Résumés
Summary
We use the 2011-12 conflict between the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the British Columbia (BC) government to explore how the union president, Susan Lambert, used language to bring the conflict into being and mobilize union members in opposition to the government. We use newspaper articles and archival material from mid-2011 to June 2012 to explore how Lambert identified the core issues and actors, prescribed roles, relationships and actions, and, importantly, inspired a will to act in union members and supporters.
To explore how she constructed the conflict, we adopt a mobilization theory developed by scholars of social movement organizations (SMO). Snow and Benford (1988: 200-202) conceptualize three core pillars of conflict: 1- diagnostic framing identifies a problem, attributes blame or causality, and identifies the key actors; 2- prognostic framing offers a solution and identifies strategies, tactics and targets; 3- motivational framing provides a call to arms, or rationale for action while inspiring an urge to act among members and supporters. In exploring how she urged action among members, we use the four archetypal legitimation strategies identified by Van Leeuwen (2008) and Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999): authorization, rationalization, moralization and mythopoesis.
McAdam (1982: 48) argues that before collective action can begin people must come to view their situation as unjust and subject to change. We use the above framework to structure our exploration of how the union president used language to frame members’ understanding of the conflict. Through language she ushered the reality of labour conflict into being and constructed a reality in which union members could identify themselves as agents of protest and change.
Keywords:
- discourse,
- framing,
- public sector,
- teachers,
- labour conflict,
- trade unions,
- British Columbia,
- mobilization
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous nous penchons sur le conflit de travail, survenu en 2011-2012, entre la Fédération des enseignants-es de la Colombie-Britannique et le gouvernement de cette province, afin d’examiner de quelle manière la présidente de cette fédération, Susan Lambert, a utilisé le langage pour amener ses membres à réaliser l’ampleur du conflit et les mobiliser contre le gouvernement. À cette fin, nous avons passé en revue des articles de quotidiens et des documents d’archives couvrant la période s’étendant de la mi-2011 à juin 2012, dans le but de cerner comment Mme Lambert est parvenue à identifier les enjeux et les acteurs cruciaux, attribuer les rôles, établir les relations et les actions, et, surtout, comment elle a réussi à inspirer une volonté d’agir chez les membres et leurs partisans.
Pour explorer comment elle a « construit » le conflit, nous adoptons une théorie de la mobilisation développée par des universitaires qui ont étudié les mouvements sociaux organisés. Snow et Benford (1988 : 200-202) ont conceptualisé trois piliers-clés du conflit : 1-élaboration du diagnostic, soit identifier un problème, en attribuer le blâme ou la cause, et identifier les acteurs-clés; 2- élaboration du pronostique, soit offrir une solution et en identifier les stratégies, tactiques et cibles; et, enfin, 3- élaboration de la motivation, soit faire un appel aux armes ou offrir un argumentaire qui convaincra les membres et les partisans de l’urgence de passer à l’action. Pour analyser la manière dont la présidente a réussi cela, nous nous référons aux quatre stratégies de légitimation identifiées par Van Leeuwen (2008), et Van Leeuwen et Wodack (1999) : autorisation, rationalisation, moralisation et construction d’un mythe.
McAdam (1982 : 48) soutient qu’avant qu’une action collective ne débute, il faut que les personnes concernées considèrent leur situation comme étant injuste et devant être changée. Nous nous servons de ce cadre d’analyse pour explorer la manière dont la présidente a utilisé le langage pour « construire » cette vision. Grâce au langage utilisé, elle est parvenue à faire ressortir les enjeux du conflit et à « construire une réalité » où les membres ont pu s’identifier comme agents de changement et acteurs de la protestation.
Mots-clés :
- discours,
- construction de la réalité,
- secteur public,
- enseignants,
- syndicats,
- mobilisation,
- Colombie-Britannique
Resumen
Se estudia el conflicto ocurrido en 2011-2012 entre la Federación de profesores de Colombia Británica (FPCB) y el gobierno de Colombia Británica (CB) para explorar el uso del lenguaje - en este caso, por la presidenta sindical Susan Lambert - para hacer brotar un conflicto y para movilizar los miembros del sindicato en oposición al gobierno. Utilizamos artículos de periódicos y material de archivo aparecidos desde mediados de 2011 a junio 2012 para analizar cómo Lambert identificó los temas centrales y los actores, los roles prescritos, las relaciones y las acciones, y, más importante aún, la manera cómo inspiró los miembros sindicales y simpatizantes a pasar a la acción.
