notes, the marketplace,
the
state,
and the media have
fundamentally altered political realities. Trans-
national corporations,
international finance capital, and institutions such as
the International
Monetary
Fund
directly affect
social
conditions
in
countries
around the
world
as "free-market"
requirements structure life-and-death
decisions.
Likewise,
the centralization of
state, government, and military
power
has
prompted popular
mobilizations for democratic reform from
South
Africa
to the
Soviet Union. And
finally,
from
Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and
Gaudet's (1944)
The
People's
Choice
to
Stuart Hall's
(1982)
"Return
of
the
'Repressed,"'
the media have been
recognized (albeit problematically) as a
key site of ideological
and
political power.
With the
increase
in
satellite tele-
communications,
media influence
has
been
extended to
every
corner
of
the
globe.
In
sum,
the
changing
nature
of the
international market, the corporate
state,
and international media
systems require adjustments
in
presuppositions.
Nevertheless,
it does
not
necessarily
follow
that
relations of
production-
which are
absolutely
necessary
for the creation of new manifestations
of
market, state,
and media-are no
longer
determinants of social conflict.
Nor,
as Eckstein
(1989),
Gibson
(1987), McNall, Levine,
and Fantasia
(1990),
Mulhern (1984), Steinberg
(1990), Wright (1990),
and
others have
argued,
does it
follow that social classes
have
been
displaced
as change agents.
Obviously,
new
experiences
and relations
prompt
new
cognitive
frames
for
participants (Eckstein,
1989:
12-15). Contrary
to
Laclau, however,
domina-
tion has not been diffused
through
the
complexities
of
20th-century society.
Rather, disparate
social movements
quickly
confront
the centralized
power
of
capitalist government
and
corporate
institutions.
Thus, peace
movements
since Vietnam have
repeatedly challenged
the
"military-industrial complex"
and its
drive for
corporate profits.
Environmental
organizations
and antinu-
clear
groups
have
targeted
the
free-market
economy
as
partly responsible
for
crises from
Bhopal
to Three Mile
Island,
to deforestation
in
Latin
America to
the
Alaskan oil
spill.
Increasingly,
issues of
daily
life
implicate existing
class
relations-whether the initial
participants
raise demands
that address
such
questions
or not.
Of
course,
it has become de
rigueur
to
reject
a reductionist view of social
class
and
political action,
but
this does not
justify viewing
the
impulses
of
social conflict
as rooted
in
semiotic
change
alone.
By subsuming
the social
within the
discursive,
Laclau
casts
serious
doubt
on
subject agency
and
autonomy
for
collective action. Social action
is reduced
to a battle over
significations.
As Stuart
Hall
writes,
Laclau's theoretical
attempt
to
escape
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98 LATIN
AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
reductionism
has
led to a "fully
discursive
position
[that]
is
reductionism
upward"
(1986:
56-57).
Legitimate
attacks
on
reductionism
should
perhaps
take care
not
to
overlook the
materiality
of
social
relations. The
validity
of a
theory of articulation
might
be
enhanced if
it
conceptualized and
identified
the social
conditions under which
different
elements
might
be
linked
together.
The
instance
of
Nicaragua
demonstrates
that the
articulation of
specific
discourses
dialectically
interacts with the
experiences
of subject
actors
responding
to the
conditions of
daily
life
in
a
particular
social
structure.
For
advocates of social
change
and
students
of
communication,
identifying
and
understanding
the
sociopolitical
exigencies
of a
rhetorical
situation
is
crucial.
Efficacy
and
accuracy
demand
rigorous treatment of
the
primary
determina-
tions and
contradictory
influences
affecting
human
behavior.
If,
as
anthro-
pologists
assert, humans
are
constituted as
individuals
only
in
the
context of
existing social
relations,
then
individual
knowledge
is the
aggregate
of
countless
experiences-experiences
largely
dependent
on
the
individual's
social
position. Few industrialists
experience
homelessness,
hunger,
police
brutality,
or
picket-line
duty.
Few
farmworkers have
hired or
fired
employees,
ordered a
plant
closure, repossessed
a
home,
or
engineered
a
corporate
takeover.
Although
it would
be
a mistake
to
reduce
questions
of
ideology
to
social
position
alone,
it is
nonetheless
possible
and
important
to
ascertain what
aspects
of a social
experience
make
possible
the
articulation
of
certain
discourses.
If,
as
Laclau
argues,
there is
no
necessary
relation
between social
position,
experience,
and
belief,
no
necessary
relation
between
women and
feminism,
African
Americans and black
nationalism,
or the
working
class
and
unionism,
then
one
should
expect
men to
spearhead
the
assault on
patriarchy, whites to
champion
the battle
against
racism,
and
CEOs to
promote
organizing
drives
for labor. If
discourse
alone
replaces
social
position,
"if
monopoly
capitalists
have no
interests
independent
of the
way
they
are
politically
articulated, then
there would seem
to
be
no
reason
at
all
why
the
political
left
should
not
expend
enormous
amounts of
energy
in
seeking
to
win
them to its
pro-
gramme"
(1991:
218).
If no
particular
interests are
accorded to
social
position,
how does
one
decide
whom
to
address?
Ironically,
in their
own
unacknowledged
recogni-
tion
of
the
social
conditions
required
for
discourse,
Laclau and
Mouffe
advocate
a
popular
hegemony
under the
leadership
of a
selected
plurality
of
social
movements-a
politically
correct formation
made
up
of
those
socio-
political
formations
that
apparently
have an
inherent
tendency
toward
pro-
gressive
action,
such as
feminists,
environmentalists,
and
ethnic minorities-
with the
notable
exclusion
of
any
explicitly
class-based
movements.
The
concept
of
"objective
interests" has a
more
nuanced
interpretation
than
the
"wholly
untenable
version"
imagined
and
rejected
by
Laclau
(1991:
217).
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/
SOCIAL POWER AND DISCOURSE 99
By defining capitalist relations
of
production
in
purely economist terms-the
worker as the
seller of labor and the
capitalist
as
buyer-Laclau deprives
workers and capitalists of
their flesh
and blood, their individuality, and their
existence.
