Aplicaciones móviles en planes comerciales

The discourse analysis undertaken in this study aims to categorise and contextualise the main representations of the actors into ‘basic discourses’ before tracing how the representations frame the practices of the actors, which will be the object of the second section of this chapter. The overall empirical analysis can be methodologically divided into different steps inspired by Dunn’s (2008, 90) classification for analysing data:

1. Identify the representations in a corpus of texts concerning a particular issue – here the regionalisation of foreign and security policies;

2. Organise these representations into ‘basic discourses’;

3. Contextualise these representations and discourses within the larger structures of meaning;

4. Explore how ‘basic’ discourses constitute policies and practices. i Identifying the articulations of identities

The first step of the discourse analysis consists in identifying the main representations in the texts. Representations are defined as articulations made between elements through processes of linking (positive identity) and differentiation (negative identity) thereby producing particular identities. Chapter two already thoroughly explained how the formation of meaning and identity is relational (Hansen 2006). Laclau and Mouffe (1985, 105) define articulations as ‘any practices establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practices.’ Far from being fixed, these articulations are inherently unstable to the extent that they establish links between different elements to constitute identities (of subjects and objects) (Hansen 2006, 20-21; Laclau and Mouffe 1985, 96). Identities are constituted through an articulation of a large number of elements; it is therefore possible to study the relative stability of these articulations or their instability, as well as the tensions between the elements which are made to fit together – sometimes in an inconsistent way – within a political discourse (Hansen 2006, 28-29).

On the one hand, representations are highly structured by the system of meaning (discursive structures) which organises our knowledge, its norms and conventions. However, on the other hand, they can be transformed through the political agency of actors who can use the instability of the articulations and/or a change of context to

produce new identities and ‘facts’. Indeed, if we see identity and policies as co- constituted through discourse, the practice of constructing a different identity – by making new articulations between ‘material facts’ and different elements – provide the basis to advocate a change of policy (Hansen 2006, 20-21). While policymakers present the dominant link between identity and foreign policy as necessary and natural to the relevant audience (Hansen 2006, 28-29; Laclau and Mouffe 1985, 112); political opponents try to destabilise this link by providing a different articulation showing that the current policy is not an appropriate or legitimate answer to the ‘facts’ on the ground (Hansen 2006, 32-33). Hence, the aim of a poststructuralist discourse analysis is, according to Hansen (2008, 32-33), ‘to study in an empirically rigorous and structured manner the way in which facts are formed and how they impact on foreign policy debates: how are facts coupled with representations of identity and to particular policies?’

This doctoral thesis empirically investigates the construction of identity and the formulation of regionalised foreign and security policies. Analytically this means I look at how elements are articulated within discourses; how representations become provisionally fixated in this process and with which rootedness; where are the instabilities and tensions in these articulations; and how contesting discourses provide different articulations of the same elements in order to produce different effects in terms of policies (Hansen 2006; Dunn.2008, 86). The analysis draws on Hansen’s (2006) methodological guidelines for poststructuralist discourse analysis: first, examining how the chosen ‘selves’ are articulated to particular ‘others’; how their identities are defined according to spatial, temporal and ethical constructions; finally how these ‘selves’ and their ‘others’ find themselves articulated within a system to various other elements through processes of linking and differentiation.

The ‘selves’ I investigate are multiple which entails a comparative dimension. These different ‘selves’ are the regional organisations (ECOWAS, Mercosur and Unasur) and the regional powers, Brazil and Nigeria. The ‘selves’ can be articulated to multiple others instead of being specifically articulated to a threatening Other. Chapter two showed that the construction of identities relies on wide range of degrees of differences and similarities. The ‘Brazilian self’, for instance, has the US as a threatening Other and the regional organisations and South American countries as ‘others’ with which it shares similarities but which can also become threatening. The key articulation that will be analysed in all texts is the one made between the state and the region: it can be positive or negative, consistent or inconsistent, and have a different meaning depending on the context but these two elements are always present (even if implicitly).53 _{Next to this core articulation, other concepts such as} ‘security’, ‘defence’, ‘community’, ‘development’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘autonomy’ are also recurrent in the texts. There is a positioning of the ‘self’ (a state ‘self’ or a region ‘self’) in a state/nation narrative within a web of meaning where these various concepts are connected through articulatory practices of linking and differentiation – thereby processing events and producing facts legitimising or hindering the regionalisation of foreign and security policies.

The identities of these ‘selves’ and ‘others’ are also constructed through spatial, temporal and ethical dimensions. These are heuristic categories elaborated by Hansen (2006, 46) to analyse the construction of identities in foreign and security policy discourses which separate an ‘inside’ from an ‘outside’, take place across time and with chronological references, and need legitimacy to be accepted. The spatial construction of Nigeria’s and of Brazil’s identity is defined according to their

53 _{Hansen (2008, 44) notes that the ‘self’/‘other’ juxtaposition does not have to be explicit in every} text; it can even be completely implicit when the discourse becomes established.

situation within their region and globally; and according to the place of their region in the world and compared to other regions. The delimitation of borders and of political spaces with which or against which they define themselves contribute to produce their identity. The boundaries of the ‘Nigerian self’, for instance, are associated to West Africa as a whole so the ‘others’ here – West African states – are positively articulated to Nigeria.

The temporal construction is also crucial to understand ‘political spaces and subjects as constituted in time’ (Hansen 2006, 48-49). Indeed, the construction of national ‘selves’ is always a historical narrative: the appropriation of past events to justify and legitimise the present (Ringmar 1996, 24). This construction is made along the line of concepts such as ‘development’, ‘transformation’, ‘construction’, ‘continuity’, ‘change’, etc. For Nigeria, the evolution of regionalisation in West Africa towards a European integration model, which is seen as necessary for the future of the region, shows how both the spatial and temporal dimensions are at play. Conversely, for Brazil the representation of a still on-going construction of the nation-state hinders the possibility of relaxing sovereignty through the regionalisation process.