El análisis de la gestación del conflicto se basa en la teoría de la movilización desarrollada por los académicos de las organizaciones de movimiento social (OMS). Snow y Benford (1988 : 200-202) conceptualizan tres pilares centrales del conflicto : 1- estratagema de diagnóstico para identificar un problema, atribuir la responsabilidad o la culpa e identificar los actores claves; 2- estratagema de pronostico que ofrece una solución e identifica las estrategias, tácticas y metas; 3- estratagema motivacional que procura a los miembros y simpatizantes una justificación para la acción o un « grito de combate », inspirando, al mismo tiempo, la urgencia de pasar a la acción. Para analizar la manera cómo Lambert motivó los sindicalistas a pasar a la acción, se utilizan los cuatro arquetipos de estrategias de legitimación identificados por Van Leeuwen (2008) y Van Leeuwen y Wodack (1999): autorización, racionalización, moralización y creación de un mito (mythopoesis).
McAdam (1982: 48) sostiene que antes que una acción colectiva comience, es necesario que las personas concernidas consideren su situación como injusta y sujeta al cambio. Nos basamos en este enfoque para analizar la manera cómo el lenguaje fue utilizado para modelar la comprensión de los miembros sindicales respecto al conflicto. Gracias al lenguaje utilizado, la presidenta sindical condujo la realidad del conflicto laboral hacia su esencia y construyó una realidad en la cual los miembros sindicales podían identificarse como agentes de protesta y cambio.
Palabras clave:
- discurso,
- estratagema,
- sector público,
- profesores,
- conflicto laboral,
- sindicatos,
- Colombia Británica,
- movilización
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
References
- Billing, Michael. 2003. “Preface: Language as Forms of Death.” In Mirjana N. Dedai and Daniel N. Nelson (Eds.), At War with Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, vii-xxii.
- Blyton, Paul, and Jean Jenkins. 2013. “Mobilizing Protest: Insights from Two Factory Closures.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51 (4), 733-753.
- British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 469.
- Cheek, Julianne. 2008. “Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.” In Lisa M. Given (Ed.). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Volumes 1-2. Los Angeles, CA.: Sage, 355-357.
- Chiapello, Eve and Norman Fairclough. 2010 (2nd Edition). “Understanding the New Management Ideology: A Transdisciplinary Contribution from Critical Discourse Analysis and the New Sociology of Capitalism.” In Norman Fairclough (Ed.), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Toronto: Longman, 255-280.
- Dedaić, Mirjana N. 2003. “Introduction: A Peace of Word.” In M. N. Dedaić and D. N. Nelson (Eds.), At War with Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-23.
- Entman, Robert. 2003. “Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11.” Political Communication, 20 (4), 415-432.
- Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. “Mobilization as a Macro-Sociological Conception.” The British Journal of Sociology, 19 (3), 243-253.
- Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New York: Longman.
- Fairclough, Norman. 2005. “Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Realism.” Organization Studies, 26 (6), 915-939.
- Fleming, Thomas. 2011. Worlds Apart: British Columbia Schools, Politics, and Labour Relations Before and After 1972. British Columbia: Bendall Books.
- Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA.: Northern University.
- Grant, David, Keenoy Tom, and Cliff Oswick. 1998. “Defining Organizational Discourse: Of Diversity, Dichotomy and Multi-Disciplinarity.” In David Grant, Tom Keenoy, and Cliff Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1-13.
- Hansen, Colin. 2011. Budget Speech 2011. British Columbia (February 15).
- Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27.
- Hardy, Cynthia and Nelson Phillips. 1999. “No Joking Matter: Discursive Struggle in the Canadian Refugee System.” Organization Studies, 20 (1), 1-14.