He then
goes
on to
critique
his own
self-conceived notion as in-
adequate for understanding
"the social
totalities forming
the
agents"
and
the
"multitude
of
antagonisms arising
between
those
concrete
agents" (1990: 9).
If manifestations
of
working-class
life extend
beyond
the
purely economic
sphere, why does
Laclau
restrict
class
questions
to the
economic concept so
narrowly construed? Why does
he
insist on such disconnections in the pro-
duction
and
reproduction
of
individual life?
Social
relations
of
production
include all of the
everyday patterns, sys-
tems,
and behaviors
necessary
for
the retrieval of
raw
materials;
the
concep-
tualization
of
products;
the
making
of decisions about resource
use;
the
creation
of the
techniques, equipment,
and skills for
physical production;
the
dissemination
of information about the
use, function,
and
availability
of
goods
and
services;
the distribution of
goods;
and the formulation of
norms,
patterns,
and venues
of
consumption.
Each
of
these
relations has
institution-
alized forms
with
culturally
normalized behaviors and beliefs without which
it has no meaning.
The
particular weaving
of these relations follows the
material
necessities
of
production,
and
within
each instance
a discursive
field
is
created
for
understanding, explaining,
and
"normalizing"
the how
and
the
why
of
existing
social relations
and their
operation.
Of
course,
contradictions
exist
dialectically
within and
between different
aspects
of the
totality
of social
relations.
In
considering strategies
and theories
of
change,
it
would
indeed
be absurd
to reduce these relations
of
production
to
the
single
abstract
instance analyti-
cally
described as the
buyer-seller relationship.
It
would be
equally
absurd to
reduce
them to the
metaphor
of discourse.
Any
concrete
social position-de-
fined exhaustively by
Erik Olin
Wright (1990) as social class-includes
questions
of
gender, age,
ethnic
heritage, regional background,
and cultural
capital,
as well as
experience,
historical
conjuncture,
and
the
relationship
of
living
social forces. It
is
within this
web
of
reality
that individuals
perceive
their
own
interests.
In
other
words,
as
Wright
has
argued, capital
and
labor
are
abstract structural
categories
that are filled
by
real human
subjects
in
concrete sociohistorical formations.
Political and
cultural
mediations
can
exacerbate or
mitigate
structural determinants. Communicative intervention
by
social
actors can advance
or retard
social
identity,
collective
activity,
and
societal
transformation-particularly
at
historically contingent
moments of
disruption
of
the social order
by
resource
depletion,
natural
disaster,
or
maturing
internal
social contradictions
(Artz,
1992:
116).
To be
theoretically
thorough
and
politically effective,
one
must
ask which social forces
have the
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

100 LATIN
AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
interest, the social
power, and the
capacity to become
the
historical
agents of
change.
To
be
meaningful, to be
capable of
directing
persuasive
political
strategies,
such a
question must be concrete:
Which
social forces
in
which
struggle
in
which
country under
what
conditions at
what
time have
the
interest,
power,
and
capacity
to
achieve
what
goals?
For
Laclau the
question
does not
even
exist.
Society
does
not
exist. Social
interests
do not
exist. For
Laclau there
is
ultimately
no
objective
criterion for
evaluating
competing
discourses.
Dis-
course
alone
brings
social
forces
into
existence,
gives
them
identities,
pro-
vides them with
interests.
From
this
perspective
it was
not
the
introduction
of
capitalist
market relations into
Nicaragua
in
the
1960s
that
produced
a
sizable
rural
and
urban
working
class
but
the
discourse
of the
Sandinista
and
Christian labor
organizers.
If
only
the
FSLN and
the
liberation
theologists
had
spread
their
political
gospel
earlier, Somoza could
have
been
removed
before
1979.
Presumably,
given
the
proper
articulation,
he
could
have been
convinced that he
had
no
"objective"
personal
interest
in
owning
25
percent
of
Nicaragua's
land and
property.
In
Laclau's
world,
social
forces and
their
interests
are considered the
product
of
discourse,
not
the
raw
material for
discursive
formations.
I suggest
that
efficacious
discourse has
its
basis in the
conditions
of
existence. New articulations
spring
from
cognitive
frames
produced
by
contradictory
experiences
and
communicative
reconsiderations
that chal-
lenge
previous
articulations. Such new
frames
of
understanding often
prompt
human
actions
that make
history.
Although Laclau
justifiably
rejects
eco-
nomic
considerations
as the sole
cause of
social
change,
there
remains
an
interaction
within and
between the
social relations
that
attend
any
socioeco-
nomic
structure. In other
words,
as Engels
said,
humans
do
make
history
themselves,
"only
they
do
so
in a
given
environment,
which
conditions
it,
and
on
the basis of
actual social
relations
already
existing"
(quoted
by
Mattelart,
1979:
74).
For
Laclau and
many
other
discourse
theorists,
"all
talk of
social
class
or
class-struggle
has become
rapidly
branded as 'vulgar'
or
reductionist
over-
night,
in a panic
stricken
reaction
to
'economism'
which
every
intelligent
socialist
had
in
any
case
long
left
behind"
(Eagleton,
1991:
218-219). Accord-
ing
to
Eagleton,
discourse
theory
has
provided
the
ideology
of
political
retreat,
"an
ideology
especially
alluring
to
left
'cultural'
intellectuals"
(1991:
218).
Wright's
analyses
of
classes
in
modern
society
dissect
social
structures
into
analytically
distinct but
organically
connected
categories
of
structure,
forma-
tion,
and
conjuncture-conceiving
of social
identity
and
collective
action as
the
outcome
of
interaction
between
concrete
human actors
responding
to
a
given
social
structure
through
historically
contingent
political
struggles.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/
SOCIAL
POWER
AND
DISCOURSE 101
In a comparative
study
of
Sweden
and
the United
States,
Wright
found
that "while the overall
patterning
of
consciousness is
structurally
determined
by
class
relations, the level
of
working class
consciousness
in
a
given
society
and the
nature of
class
coalitions
that
are
built
upon
these
class
relations are
shaped
by
the
organizational
and
political
practices that
characterize
the
history of
the
[particular] class
struggle"
(1990:
278).