Lastly, the ethical dimension concerns how policymakers present their policy actions as being in the national interests of the state and its citizens, or inherently moral (Hansen 2006, 50).

ii Organising the representations

The second step is to organise these representations into ‘basic discourses.’ Hansen (2006, 51) suggests this useful type of classification on the grounds that even though foreign policy debates are constituted through individual texts (always unique), they converge around common themes and representations articulating similar elements

and producing a construction of identities entailing a set of policies: ‘The analytical value of basic discourses is rather that they provide a lens through which a multitude of different representations and policies can be seen as systematically connected’ (Hansen 2006, 51-52).

These ‘basic discourses’ are thus ideal types indicating the central points of convergence and contestations of a foreign policy debate (Hansen 2006, 51-52); and enabling an analysis of how these discourses dynamically interact with each other across time and in response to their context. Some of these discourses last, some are modified or even replaced. Each discourse has a different degree of historical depth, of dominance or of marginalisation which contributes in structuring the debate and thereby policies and actors’ practices (Neumann 2008, 73). The objective is, according to Hansen (2006, 51-52), to identify discourses with very different constructions of identity and policy, which separate the political landscape. Neumann (2008, 63) explains well that a debate usually includes a dominant representation of reality and one or more alternative representations.

The level of contestation and interaction between these discourses is context- specific. In some cases the dominant discourse can be hegemonic while the contesting discourse(s) are barely noticeable. For Neumann, (2008, 70) this means the debate is closed; he argues that discourse analysis is particularly well suited for studying situations where power is maintained by the aid of culture and challenged only to a limited degree. This appears to be the case in West Africa where one hegemonic discourse frames the regionalisation process whereas in South America a dominant discourse exists but is contested in several sites by a competing discourse proposing an alternative path for the regionalisation process. Nevertheless, as the construction of identities is dynamic and inherently unstable, even hegemonic discourses can be

suddenly and aggressively contested (for instance as a response to a change in the context) or progressively by another ‘basic discourse’ – attacking and rearticulating the construction of identity (Hansen 2006, 31). Indeed, social relations are always in some degree of flux and prone to evolution (Neumann 2008, 71): what Laclau and Mouffe (1985, 95-96) call the ‘openness of the social.’ The field can also be said to be open if there are two or more discourses and none of them are dominant (Neumann 2008, 70).

The role of a poststructuralist discourse analysis is therefore to trace the evolution of these ‘basic discourses’, their rootedness, the tensions and instabilities within them and between them, and how this frames the policies and actors’ practices: the objective is ‘to explore the multiplicity and contestedness of discourses, to disaggregate actors, and to explore the complicated ways discourses were circulated and achieved social dominance’ (Dunn 2008, 83).

iii Contextualising the representations

Contextualising discourses is one of the key dimensions of this research. It allows us to show how foreign and security policy regionalisation processes are produced by both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ actors, and how they result from structured historical processes, but also depend on current events and on the agency of actors. Contextualisation is thus an answer to the limits of theoretical frameworks based on the causal effect of objective factors that were criticised in the first chapter. I understand it broadly as analysing these discourses in their political, social, historical and geographic context. For Dunn (2008, 83): ‘Interpretation requires not just a description of these particular representations and representational practices but a deeper contextualization within the larger structures of meaning of which they are a

part.’ The ‘basic discourses’ will be contextualised in three main ways: historically, locally and geographically.

Firstly, the use of conceptual histories is a useful tool to trace the rootedness of the representations in history. It is indeed crucial to grasp the durability of these representations in order to understand their points of tension and instabilities, and the possibilities of change. A representation which is deeply rooted in history is in general more difficult to challenge and modify. I will also examine how references to ‘historical facts’ are made to justify the dominant discourses: how past events are being processed in the present discourses to legitimise policies. An intertextual understanding of texts is an important tool to analyse these two dimensions. Neumann (2008, 1) refers to intertextuality when he writes that ‘the discourse will carry with it the “memory” of its own genesis. Showing how text is made possible by the preceding texts, often it is possible to find a prehistory of the main representation.’ This is consistent with Hansen’s (2006, 8) description of intertextuality – drawing on Julia Kristeva – as a way in which texts build their argument and authority through references to other texts, by making direct quotes or by adopting their key concepts or catchphrases. She insightfully adds that by making these links present texts also produce new meaning as they incorporate these references into the present context and argument. The analysis of these intertextual links is therefore central to historically contextualise ‘basic discourses’. More will be said in the following part on the choice of an ‘intertextual model’.

Secondly, ‘basic discourses’ should be contextualised in their current environment. Having a good knowledge of the social, material and institutional context, and events taking place in the region is important to understand how this environment interacts and is being processed by the ‘basic discourses’. This shows to

poststructuralist critics that the material world is not being neglected. While poststructuralism relies on a monist understanding of world and mind as inseparable (Jackson 2010, 31), this does not impede material factors from being taken into account. However, the focus is on how these material factors are constituted through discourse.54

Thirdly, contextualisation is also done across space to include discursive and social practices stemming from actors ‘external’ to the region. Indeed, the regional representations can also draw on concepts and meanings articulated by these ‘external’ actors’ discourses. In the case of West Africa the most relevant ‘external’ actor is the EU; in South America, the EU, the US and the OAS are all trying to frame the regionalisation process. This geographical contextualisation shows that case studies in IR are not independent: both West Africa and South America are part of the same international system.