The concept of discourse coalitions

Maarten Hajer set out to explain the emergence of the dominance of the ecological modernization discourse in the West: “The main historical thesis of this book concerns the emergence of ecological modernization as the new dominant policy discourse in the environmental domain” (Hajer 1995: 206). His basic idea is that the concept of discourse coalitions enables a “communicative miracle” that allows actors from various different backgrounds to find common ground in terms of problem analysis and solutions (ibid.: 42ff., 61). This is possible because of similar conceptualizations of central elements (‘story-lines’) of various other discourses which are also central elements of the dominant discourse. In a nutshell: He sets out to explain the stability of a specific discourse. Therefore, it seems promising to integrate such a concept into the poststrucuralist framework which tends to underline the contingency and fragility of all discursive constructions (cf. Wæver 2002: 23; Diez 1999: 45; Laclau/Mouffe 1985).

In a poststructuralist understanding, fixations of meaning can only be temporary as articulations of the discourse reproduce and reshape the discourse constantly. In this process of meaning production, discursive struggles – struggles over meaning – are a constant feature (cf. Diez 2013). On the other hand, one may think of discursive

constructions such as state or nation (cf. Wæver 2002) which are so firmly sedimented that gradual change occurs only in longer time spans. This does not mean, however, that these meanings are undisputed.

Change and instability is thus an inherent feature of discourse, which results from different sources: First, it can be the result of the process of constant re-articulation and reproduction of a discourse, possibly stemming from inconsistencies internal to the discourse. Second, it may result from external events when “a hegemonic discourse becomes dislocated when it is confronted by new events that it cannot explain, represent, or in other ways domesticate” (Torfing 2005: 16). And finally, dominant discourses may change or be replaced by others if a constellation of discourses appears which Hajer labelled “discourse coalitions” (Hajer 1995; cf. Rogers 2009). Discourse coalitions, however, may as well work the other way round and – once they replaced another discourse – enhance the stability of the incumbent dominant discourse (cf. Hajer 1995).

Therefore, the concept of discourse coalitions seems to be particularly suited for the present research interest, as it cannot only account for stability of discourses, but also gives insights into the relationships of different discourses – in this case, the relationship between discourses on the Union-level and discourses on the member states’ level.

Hajer starts from a social constructivist notion of discourse which he defines as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer 1995: 44). He identifies and delimits discourses by allocating discourses to different subjects, such as physics or natural sciences in general, economics, engineering, jurisdiction, philosophy and so on (cf. Hajer 1995: 44f.). Hajer follows the work of Michael Billig (1987) and Rom Harré (Davies/Harré 1990) and their “social-interactionist” approach to discourse analysis which stresses the role of individual action: “[...] the social interactionists argue that persons are constituted by discursive practices, and they conceptualize human interaction as an exchange of arguments, of contradictory suggestions of how one is to make sense of reality” (Hajer 1995: 53).

In order to allow for inter-discursive communication of actors coming from various discursive backgrounds, Hajer introduces two “middle range concepts”: “story lines”

and “discourse coalitions” (ibid.: 61). Story lines are conceptualized as “narratives on

social reality through which elements from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding” (Hajer 1995: 62). They derive their power from “discursive affinities”

which means that the different elements of the story-line “have a similar cognitive or discursive structure which suggest that they belong together” (ibid.: 66f.). Discourse coalitions are conceptualized as “the ensemble of (1) a set of story-lines; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines; and (3) the practices in which this discursive activity is based” (Hajer 1995: 65). In order to show how hegemonic discourses come about, discourse coalitions play a crucial role, as in discourse coalitions actors from diverse discursive backgrounds may link up with one another around the story-lines (cf. ibid.:

61).

Such a concept of discourse coalitions is, however, not easily applicable in a poststructuralist framework. This is not so much because of the constructivist framework of his discourse coalitions, but because Hajer’s discourse coalitions remain very close to such a coalition of actors, which would be problematic from a discourse-analytical perspective:³⁸ The very definition of discourse coalitions (see above) features actors as a core element of the coalitions. The story lines, which make up the “discourse part” of the coalition can be considered more or less as a means to facilitate the communication between the actors; therefore, the “communicative miracle” enabling actors to talk to and understand each other plays a central role in Hajer’s concept (Hajer 1995: 42ff). Furthermore, his general ‘social-interactionist’ approach stresses the role of individual action and thus the boundary lines between his discourse coalitions and Sabatier’s advocacy coalitions (Sabatier 1988)³⁹ become rather blurry at some points of the analysis.

38 Cf. the discussion of the role of the subject in poststructuralist discourse theory in Diez 1999: 49f.

39 Paul Sabatier (1988) conceptualizes advocacy coalitions as coalitions of individual actors (policy elites) of specific areas of policy areas, policy analysts, journalists and so on. It is about their specific interaction, given their specific believe systems and the processes of social learning (Sabatier 1988: 131).