Wright's
discovery
of
the relative
openness of
political
responses
to
identifiable
social
structures
helps
identify
the
limits and
opportunities for
rhetorical
choices.
If
Laclau's
insights
into
identity
formation
through
political
articulation
are
anchored to
concrete
analyses of class
relations in a
given
social
structure,
his
theoretical
conclusions
will
not
float
away
like
balloons in a
breeze.
Furthermore,
despite
the
disillusionment of
some
intellectual communi-
ties
in
Europe
and
the United States
that
reject
class
protagonism,
nowhere
has the
working
class
been
dismantled,
replaced,
or
superseded as
a social
force.
Certainly,
the
dispersal
of
organized
labor
cannot
logically
be
equated
with
the
disappearance
of the
working
class. The
majority
of
Americans still
work for
an
hourly
wage-that
is,
"sell their
labor,"
as
Laclau
would
have it.
On a world
scale,
the
process
of
class
restructuring
continues
unabated.
Indeed,
for Latin
America,
Asia,
and Africa it has
only
begun
in the
past
30
years,
posing
major
problems for
previously
secure
dominant
classes in
South
Africa,
Brazil,
Korea,
Europe,
and the United
States. Even
Nicaragua,
the
shining
star
of Laclau's
nonclass
popular
hegemony, provides
a
history
lesson
in
the
centrality
of
social
position
to
political
interest and
discursive
efficacy.
THE CONTRADICTORY CASE OF
THE NICARAGUAN
REVOLUTION
The
central tenet
of
Laclau's discourse
theory
collapses
in
the
face of
even
a cursory
reading
of
contemporary
Nicaraguan
history.
Discourse
did
not
precede,
supersede,
or
even
intercede in
the
social relations
that
accompanied
capitalism.
Rather,
it arose
in
response
to
dramatic
social
adjustments
as
collectivities of
actors with
shared
experiences based
on definite
social
positions
responded
to
the
disruption
of the
social
order.
As a consequence
of
the
capitalist
takeover of
Nicaraguan
agriculture
in the
1960s,
thousands of
peasants
were
uprooted
from
their land
(see
Biderman,
1983).
Their
transformation
into rural
wage
workers
was
not
the result of a
collective decision
to
change
their
significations
of
reality.
Agro-
industrialists
displaced
the
traditional
semifeudal landlords
as the
economi-
cally
dominant
class.
Economic
power,
not
discourse,
articulated the
emerg-
ing
social
hierarchy,
and
social
relations
changed
accordingly.
Historically
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

102 LATIN
AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
conditioned interdependencies
between
peasant
and lord
disappeared, to
be
replaced by
the
competitive
considerations of the
market. The new labor force
was rapidly
centralized as seasonal
farmworkers, urbanized as workers, and
deprived
of
employment
and socialized
as consumers
(see Black, 1981;
Weber, 1981).
Established
systems
and
patterns
of
production, distribution,
consumption,
and
lifestyle changed dramatically. Severe problems of over-
crowding, malnutrition, unemployment, sanitation,
and recreation
attended
the
introduction of
capitalism
to
Nicaragua (Black, 1981).
These conditions
arose before
anyone anticipated
the
change,
before
anyone
articulated the
pain.
The old social structure
was
not
prepared
for the
aftershock.
Contrary
to
Laclau,
discourse
did
not
produce
or
shape
class
position
in
Nicaragua. Rather,
as class
forces found individual and
collective
leaderships,
they
molded
discourses to meet their own
goals.
Class
position produced
the
situational
discourse,
not
vice versa. Each of
Laclau's three conclusions fails
the
acid test.
First,
Laclau
is dead
wrong
in
asserting
that social classes have
been
displaced
as
the protagonists
of social
change: the.history
of
the Nicaraguan
revolution is a history
of class
struggle.
Biderman
(1983),
Black
(1981),
Weber
(1981),
Vilas
(1986),
Wheelock
(1975),
and others have
thoroughly
documented that
with
the
transformation of the
primary
mode of
production,
the attending
social
transformation
suddenly
created
a
large working
class-
primarily rural-with
shared cultural
backgrounds, personal experiences,
and
cultural
and
religious
values.
At
each
important conjuncture
from
1977
through 1990,
the extension of
democracy depended
on the intervention of
the organized working
class and its allies.
The
failure
of
working-class
discourse
prior
to the 1960s must be
attrib-
uted not to
questions
of articulation or
signification
but to a
simple empirical
fact: there
were too few workers
in
Nicaragua
to
give any working-class
discourse
a
meaningful
existence.
Of
course,
if
there is
"no
logical connection
whatsover" between
class
position
and
political action,
this
does not
explain
why large
numbers of
peasants
or
landlords did
not
adopt working-class
"identities." Presumably,
even strikes could
have
occurred
in
the
absence
of
workplaces.
A more
comprehensible approach
finds that
working-class
dis-
course
cannot arise before
a
working
class exists.
Black
(1981),
Weber
(1981),
Vilas
(1986),
and
others have also described
in some detail the class
character of
contending
social forces. Of
course,
a
mere class
definition
is
inadequate,
for
"a
class consists of different
strata,
passes through
different
stages
of
development,
comes under
different
con-
ditions,
and
is
subjected
to the influence of other classes.
It
becomes neces-
sary
to
bring up
other factors
in
order to round out
the
analysis, depending
on the
specific
aim"
(Trotsky,
1973:
129). Thus,
as
Pierre Bourdieu
suggests,
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/
SOCIAL
POWER AND
DISCOURSE 103
particular discourses
do not
directly
correspond
to class
positions
but
arise
from
common sets
of material
conditions of existence
that
regulate
the
practice
of sets
of
individuals
in common
response
to those conditions
(cited
in
Garnham, 1990:
71).
Additionally,
classes are made
up
of
specific
creative
individuals who
articulate common
experiences
in
uniquely
varied
ways.
Notably,
the founders
of
the FSLN
began
their
political
lives as
members
of Partido Socialista
Nicaragiuense
(Nicaraguan
Socialist
party-PSN),
the
first
Nicaraguan
workers'
party.