- Hibbs, Douglas A., Jr. 1976. “Industrial Conflict in Advanced Industrial Societies.” American Political Science Review, 70 (4), 1033-1058.
- Hughes, Trevor. 2012. A Report to the Honourable Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of Labour, Citizens’ Services and Open Government. (February 23).
- Hutchinson, Brian. 2012. “BC Liberals Are the Clear Winners in Tentative Deal with Teachers.” National Post (June 27).
- Jansen, Giedo. 2014. “Effects of Union Organization on Strike Incidence in Companies.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 67 (1), 60-85.
- Kaufman, Bruce E. 1982. “The Determinants of Strikes in the United States, 1900-1977.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 35 (4), 473-490.
- Kelly John. 1998. Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves. New York, NY.: Routledge.
- Korbin, Judi. 1993. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector. British Columbia: Crown Publications (June).
- Korpi, Walter, and Michael Shalev. 1979. “Strikes, Industrial Relations and Class Conflict in Capitalist Societies.” British Journal of Sociology, 30 (2), 164-185.
- Matas, Robert. 2012. “The Murky Depths of Net-Mandate Negotiating.” Globe and Mail (March 5).
- McAdam, Doug. 2013. “Cognitive Liberation.” The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 208-209.
- McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York, NY.: Cambridge University.
- McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago.
- Mumby, Dennis K., and Robin P. Clair. 1997. “Organizational Discourse.” In Theo A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studied: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, 181-205.
- Nelson, Daniel N. 2003. “Conclusion: Word Peace.” In Mirjana N. Dedai and Daniel N. Nelson (Eds.), At War with Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 449-462.
- Nepstad, Sharon E. 1997. “The Process of Cognitive Liberation: Cultural Synapses, Links, and Frame Considerations in the U.S.-Central America Peace Movement.” Sociological Inquiry, 67 (4), 470-487.
- Piazza, James A. 2005. “Globalizing Quiescence: Globalization, Union Density and Strikes in 15 Industrialized Countries.” Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26 (2), 289-314.
- Piven, Frances F., and Richard Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movements: How They Succeed, Why They Fail. New York: Pantheon.
- Poole, Michael. 1984. “Comparative Approaches to Industrial Conflict.” In Bernhard Wilpert, and Arne Sorge (Eds.), International Perspectives on Organizational Democracy. New York: John Wiley, 197-213.
- Potter, Jonathan, and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behavior. Beverly Hills: Sage.
- Reyes, Antonio. 2011. “Strategies of Legitimation in Political Power: From Words to Actions.” Discourse and Society, 22 (6), 781-807.
- Reshef, Yonatan, and Sandra Rastin. 2003. Unions in the Time of Revolution: Government Restructuring in Alberta and Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto.
- Shalev, Michael. 1992. “The Resurgence of Labour Quiescence.” In Marino Regini (Ed.), The Future of Labour Movements. London: Sage, 102-132.
- Shorter, Edward, and Charles Tilly. 1974. Strikes in France, 1830-1968. New York, NY.: Cambridge University.
- Seifert, Roger, and Tom Sibley. 2011. “It’s Politics, Stupid: The 2002-2004 UK firefighters’ Dispute.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49 (2), 332-352.
- Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 2000. “Clarifying the Relationship Between Framing and Ideology.” Mobilization: An International Journal, 5 (1), 55-60.
- Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
- Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1996. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micro-Mobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review, 51 (August), 464-481.
- Stern, Robert N. 1978. “Methodological Issues in Quantitative Strike Activity.” Industrial Relations, 17 (1), 32-42.
- Talja, Sanna. 1999. “Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data: The Discourse Analytic Method.” Library and Information Science Research, 21 (4), 459-477
- Van Leeuwen, Theo and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration and Control: A Discursive-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies, 1 (1), 83-118.
- Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University.
- Walk Out. 2012. (March 18).
- Watson, Tony. 2003. Sociology, Work and Industry (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
- Wright, Don. 2003. Towards a Better Teacher Bargaining Model in British Columbia: Report to Honorable Graham Bruce on the Teacher Collective Bargaining. November.