Since the formation of the
FSLN in
July
1961, militants
have
consistently
intervened
in
popular
struggles
under
the
slogan
"Only
workers
and
peasants
go
all the
way."
This
formulation
reflects
an
acute
awareness of
the
largest
and most
politically
decisive classes in
the
Nicaraguan
revolution;
as the FSLN retreated
from this
slogan
after
1984,
its
political
hegemony
dissolved and
the
revolution
stalled.
The
privileging of
workers and
peasants as the
historical
agents of
change in
Nicaragua
answers
the
question
posed above: Which
social
forces
have an
interest in
and are
capable
of
overturning
the
dictatorship?
Laclau
thus
also
errs
in
asserting that
there are no
individual and
collective
"objective interests."
A political discourse
has
no
meaning apart
from its
salience for social
actors who have
concerns,
possessions,
and
desires related
to
their
positions
and
experiences
in
society.
New
discourses
appeared in
Nicaragua
after
the
structural transformations
of the
1960s.
New
social
forces
produced new
political
voices.
Sandinism,
the
leading
discourse for
revolu-
tion,
united three
discursive
strands-marxism,
nationalism,
and
radical
Christianity.
The
FSLN's (1982)
historic
program
(1982)
championed land
reform, nationalization
of
industry,
and other
demands
explicitly
favoring
workers and
peasants.
Sandinista
rhetoric
also
manifested itself in
the farm-
workers'
struggle,
the women's
movement,
community
campaigns, and
the
general
movement
against
the
dictatorship
led
primarily by workers
(Vilas,
1986).
Liberation
theology
and
its
discourse on behalf of
the
"church of
the poor"
had a distinct character and
influence
among
the
urban
poor
and the
rural
working
class-especially
the
Jesuit-initiated
Comit6
Evangelica de
Promo-
ci6n
Agraria
(Evangelistic
Committee for
Agrarian
Promotion-CEPA)
and
the Asociaci6n de
Trabajadores
del
Campo (Farm
Workers'
Association-
ATC).
Unaware of Laclau's
assertions,
rural
workers
found
that
they
shared
immediate "objective
interests" in
adequate
housing,
improved
working
conditions,
nutrition,
and
health care and the
overarching
need
for the return
of their stolen land
(Collins,
1982:
13-21).
Other social forces
joined
the battle of
signification
to
protect
their
own
"objective
interests" as well. The
rising
urban
middle class-made up of
small business
owners,
managers,
professionals,
artisans,
and
self-employed
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
traders-developed
its own rhetoric of
reform, expressed in the platform of
the Uni6n Democratica
de
Liberaci6n
(Democratic
Union
of Liberation-
UDEL). Before
1972, part
of the
Nicaraguan
elite had
already opted for the
"communitarian corporatism"
of the Social Christian reform
movement as a
means of
opposing
Somoza without
undermining
its own
economic domi-
nance
in
Nicaragua. Later,
toward the
end
of
the
revolutionary upsurge, the
large capitalist
interests
grouped
around
cotton, coffee, industry,
and
banking
made a halfhearted attempt
at
publicly presenting
a conservative discourse
of
opposition
to Somoza codified in the 16 demands of the
Frente
Amplio
Oposicion (Broad Opposition Front-FAO).
The
FAO called on
Somoza to
resign, leaving the
national
guard
and the constitution
intact, essentially
"Somozaism without Somoza"
(see Weber,
1981:
43). Somoza,
of
course,
articulated
a
position
of
force, terror,
and
destruction. Holed
up
in
his
bunker
in
central Managua,
he vowed to "drown
Nicaragua
in
blood" (Weber, 1981:
44). Ultimately,
the
proponents
of
contending
discourses
did not
arbitrarily
select
the articulations that
appealed
to
them. The
rhetorical
strategies
of
the
prerevolutionary period (1977-1979) roughly paralleled identifiable "objec-
tive
interests" of identifiable
class
forces
in
Nicaraguan society.
Unfortu-
nately for the
conservative
forces,
the
FAO discourse of the
church
hierarchy,
the
large families,
and the
corporate community lagged
behind
the
reality
of
repression. "Somoza's obstinacy exposed
the limitations
of
the FAO
strategy"
(Weber,
1981:
45),
the limits
of
peaceful reform,
and the limits of discourse
in reorganizing Nicaraguan society.
The birth, maturation, and passing
of various
discourses followed a
development
course
decidedly
at odds with
Laclau's theories.
Beginning
with
the
ingredients
of
past relations, including beliefs, attitudes,
and
concepts-
and in
direct contradiction to Laclau-the
various
social sectors proceeded
diachronically through similar, although unique
and
uneven, stages of devel-
opment
in
their
response
to
new conditions
(Artz,
1992:
264-323).
One
might
say
that
every
social movement
begins
in
the same fashion: individuals
responding
to
a situation believe
that their
actions count.
Its
diachronic
movement
proceeds dialectically-which
means
nonlinearly,
combined and
contradictorily.
The
inability
of
a given
social order to
incorporate change
directs committed
change
advocates
toward
activities
at
odds with normal-
ized
patterns
of discourse. For
example,
as
newly proletarianized peasants
found old articulations
incapable
of
explaining
their
new
concrete
situation,
they
turned to
new articulations
shaped by
the
conditions of their
experience.
Efforts to secure
their
rights
led to the formation
of farmworkers' committees.
Economic
demands took
on a
political
character. Political
campaigns
led to
revolutionary
action. Strikes
developed
into
armed
conflicts
with the
land-
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz /
SOCIAL
POWER AND DISCOURSE 105
lords and the national guard. Demands for social
justice were realized in
action for social revolution.
Similarly, under
the social
conditions of Nicaragua,
religious work by
liberation theologists became social action on
behalf of the poor (Booth,
1982; Carri6n, 1987; Randall, 1983).
Social action became political work,
and political work became revolutionary. Radical
Christians implementing
their "preferential option for the poor" and Sandinista
militants conducted
social and political work
in urban
neighborhoods
from the mid- 1970s on (see
Booth,
1982:
135-137; Randall,
1983:
137-156).
The articulation of griev-
ances by
urban residents fit within different discourses depending on whether
the central political organizers
were
Christians,
Sandinistas, or radical stu-
dents. Still,
the
conjunctural specificities
of
any
given neighborhood com-
mittee were under similar structural constraints. Religious ideas led to
political
ideas and actions
in
response
to class
subordination (see, e.g.,
Cabestrero, 1986). Thus, Margaret
Randall
writes,
"it
is no
coincidence that
Christian
base communities flourished
in
the east
end.... its inhabitants are
workers"
(1983: 123).
Catholic orders
including
the
Jesuits, Maryknolls,
Capuchins,
and
Trappists
initiated education and health care
programs
for
rural
workers that could
only
be
realized
by
the
political
mobilization
of
organized
workers
(Booth,
1982:
118-121,
135-137).
The ATC became
ajoint
effort
of
rural
workers,
Sandinista
organizers,
and Catholic
peasant
leaders.
As related by
Luis Carrion
(1987),
the discourses
merged
as their class
character became better defined: Christian
base
communities moved
toward
the
FSLN
political program
even as
the FSLN
began articulating
its
political
demands
in Christian
terms.
Other discursive
attempts
at
framing
a nonclass
Nicaraguan identity had
less success.
For
example,
the UDEL emerged
as a
popular front against the
dictatorship
with
a whole
range
of social
reforms, including trade union
rights,
limited
agrarian reform,
and
elections
(Vilas,
1986).
Two
weaknesses
plagued
it: it concentrated
on a purely
electoralist
strategy (which was
doomed
to failure
in the
face
of an
intransigent
dictatorship),
and it was
unable
to reach a consensus
on
what
social
order
might
follow Somoza's rule.
La Prensa's
editor,
Pedro
Joaquin Chamorro, publicly
admitted that
"UDEL
has no
design
for
a
new
society"
other than cosmetic reform
(quoted
in
Black,
1981:
66).
Its democratic
discourse attracted
few
followers because
it
offered
no
solutions
for
the
majority
of
society.
Government
corruption
and
brutality,
elite lack of interest
in
social
reform,
and
collective
insecurity propelled
the
urban masses toward
ever more radical
solutions, creating
an
appropriate
discourse
in
the
process.
For
example,
conditions
at the San
Antonio
sugar
mill led
5,000
workers to strike-resist-
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

106 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
ing firings, national guard assaults,
and
management's minimal concessions
(Benjamin, 1989: 84-87).
A
peasant
occupation of nearby company land
led
to a worker-peasant
alliance
against
a common
opponent.
Workers and
farmers
responding
to
similar
experiences collectively
created a discourse to
meet the
political
needs of the situation. Social conditions
compelled
them
to act;
no discourse created their identities and interests.
In general, Somoza's actions
(combined with the impotence of the
tradi-
tional
opposition's political response)
pushed
the
majority
of
workers
and
peasants
down
the
road
of revolution. "The
rapid
deterioration
of
civic order
after 1972
radicalized
elements" that
might
have
supported
reform in
peace-
ful
times
(Booth,
1982:
110).
For those
desirous
of
democracy, any possible
articulated
responses require
united social action. Rhetoric and
politics
were
tested
in battle. As successive discursive
options
were crushed
by
the
national
guard,
the
revolutionary option
appeared
more
viable,
even inevitable-the
only remaining
course of action for
workers, peasants,
and the urban
poor.
As Guillermo
Rothschuh Villanueva
recounts,
the
possibility
of a dialogue
was eliminated by
the assassination of
Chamorro,
and because workers "had
different
motivations" than
employers,
what became "fundamental was
to
get rid
of the
dictatorship" (1986:
31).
Laclau's assertions aside,
the social and
political
mobilizations did divide
the
totality
of the
social into two
camps:
for or
against
the
dictatorship.
As
Somoza became
more
ruthless,
"leftist and
revolutionary ideologies
replaced
reformism" (Booth,
1982:
110).
Ultimately,
the
combined
political
leadership
of the
revolutionary
movement
recognized
this and led workers and
peasants
"all the
way"
to
triumph
over the
dictatorship-or,
as Humberto
Ortega put
it,
"the mass
movement
had
grown
to such a size that
the
vanguard
was
incapable
of
leading
it.... all we
could
do was to
stand
at its
head,
so as to
lead
it as much as
possible
and
give
it
some
direction . . . to
channel
the
torrent, giving
form to the insurrection
so
that
victory
could
subsequently
be
achieved"
(quoted
in
Weber,
1981:
46).
There is not
enough space
here
to take
up
all
of
the
developments
after the
1979
overthrow of Somoza: land
reform, literacy campaigns,
health
care,
union
and
political rights,
advances for women and ethnic
minorities,
mass
democratic
organizations, public
access to
community radio,
etc. Suffice it
to
say
that
all of these
changes
were made under the
broadly
constructed
discourse
of a workers'
and farmers'
government.
At issue here
are
the limits
that
existing
social
relations
materially place
on the
efficacy
of
discourse.
To
the
extent that
the
new
Nicaraguan
government
met the needs
of the classes
that led
the movement
against
Somoza,
democratic
social
transformation
occurred.
To the extent
that the FSLN
attempted
to
create a
classless, pluralist
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz /
SOCIAL POWER AND DISCOURSE 107
hegemony,
social relations
remained
hierarchically structured according to
the needs of
market
capitalism
and the
capitalist classes.
In
fact,
as the
FSLN equivocated
on
the
class
nature of the new society, it
stumbled
in
its effort to secure a popular hegemony.
The
path to social
transformation
was obstructed
by
an
agro-industrial
social
structure. The
overthrow
of Somoza
only sharpened
inherent social
contradictions.
Who
had a right
to the land? Who
had a
right
to a
job?
What
should
be
produced
on
Nicaragua's
fertile soil? How
should the wealth created
be distributed?
How should decisions
on
such questions
be decided?
In
other words, whose
interests
would the
new
government
champion?
Revolutions have
tremen-
dous
potential; they
also have
recognizable
limits.
The FSLN
valiantly attempted
to
paper
over
irreconcilable social differences
with a contradictory
rhetorical and
political
program-popularized through
a discourse
stressing
a mixed
economy,
political pluralism,
and
popular hegem-
ony.
The clearest
expression
came with
the
FSLN's
promotion
of
"patriotic
capitalists"
as a
social sector
deserving
of
social
power
and
influence.
The new
pluralist
discourse did
not, however,
create
subject positions
or
subject
identities
for the revolution. Workers and
peasants
had
led
the frontal
assault on the
dictatorship.
The
agro-capitalist
class
supported
Somoza to the
end.
After a brief flirtation with the
FSLN,
the
capitalist
class went
into
opposition-despite
Sandinista rhetorical overtures and
political
concessions
on the
economic and
political systems.
The
FSLN's discourse
flowed
from
its
determination
to
win over the
capitalist class,
but Sandinista discourse
could not
overcome the resistance of
Nicaraguan capital
backed
by
the
U.S.-directed
contra war. Nor
could
it
replace
the
central role
accorded
to
workers and
peasants by
the social
structure. The Jesuit-run Latin
American
journal
Envi'o
(October 1985)
noted that
the
"effects
of
the economic
shift
[toward private investment]
were felt
unevenly
... with the workers
and
poor
peasants bearing
a disproportionate
burden
of
the sacrifices." The
burdens
were not
just rhetorically appreciated
but
materially
borne. In
fact,
six
years
into the revolution the
working
majority
was
still
making
the
largest sacrifice,
while much of
private capital
was in
flight
to
Miami-taking
with it the
financial credits
extended
by
the
Nicaraguan government
for new
invest-
ments
(Benjamin,
1989:
64).
The FSLN founder and leader
Tomas
Borge
admitted that the
FSLN had "sacrificed
the
working
class
in
favor of the
economy
as
part
of a
strategic plan;
but the
bourgeoisie [continued]
to
resist,
sometimes
boycotting
the
economy
for
the
sake
of its
political
interests"
(Benjamin,
1989:
67).
As
Rose
Spaulding's (1991) ongoing study
of
agricul-
tural
producers
continues to
document,
the discourse
of
the FSLN did
not
win over the
capitalist
class.
Instead,
it
inadvertently
and
systematically
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

108 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
undermined
the
worker and
peasant
base
of
the
revolution, and
the
revolution
could
not
long
continue if its motor forces had no
fuel.
With the
dispersal
of the
constituent-based
Council
of
State in
1984,
the
FSLN disenfranchised
the
representative
mass
organizations
of
workers,
peasants, women, youth, and ethnic minorities. The new electoralist, party-
based National
Assembly
was dominated
by
the
FSLN.
By 1988, the FSLN
program
of
concertacion (cooperation)
with the
capitalist opposition had
completely displaced
the
interests
of
workers,
small
farmers,
and the
urban
poor
in a
misguided attempt
to recruit
"patriotic capitalists."
When
none
were
found,
the FSLN attempted
to construct them
discursively
out of
an intrac-
table
class opposition. By turning
to
Nicaraguan agro-industrialists
for
approval
and
support,
the
FSLN allowed
the
socioeconomic
power
of
the
capitalist
class to reassert itself
politically.
In
the
process,
the
leading
role of
workers and peasants
was
reduced
in
the
search
for
some nonexistent
popular
hegemony.
Failing
to deliver the
goods promised by
its
discourse,
the
FSLN
soon
lost
the
support
of the
majority
of
Nicaraguans, including
workers
and
peasants.
The
1990
election of Violeta Chamorro
juridically
underlined the
changed
relationship
of social
forces and ushered
in
a full-scale attack
on
the social
reforms
of the
previous
11
years. Discursively
based
popular hegemony
was
defeated
by
the
combined socioeconomic and
military power
of the
capitalist
class
and its U.S. backers.
POSTSCRIPT TO POSTSTRUCTURALISM
Structural
relations do not
guarantee
stasis.
However,
the
poststructuralist
belief that therefore social relations are
ultimately arbitrary does not follow.
Structural relations still
place
identifiable material restrictions on
the poten-
tial of
any
discourse and
the
nondiscursive
response by
human actors.
People
make
history,
but
they
do so
under conditions
not
of their own
making.
In Nicaragua, conjunctural events prompted by the revolutionary tri-
umph
led to a realignment
of social formations
but not
a thoroughgoing
structural transformation.
Somoza was
removed, repression ended,
and the
self-organization
and
self-expression
of the
working
classes blossomed. Mass
organizations repeatedly
intervened
to defend the interests
of
the
working
majority by preventing sabotage, decapitalization,
and
production slowdowns,
by ensuring
the
planting, harvesting,
and
storing
of
crops,
and
by demanding
salaries, improved working conditions,
and
contributions to the
general
social
welfare.
Still, important
structural relations had
not been
fundamentally
altered.
The
capitalist
classes
that
had
prospered
under Somoza
maintained
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/ SOCIAL POWER AND DISCOURSE 109
their
stranglehold
on the
economy:
a handful
of
agro-industrialists owned
and
controlled some 80
percent
of
production
and
distribution.
Participatory democracy
and social reform
prospered only to the extent
that the revolution
stayed
the course
outlined
by
the FSLN's
historic
program,
championed
the
positioned
interests
and needs
of
workers, peasants, and
the
urban
poor,
and
dismantled the
existing
social structure. In its
attempt
to
negotiate
a new
society discursively
the FSLN overlooked or
ignored
the intense
social contradictions
posed by
a
Nicaraguan capitalist
class dead set
against
the revolutionary process.
As
long
as the
capitalists
retained
control
over
pro-
duction and
distribution,
the
laws of
exchange
would
regenerate
their
power
and undermine
the
increasingly
docile
Sandinista
government. Consequently,
as the FSLN moved
away
from its class-informed
project,
nondiscursive
resources
were
diverted
and
organizational
forms
changed. Simply put,
the
discourse
of
popular hegemony signaled
and
justified
a
larger political
retreat.
By not dismantling
the
capitalist relations
of
production, the FSLN
permitted large capitalist
owners
to
put
their
own
self-interest ahead of the
nation's
need
for
food, jobs,
and
shelter-graphically demonstrating
that
relations
of
production
can retard the forces of
production
in
reaching
their
potential. Ironically,
the
structural
relations
imposed by Nicaraguan capital-
ism were not insurmountable.
Indeed, following
the overthrow of Somoza
the entire social
structure was
temporarily
but
seriously disorganized.
Mate-
rial
resources and
labor
power
were
present
to
meet
Nicaragua's
human
needs.
Unfortunately,
factories and farms were
withdrawn
from
production,
and
the
self-organization
of
the
working
class and the
peasantry
was
short-
circuited
by
the FSLN's
political leadership-although
workers and
peasants
in their
majority
did not desert the
revolutionary project.
The
Nicaraguan experience proves
once
again
that
hegemony requires a
base of
power (Gramsci,
1988: 189-222).
After
all,
a "war
of
position"
requires
a
"position"
from
which one can
construct
battlements and
organize
troops.
Even rhetorical
guerrilla
war
requires friendly socio-geographic
terrain.
In
Nicaragua,
the FSLN retreated from
its
social base
of support,
tempering
its
action and
its
discourse
in
an
attempt
to
placate
the
opposition.
In the
process,
the social
power
of
workers
and peasants was diffused and
neutralized. The
"war of
position"
was
lost.
A
popular slogan
of the
early years
of the
Nicaraguan revolution went,
"A
problemas sociales,
soluciones
comunales"-for social
problems,
commu-
nity
solutions.
Collective solutions
to social
problems require
collective
control
of
the
institutions of
power-an
achievement
apparently beyond
the
capabilities
of
discourse
alone.
Daniel
Ortega's (1990)
concession
speech
notwithstanding,
a society
cannot
be
"governed
from below."
Indeed,
the
very suggestion buys
into the
hegemony
of the
dominant
powers. Signifi-
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110 LATIN
AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
cantly, since the 1990 electoral defeat-which
highlighted the failure of
classless discursive
hegemony-Laclau and
his
colleagues have been silent
about Nicaragua.
Here I do not wish to
replace
discourse with some other
determinism.
I
join Laclau
in
discounting
the schematic
binary opposition
between
base
and
superstructure.
In
my
view
every
social
formation
is
in
"disequilibrium"-
located
somewhere
in an
infinitely incomplete process
of
development
in
which different levels
and
sectors
are
proceeding unevenly and
in
combina-
tion. Social position
and social relations
by
themselves
do not ensure any
change. Human
interaction, including the discursive variety,
is
required. At
the same
time,
as
Armand
Mattelart
has
argued,
a "new
means
of
production
of
communication
can
only
be built on
a global modification
of
[existing]
class
relations"
(1979:
57)
because
those
benefiting
from social
inequalities
are
not
likely
to
oppose
the continuation of
their
benefits.
In
short,
to be
successful,
a new
or
oppositional discourse must speak
for
and recruit
forces
capable
of
and interested
in
changing
social
relations
or
else
fall
prey
to
existing systems
of
domination.
While
countless social
movements have
arisen
in
recent
decades,
all of
them,
in one
way
or
another,
have confronted
the socioeconomic
power
of
dominant classes. The most
effective-such
as the
early Nicaraguan revolution,
the
antiapartheid
move-
ment
in South
Africa,
and the
prodemocracy
movements
in
Eastern
Europe-
have persuasively
linked immediate demands
with
issues of social
power.
The
Nicaraguan
experience
demonstrates that
a
popular,
democratic
revo-
lution
will
occur only
if
contradictions within a
social
order
erupt
in
a severe
crisis and the
overwhelming majority
of
the
population
is
convinced of the
need
for collective action
against
the dominant
power.
From this
perspective,
discourses
are
seen as
operative
in a given
social structure
by
rhetors from
specific
social
positions
who confront
concrete
conjunctural conditions with
articulations
drawn from their collective
experiences. Concretely,
a dialecti-
cal
process
unfolded
in
the course
of the
Nicaraguan
revolution:
as
the FSLN
adjusted
its
rhetoric,
social forces
capable
of
implementing
that
rhetoric were
being forged by
the
developing capitalist
state
and
organized by various
social movements
representing
their interests.
In conclusion,
the
experience
of
the
Nicaraguan
revolution
strongly
suggests
that
the
power
of
discourse
to
evoke
change depends
on
its interac-
tion with nondiscursive conditions that
make
possible
the realization of
political goals through
nondiscursive action. Discourse
does
not breathe life
into dust
and
act
upon
people; rather, people
act
through
discourse.
We
build
our world out of
the materials and conditions we
find at
hand.
Although
we
understand
our world
and
prepare
for
new worlds
through discourse,
that
world
cannot be reduced
to
discourse alone.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/
SOCIAL POWER AND
DISCOURSE 111
REFERENCES
Artz, Lee
1992
"Power and communication
in
Nicaragua: a dialectical
materialist analysis." Ph.D.
diss., University
of Iowa.
Benjamin,
Alan
1989 Nicaragua:
Dynamics of an Unfinished
Revolution.
San
Francisco: Walnut.
Biderman, Jaime
1983
"The
development
of
capitalism
in
Nicaragua:
a political
economic history." Latin
American
Perspectives
10
(Winter): 7-31.
Black, George
1981
Triumph
of the People: The
Sandinista Revolution in
Nicaragua.
London: Zed Books.
Booth,
John
A.
1982
The
End
and the Beginning: The
Nicaraguan Revolution.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Cabestrero,
Te6filo
1986
Revolutionaries for the Gospel:
Testimonies of Fifteen
Christians in the Nicaraguan
Government. Maryknoll:
Orbis.
Carri6n,
Luis
1987 Christians in the Sandinista
Revolution. (Interview by
Marta Harnecker.) San Fran-
cisco:
New
Americas.
Collins, Joseph
1982 What
Difference
Could
a
Revolution
Make?
Food and
Farming
in the New Nicaragua.
San Francisco:
Institute
for
Food and
Development Policy.
Coraggio,
Jose
Luis
1985 Nicaragua:
Revolution and Democracy. Boston:
Allen
and
Unwin.
Eagleton, Terry
1991 Ideology:
An Introduction.
London:
Verso.
Eckstein,
Susan
1989
Power
and
Popular
Protest: Latin American Social Movements.
Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Frente Sandinista
Liberaci6n Nacional
(FSLN)
1982
"The
historic
program
of the FSLN," pp. 13-22
in
Bruce
Markus (ed.), Sandinistas
Speak.
New York: Pathfinder.
Garnham,
Nicholas
1990
Capitalism
and Communication: Global Culture and
the
Economics of Information.
Newbury
Park:
Sage.
Gibson,
Bill
1987 "Structural overview of the
Nicaraguan economy," pp. 15-27
in Rose Spaulding (ed.),
The Political Economy of
Revolutionary Nicaragua. Boston: Allen
and Unwin.
Gorastiaga,
Xavier
1989 "Mixed
economy
and the Sandinista
revolution." Annual
Review
of Nicaraguan
Sociology
2: 3-15.
Gramsci,
Antonio
1988
"Hegemony
and
historic
blocs,"
pp. 189-222
in
David
Forgacs (ed.),
An Antonio
Gramsci
Reader:
Selected
Writings
1916-1935.
New
York:
Schocken.
Hall,
Stuart
1986
"On
postmodemism
and articulation."
(Interview by
Lawrence
Grossberg.)
Journal
of
Communication
Inquiry
10
(Spring):
45-60.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112 LATIN AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES
1982 "The rediscovery
of
'ideology':
The return
of
the
'repressed'
in media studies,"
pp. 56-90
in Michael
Gurevitch,
Tony Bennett,
James
Curran,
and
Janet Woolacott (eds.),
Culture, Society,
and
the
Media. London: Methuen.
Kowarick,
L.
1985 "Base communities
and urban social
movements," pp.73-93
in
David Slater (ed.), New
Social Movements and
the
State
in Central
America.
Amsterdam:
CEDLA.
Laclau, Ernesto
1983
"Transformations
of
advanced industrial societies and the theory of the
subject," pp.
39-44 in Sakari Hanninen and Leena
Paldan (eds.), Rethinking Ideology: A
Marxist Debate.
New York: International General.
1985
"New social movements
and
the plurality
of the
social," pp.27-42
in
David Slater
(ed.),
New Social Movements
and the State in Central
America.
Amsterdam: CEDLA.
1990 New Reflections
on the Revolution of Our Time. Translated by Jon Bames.
New York:
Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto
and Chantal Mouffe
1985 Hegemony
and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.Translated
by Winston
Moore and Paul Cammack. London: Verso.
Lazarsfeld, Paul,
Bernard
Berelson,
and
Hazel
Gaudet
1944 The People's Choice. New
York: Duell,
Sloan and Pearce.
McNall,
Scott
G.,
Rhonda F.
Levine,
and
Rick
Fantasia
(eds.)
1990 Bringing
Class Back In: Contemporary and Historical
Perspectives.
Boulder:
Westview
Press.
Mattelart,
Armand
1979
"For a class analysis
of communication," pp. 23-70
in Armand
Mattelart and Seth
Seigelaub (eds.),
Communication
and
Class
Struggle,
vol.
1, Capitalism,
Imperialism.
New
York:
International General.
Molyneux,
Michelle
1985 "Mobilization without
emancipation?
Women's
interests, state,
and revolution in
Nicaragua," pp. 233-260
in David Slater
(ed.),
New
Social Movements and
the State in
Central America.
Amsterdam: CEDLA.
Mouffe,
Chantal
1984 "Towards
a theoretical
interpretation of
'new social
movements,'
" pp. 139-143 in
Argument/Sonderband (ed.),
Rethinking Marx.
New York and Berlin: Argument/Sonder-
band.
Mulhern,
F.
1984
" 'Towards 2000':
New from
you
know
where."
New
Left
Review 11 (Spring): 18-26.
Nufiez,
Orlando
1988
"The social nature of the
political
revolution." Annual Review
of
Nicaraguan Sociology
1:
27-34.
Ortega,
Daniel
1990
Project
Satellite: Let
Nicaragua Speak. (Videocassette.)
Palo Alto,
CA: Peninsula
Peace
Center.
Randall, Margaret
1983 Christians
in the
Nicaraguan
Revolution.
Vancouver: New Star.
Rothschuh
Villanueva,
Guillermo
1986
"Notes on
the
history
of
revolutionary journalism
in
Nicaragua," pp.
28-36
in
Armand
Mattelart (ed.), Communicating
in
popular Nicaragua.
New York:
International
General.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artz
/
SOCIAL
POWER
AND
DISCOURSE 113
Slater,
David
1985
"Introduction," pp.
1-27
in
David Slater
(ed.). New
Social
Movements and the State
in
Central
America.
Amsterdam:
CEDLA.
Spalding,
Rose J.
1991
"Capitalists and
revolution:
state-private sector
relations
in
revolutionary
Nicaragua
(1979-1990)."
Washington, DC: Sixteenth
International
Congress of
the Latin
American
Studies
Association.
Photocopied.
Steinberg,
Marc
1990
"Talkin' class:
discourse, ideology,
and
their
roles
in
class
conflict," pp. 261-284 in
Scott
McNall,
Rhonda
Levine,
and Rick
Fantasia
(eds.),
Bringing
Class
Back In: Contem-
porary
and Historical
Perspectives.
Boulder: Westview
Press.
Trotsky, Leon
1973
In
Defense of Marxism.
New York:
Pathfinder.
Vilas, Carlos
1986
The Sandinista
Revolution: National Liberation and
Social
Transformation in
Central
America. New
York:
Monthly
Review.
Weber, Henri
1981
Nicaragua:
The
Sandinist Revolution.
London: Verso.
Wheelock,
Jaime
1975
Imperialismo y dictadura:
Crisis de
unaformaci6n
social.
Mexico
City: Siglo XXI.
Wright,
Erik Olin
1990 Classes. London: Verso.
This content downloaded from 205.215.103.96 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:36:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions