Reed Et Al-2015-Journal For The Scientific Study of Religion

JOURNAL for the
SCIENTIFIC STUDY of RELIGION
Religion and Revolutionary We-Ness: Religious

Discourse, Speech Acts, and Collective Identity
in Prerevolutionary Nicaragua
JEAN-PIERRE REED SARAH PITCHER

Department of Sociology Department of Sociology
Southern Illinois University Southern Illinois University
Building on language as action perspectives and recent social movement research on speech acts, we explore
the role religious discourse plays in the maintenance of a collective identity we call revolutionary we-ness.
Using NVivo qualitative data analysis software we perform a content analysis of Volume 1 of The Gospel
in Solentiname (Cardenal 1976), a historical record of Biblestudy discussions in prerevolutionary Nicaragua.
Based on a framework of collective identity construction (boundary work, oppositional consciousness, identity
assertion) into which a taxonomy of speech acts (accusations, declarations, directives, exhortations, prescriptions,
and warnings) are organized, our content analysis illustrates how revolutionary we-ness is constituted, and how
the recursive employment of speech acts suggests a resonance of ideological motives in religious discourse. We
found the degree to which identity assertion, expressed in declarative speech acts, predominated over oppositional
consciousness, which in turn figured over boundary work in the constitution of revolutionary we-ness. Our speech
acts approach fills a void in framing theory and confirms religious discourses capacity to promote radical
self-understandings and commitment to revolutionary activism.
Keywords: religious discourse, liberation theology, revolutionary we-ness, speech acts.
Much of the doing of contentious politics is talking about it. Hank Johnston
When Christians dare to give an integral revolutionary testimony, the Latin American revolution will be
invincible. Ernesto Che Guevara
INTRODUCTION
Che Guevaras words about Christians proved fateful in Nicaragua. Under sociostructural and
political conditions conducive to radical change, many Nicaraguan Christians assumed revolution-
ary identities during the 1970s. Bible study discussions facilitated the emergence of oppositional
understandings, helped translate and give meaning to evolving revolutionary sentiment, and ul-
timately figured significantly in the revolutionary mobilization of Christians (Baltodano 2010;
Dodson and OShauhnessy 1990; Foroohar 1989; Lancaster 1988; Sabia 1997; Randall 1983,
1985). Religious discussions in Christian base communities and similar oppositional contexts
employed hermeneutic practices that facilitated the development of ideological suspicion, the
Acknowledgments: We are grateful for the sharp feedback we received from Hank Johnston, Marc Steinberg, Richard
Wood, and Rachel Whaley on previous drafts of the article. Their suggestions, recommendations, were invaluable. We
are also grateful for the proof-editing and reference work we received from Sarah Lawrence. She made it possible for
us to complete the article sooner. Conor Byrne provided us with useful feedback on the English translation of Vol.
1 of The Gospel of Solentiname. Lastly, Jane Elizabeth Dougherty was a bastion of support as (my partner and) col-
league. A previous draft of this article was presented at the American Sociological Association conference in Chicago,
August 2015.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jean-Pierre Reed, Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, 1000
Faner Drive MC 4524, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA. E-mail: reedjp@siu.edu
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2015) 54(3):477500

C 2015 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
478 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION
critical interpretation of sociopolitical realities, and the assumption of revolutionary identities

(Berryman 1984; Clos 2012; Reed 2008). Bible study discussions made it possible for partici-
pating interlocutors to transform the conventional uses of religious language into radical ones,
converting religious idioms into fighting words (Steinberg 1999a).
This studys primary source of fighting words is data from volume I of The Gospel of
Solentiname (Cardenal 1976), a historical record of religious discussions that took place in a
growing revolutionary scenario in 1970s Solentiname, Nicaragua.1 The discussions contained
in this volume, notwithstanding the potential limits posed by scope, recording, transcribing,
and editing processes, stand as a connective structure to experienced revolutionary situations
(Assmann 1999). As recorded episodes of [political] interaction, they are a significant source of
historical information for scholars of social revolutions (Johnston 1995:222). They are, in effect,
a testimony of revolution.
What exactly in religious discourse makes the constitution of a revolutionary collective iden-
tity possible? We offer a model of collective identity formation consisting of boundary work,
oppositional consciousness, and identity assertion as its constituent features. How might these
features come into play in the construction of a revolutionary collective identity in the case of
Solentiname? To determine this, we first turned to speech act theory, and then considered how
different speech acts contributed to the construction of a collective identity we call revolutionary
we-ness. This second step required that we link the aforementioned collective identity features
to speech acts. To this end, we linked accusations to boundary work; declarations to identity as-
sertion; and directives, exhortations, prescriptions, and warnings to oppositional consciousness.
In doing so, we specifically show how religious discourse (via speech acts) embodied revo-
lutionary we-ness. Additionally, the speech acts present in discourse functioned as carriers of
ideological motives connected to liberation theology, the religious perspective that inspired many
Nicaraguan Catholics to take up arms against the state. The frequency and distribution of speech
acts in religious discourse shows identity assertion (declarations) as the most salient discursive
mechanism through which revolutionary we-ness is embodied. Identifying differences between
in- and out-groups (boundary work) and developing a critical mental outlook towards the status
quo (oppositional consciousness), contrary to received wisdom, appear to play a less significant
role in our case. This suggests that identitynot boundaries and not consciousnessis the most
significant component in the process of collective identity formation in the context of revolution
and at the level of discourse. Because our speech acts approach focuses on the content of commu-
nication, it not only fills a void in framing theory, but it also confirms religious discourses capacity
to promote alternative political self-understandings and commitment to revolutionary activism.
SOCIAL MOVEMENT DISCOURSE AND REVOLUTIONARY WE-NESS
Social movement scholars have paid considerable analytical attention to movement identities,
exploring such questions as: What is a movement identity? How does it come into play in politics?
How is it generated and sustained? For our purposes, we take a movement identity to be a collective
1 We have also consulted other published materials associated with our primary data source. These sources include the
remaining three volumes of The Gospel of Solentiname (Cardenal 1982a, 1982b, 1982c), retrospective and contemplative
accounts about Solentiname (Cardenal 1972, 1978, 1979, 1987, 2003; Jimenez 2006; Pring-Mill 1979; Randall 1983,
1985; Vivas 2000), and recent oral history projects on Solentiname participants (Duenas Garca de Polavieja 2012; Perez
2014) as well as other available testimonial and secondary sources that explore the role of religion in the prerevolutionary
period (Baltodano 2010; Belli 2003; Bradstock 1987; Cabestrero 1985, 1986; Clos 2012; Dodson and OShauhnessy
1990; Foroohar 1989; Girardi 1989; Girardi, Forcano, and Vigil 1987; Instituto Historico Centroamericano 1979; Kirk
1992; Montoya 1995; Mulligan 1991; Rodrguez Garca 1981; Rosales 1987; Sabia 1997; Williams 1989). It should be
noted that all Spanish to English translations have been done by the author.
RELIGION AND REVOLUTIONARY WE-NESS 479
sense of how movement activists see or imagine themselves as political agents (Gamson 1991;
Polletta and Jasper 2001; Snow 2001). Taylor and Whittier define it as the shared definition of
a [politicized] group that derives from members common interests, experiences, and solidarity
(Taylor and Whittier 1992:105).2 Pinard refers to it as sentiments among members of a group that
they share much with one another regarding their values, goals, interests, and fate . . . giving rise
to we feelings (Pinard 2011:115). A movement identity is not something a priori to collective
action (Smith 2013:82). Rather, it is constituted in oppositional contexts (free spaces) and
collective action (Snow 2001).3 Further, it is embodied through sociocultural practices, including
identity discourse.4 In this article we aim to make sense of the constitutive relationship between
discourse and the collective identity of a revolutionary movement, that is, revolutionary we-
ness. What social processes, however, make the formation of collective identity possible? What
are its inherent features?
Taylor and Whittier (1992) offer a productive framework categorizing movement identity
construction as consisting of boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation. These features refer
to boundary work, the development of oppositional consciousness, and the assertion of identity
claims. Boundary work entails establishing differences between a challenging group and dom-
inant groups (Taylor and Whittier 1992:111). It refers to a process whereby activists acquire
a sense of who we are vs. who they are in terms of differences in moral orientation, that
is, personal values, ethical standards, and moral ambitions. Boundary work entails constructing
both a collective self and a collective other, an us and a them (Hunt and Benford 2007:443;
see also Benford and Snow 2000; Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994; Swarts 2011). Us versus
them boundaries are significant for a challenging group because they intensify commonalities
between its members, affirm group values, and help regulate membership according to movement
criteria.
Taylor and Whittier point out that [b]oundaries locate members of a group, but it is group
consciousness that imparts a larger significance to a collectivity (1992:114). Developing oppo-
sitional consciousness is another significant collective identity feature. This process refers to the
generation, maintenance, or expansion of a consciousness of dissent. This type of consciousness
may be understood as an empowering mental state that prepares members of an oppressed
group to act to undermine, reform, or overthrow a system of human domination (Mansbridge
2001:45). A state of oppositional consciousness means defining and judging the causes and
consequences of injustice as degrading and immoral, and in need of change. It is through this
radical form of consciousness that activists can attribute their discontent [with domination] to
structural, cultural, or systemic causes rather than to personal failings and can in turn expect a
2 While the terms collective identity and movement identity are often used interchangeably, it is important to note that
they are distinct from each other. The latter is narrower, e.g., the civil rights or womens movement; the former broader,
e.g., African American or women. A movement identity often emerges from a collective identity shared by members
of a group, or network of groups, when they organize to mobilize support for their political or cultural goals (Gamson
1991). For the purposes of our analysis, movement identity is the one being explored whenever either of the two terms
is employed.
3 The alternative, oppositional, or countercultural understandings by which individuals, invested in the transformation of
society, define themselves and attempt to challenge the dominant order are necessarily linked to an institutional base. Such
an institutional base is variously known as communicative action settings (Habermas 1998), cultural laboratories
(Melucci 1980), culture circles (Freire 1973), halfway houses (Morris 1984), havens (Hirsch 1990), islands of
oppositional talk (Johnston 2005), plausibility structures (Berger and Luckmann 1966), or prefigurative free spaces
(Polletta 1999).
4 Inaddition to identity discourse (Gamson 1992; Ruiz-Junco 2011; Valocchi 2007, 2009, 2012), sociocultural practices
include, but are not limited to, styles of presentation (Della Porta and Diani 1999); emotion work (Gould 2009; Kane
2011); cultural reediting (Selbin 2010); borrowing, negotiating, and synthesizing cultural content (Mansbridge 2001); re-
constructing memory (Samuel 1994); storytelling (Davis 2002; Polletta 2006); and formal and informal commemorations
(Della Porta and Diani 1999).
change to conditions of domination (Taylor and Whittier 1992:114). Oppositional consciousness

allows activists to respond with moral indignation to the wrongs and injustices they have had to
endure as marginalized subjects. Its facticity similarly produces an expectancy of success and
sense of political efficacy that often function as powerful springboards for collective action. It
compels activists to engage in political action out of the moral imperatives, incentives, or op-
portunities that emerge in the context of political mobilization. Oppositional consciousness is
essentially gained in interaction with fellow activists either in collective action or activist group
settings.
Identity assertion is also a social mechanism by which a shared sense of we-ness is given
shape in a movement context. Identity assertion is the valorization and promotion of group
understandings that assert different standards of behavior (Taylor and Whittier 1992:117,
119, 122). When activists adapt, create, maintain, and promote a new language to describe and
challenge the deleterious effects of existent social reality, and when they nurture and advance
identity claims based on their evaluations of the reality affecting them, they are engaging in
identity assertion. The assertion of identity claims is also a source of collective empowerment,
goal orientation, and strategy (Bernstein 1997). Through it, movement participants proclaim the
worthiness of their cause, their role as agents of change, their commitment for change, and
their values as a group. Under conditions of domination, identity assertion enables activists to
resist how they are negatively portrayed in society and to promote what they stand for. Yet
identity assertion is more than proclaiming who we are and what we stand for, and more than
strategically resisting who we are not; it also offers alternative visions of the future.
Boundary work, oppositional consciousness, and identity assertion are given shape in effec-
tive discourse (i.e., conversation) when a conversation establishes in whose name and in what
capacity are the parties speaking (Tilly 2002:121). A movements collective identity, that is,
is talked into existence (Hunt and Benford 1994). The embodiment of a collective identity
takes effect through discourse as activists establish shared understandings and what it means
to be a group member; when activists publicly declare, assert, and consider how they or the
constituency they claim to represent are . . . worthy, united, numerous, and committed (Tilly
2002:120). A collective identity, as such, is the product of discourse between participants who
engage in discussions about who they are, what they do together, and why (Johnston 2014:88).
ON RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE, SPEECH ACTS, AND POLITICS: SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Recent positions on religious discourse confirm its capacity to promote challenging, if not
oppositional, political understandings (Ammerman 2003; Casanova 1994; Lichterman 2008;
Nepstad 2004; Smith 1996; Wood 2002; Wuthnow 1997, 2011). Religious discourse is an op-
portunity to achieve clarity on religious meaning, to generate bonds around diverse and shared
religious understandings, and to explore the relationship between religious meanings and political
commitment (Wuthnow 2011). In our case study, religious discourse operates as a communica-
tive means through which interlocutors maintained a sense of revolutionary we-ness. Still, this
raises the question as to how might we specifically measure the relationship between religious
discourse and revolutionary we-ness? That is, in what specific ways does discourse communi-
cate religious meaning? How are meanings assigned to social situations during discourse? And
how are motivation and commitment for action established in discourse? More to the point, how
does religious discourse make revolutionary we-ness possible? How is revolutionary we-ness
actually talked into existence?
Many social movement or revolution scholars have typically drawn on the framing perspective
to answer these questions, suggesting that activists would discursively frame (for example,
typically in terms of "injustice") issues and situations confronting them to facilitate both the
formation of a collective identity (we-ness) and political mobilization (Gamson 1992). Frames
organize social experience. They encod[e] objects, situations, events, experiences, and sequences
of actions with meaning (Snow and Benford 1992:137). In politically contentious situations,
frames underscore and embellish the seriousness and injustice of a particular social condition or
redefine as unjust and immoral what was previously seen as unfortunate but perhaps tolerable
(Snow and Benford 1992). Framing, especially framing in contentious discourse, makes collective
identity and political mobilization possible. However, we are told little about what in the framing
of contentious discourse itself actually makes we-ness possible. We know that the relationship
between discourse and the issues around which (potential) political actors galvanize is linked
through framing, adopting a schemata of interpretation, and through frame alignment strategies,
aligning the activities, goals, and interests between activists (Snow et al. 1986). Yet, in the framing
perspective, the communicative content by which framing organizes political reality carries little
analytical weight. The functions of communicative content in the framing of discourse are taken
for granted, or not well specified. To be sure, the words/sentences (i.e., communicative content)
used in discourse and framing are recognized as carriers of ideological meaning, and the discursive
processes by which these communicative contents assume an ideological orientation are often
specified in analyses of political mobilization. However, their constitutive function in the making
of we-ness is lost (or not specified) in the framing of political reality. Framing unfolds successfully
at the general level of beliefs, interests, and values but without reference to (or an account of)
how its communicative content structures or maintains the we-ness it achieves.
Steinberg notes the same when he states that the framing perspective tends to lack in
conceptual precision in its delineation of constituent elements and [the] framing processes it
identifies in the construction of political reality; further noting the tendency in it to elide the
words, phrases, and other vehicles of meaning by which frames presumably assume form and
frame social reality (1998:738, 750). Klimova makes a similar observation about the framing
perspective, adding: the content of communication appears insignificant so long as it resonates
(2009:109). Framing facilitates the unfolding of mobilization by establishing we-ness through
various processes, but it would appear that it does this absent a referential relationopen or
otherwiseto the content of communication. Such glaring omissions are perhaps connected to
framings reifying effects, ambiguous representation of reality, tautological tendencies, and poor
empirical legacy (Benford 1997; Nepstad 2004; Polletta 2006; Steinberg 1998, 1999b). Turning
to speech acts, the functional units of communication, for explanatory value is a useful strategy
for coming to terms with the role of communicative content (i.e., words) in the framing of
revolutionary reality.
How does focusing on speech acts help us make sense of revolutionary we-ness? A speech
act focus enables one to classify with precision the various ways in which communication
pragmatically engages interlocutors in various dimensions of social reality (Evans 1963). From
the perspective of speech act theory, all spoken words are performatives in that every act of
saying (or locution) contains an act of doing (illocution) which aims to achieve a social effect
(perlocation). Insofar as it seeks to alter or maintain some aspect of social reality, the issuing of
an utterance is a social act (Klimova 2009:107). In saying something, one does something
(illocution), and brings about something through it (perlocution). That is, when we commit
to a course of action as in making a promise (commissive), order somebody to do something
(imperative), state or recognize a current state of affairs (assertive), pronounce a couple married
(declarative), and/or express how we feel about social circumstances (expressive) we are in effect
pragmatically engaging, and in so doing, maintaining, creating, or potentially transforming a state
of social reality.
But what are speech acts? They are in essence the primary units of communication in dis-
course, typically defined by the verbs employed in them (Austin 1962; Searle 1969; Vanderveken
1990). All speech actsimplicit or explicit in naturecontain temporal, social, and content
dimensions orienting interlocutors to each other (social dimension), and to past, present, and
future social situations (temporal dimension) on the bases of propositions (content dimension).
When interlocutors employ them, they establish and renew interpersonal relations, maintain
actor/world relations, and express their subjective states of mind (Habermas 1984:308). At a
fundamental level, speech acts produce models of moral orientation and social action that allow
us to shape our social reality (Walhout 1999). Speech acts that establish or renew interpersonal
relations are known as commissive, imperative, and declarative speech acts. Commissives are
speech acts that commit interlocutors to a future course of action or state of affairs; declaratives
are statements that bring about or affirm a state of affairs or the intentions of interlocutors; and
imperatives are announcements, commands, or directives that cause an audience to take action.
Commissives, imperatives, and declaratives express a will to change the world. They also serve
the function of broadcasting the intentions/convictions from one interlocutor to another. In doing
so, they convey the meaning of change and how things are (Vanderveken 1990:14). Speech
acts that establish actor/world relations are known as assertives. These are either descriptions or
statements of fact about social situations. They are often, but not always, defined by shared
understandings. Assertives, additionally, commit interlocutors to the truth of expressed descrip-
tions or facts. Speech acts that express subjective states of mind are known as expressives. Such
speech acts typically express attitudes of approbation or discontent.
Speech acts are a significant part of the political processes that make political contention
plausible (Tilly 2002:122). As the primary units of communication in discourse, they are carriers
of ideological motives (van Dijk 2004, 2008). Through their employment, interlocutors maintain,
create, or potentially transform their social reality. Below we demonstrate their role in the
formation of revolutionary we-ness. We first offer a profile of the speech community in question
and detail to some extent the larger sociopolitical national context within which the speech
community operated. We account for our methodological approach in this study. We then define
in detail and provide examples of the speech acts we used to evaluate the Bible study discussions
in question. This latter step also entails exploring the relationship between ideological motives
and speech acts. Such an exploration made it possible for us to determine the extent to which
speech acts are carriers of ideological motives and ideological motives are resonant in speech
acts. Lastly, we conclude with an appraisal of the effects of religious discourse on revolutionary
we-ness.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In the 1960s and 1970s, a wave of political movements emerged in Central and South
America. In large part these movements were inspired by radical changes in the Catholic Church.
The Vatican II council (19621965), Episcopal conferences in Medelln, Columbia (1968) and
Puebla, Mexico (1979) in Latin America, and several papal encyclicals in the same period of
institutional transformation called on the church and its laity to orient itself more forcefully to the
enduring problems of poverty, inequality, and injustice in the developing world. These institutional
trends provided a forum for the development of a theology of liberation in the region (Medelln),
which condemned the existing economic, political, and social structures in Latin America as a
sinful situation that produced institutionalized violence against the poor majority in the region
(CELAM 1986). Based on the principles of radical egalitarianism (existential equality across
difference), radical communitarianism (developing community on the concept of brotherly
love, in the absence of self-interest), and radical pacifism (striving for unconditional peace as a
precondition for justice), liberation theology explicitly called on the Catholic laity to opt for the
poor and to work towards their liberation from economic exploitation and political repression
(Roelofs 1988:55459; see also Boff and Boff 1984; Gutierrez 1973; Miranda 1974). The regional
conferences sanctioned the work of progressive Christian grassroots initiatives, in particular CEBs
(communidades eclesiales de base, or Christian base communities), already developing in Central
and South America countries.
Liberation theology proclaimed it a Christian responsibility to denounce material poverty,

to live in solidarity with the oppressed, and to support the role of the poor as agents of social
change (Sawchuk 1997:44). Additionally, the kingdom of heaven in this theology meant the total
transfiguration of th[e] world, free[ing it] from all that alienates human beings, free[ing it] from
pain, sin, divisions, and death (Boff 1978:49). This new theology ideologically empowered the
marginalized and their middle-class brethren to find meaning in the life of Jesus, to interpret his
life as representing a messianic effort to liberate the poor and the oppressed (Gallo 1989:281).
It also called on them to engage in revolutionary action and to work towards revolutionary
change intended to transform the basic economic, political, and social cultural structures and
conditions of life (Mguez 1976:7). The cultural logic of liberation theology, as Smith notes,
goes [something] like this: if one begins with the basic, inescapable gospel commitments to
love and to work for the salvation of ones neighbor, and if one then experiences firsthand the
unjust slaughter of the poor by a brutal social system, and if one then discovers that the Churchs
established theology is actively legitimating this lethal social system, then one will have no option
but to modify radically that theology so that it actually promotes, rather than violates, the gospel
imperatives of love and evangelization (2002:70). In the eyes of many Catholics, liberation
theology, as such, represented an opportunity to strengthen, renew, and redeem Christianity.
These theological developments reached Nicaragua in the 1960s. By early 1970s, a Chris-
tian movement emerged amidst church occupations demanding the release of political prisoners
(Baltodano 2010). It called on Nicaraguan Catholics to move from passive acceptance of the
world as it was to become active agents in history (Horton 1998:66). This call to action in-
creasingly translated into active resistance against the Somoza dictatorship, which had kept in
place a system of patronage, exploitation, and inequality since 1936, and throughout the 1970s
tightened its grip on society as polity insiders reacted to political and economic corruption, the
FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional) military challenged it, and various class actors
demanded change through opposition coalitions. By the start of the insurrection in October 1977,
the Somoza regime had managed to alienate the economic elite, impose a state of siege that
lasted 33 months (19741977), and was officially exposed as a human rights violator by Amnesty
International. In the aftermath of this offensive, plans for a provisional government began to take
shape, and the official church and mainstream political groups clamored for a National Dialogue
as waves of protests increased in frequency (Belli 2003). It is in this context of sociopolitical
crisiswhich rapidly accelerated following the assassination of the most vocal polity opponent
against the regime, Pedro Joaqun Chamorro, in January 1978that many Nicaraguan Catholics
used the Bible to cultivate a critical posture toward the Somoza regime. They did this in a variety
of Bible study settings, including CEBs, directed by both lay people and priests dissatisfied with
the Catholic hierarchy.
These group settings, including Our Lady of Solentinamethe seminary that is the object
of our investigationoperated as prefigurative free spaces (Polletta 1999) where participants
articulated oppositional outlooks on their sociopolitical realities. Composed of no more than 20
to 30 people, reading and discussing biblical passages at these gatherings helped [many] to
see that injustice and exploitation did not conform to the will of God (Mulligan 1991:93).
Many Christian revolutionaries, including Sandinista guerrillas, had their roots there, initially
participating in protests against human rights abuses, hunger, and cost-of-living expenses but
subsequently joining the FSLN in its revolutionary struggle against the dictatorship (Baltodano
2010:34566). As stated by a university student who joined one of Managuas CEBs, El Riguero:
My faith turned into something else, this being political consciousness, revolutionary experience,
Sandinismo (Cardenal 2003:335). Commandants of the Sandinista revolution were similarly
inspired by the radical discourse and imagery that came with the emergent new Christianity. Daniel
Ortega, Alvaro and Monica Baltodano, Luis Carrion, and Joaquin Cuadra can be counted among
them (Kruijt 2008:42, 53; Randall 1985). Many state officials of the revolutionary government
in the 1980s, in fact, were also Christian revolutionaries who had actively supported the FSLN
prior to the overthrow (Cabestrero 1985, 1986).
Although we have consulted other significant sources, including two recent oral history
projects on Solentiname participants (Duenas Garca de Polavieja 2012; Perez 2014), this studys
primary source of data is Volume 1 of The Gospel of Solentiname (Cardenal 1976), a his-
torical record of religious discussions that took place in a growing revolutionary scenario in
1970s Solentiname, Nicaragua, an isolated 36-island archipelago community of fishermen, arti-
sans, and some agricultural workers in the southern region of Lake Nicaragua bordering Costa
Rica. The Gospel in Solentiname, in fact, is a four-volume collection of Bible study discussions
that in effect documents the discursive experiences of a campesino community that eventu-
ally embraced revolution as a course of action.5 The entire collection comprises more than
100 dialogues, all of which are based on New Testament verses. On almost every page of
the 1,000-plus pages in the four-volume collection, Nicaraguas sociopolitical realities in the
1970se.g., rural and urban poverty, economic exploitation, hunger, state repression, and politi-
cal exclusionare revealed as reference points during the course of religious discussions. Volume
1 (1976) of this collectionthe focus of our investigationcontains 29 chapters, each a record
of religious discussion based on biblical verses from the Gospels of John, Luke, and Matthew
(see Appendix A). It is 265 pages long, and each chapter averages nine pages. Centered on
stories of prophecy, miracles, Christian virtue, and social challengesas with the remaining
three volumesthe verse-based discussions underscored the central ideological motives behind
liberation theology: brotherhood, egalitarianism, social justice, and liberation. These motives
also operated as background assumptions during discussions, ultimately inspiring participants to
resist and struggle against the Somoza dictatorship. Father Ernesto Cardenal, a Jesuit priest, led
the discussions at the Bible study gatherings. He also recorded, transcribed, edited, and published
the community discussions.6 As text, The Gospel gives us insight into the relationship between
religious discourse and revolutionary activism.
About 200 people (15 percent of the total archipelago population) participated in these
Bible study discussions at Our Lady of Solentiname, the seminary setting located in the island
of Mancarron where Father Cardenal settled and most discussions took place (Cardenal 1987).
They participated despite prevalent anticommunist propaganda in the nation. Most of them were
relatives. They varied in age (they were old, middle aged, and young), gender, and race (most
were Ladinos, of mixed Spanish and Indian decent). A core group of interlocutors, never more
than 20, participated on a regular basis. They met three times a week and during Sunday Mass.
Among these active participants, one finds Alejandro Guevara, Felipe Pena, Natalia Sequeira,
5 It should be noted that the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America translated and published the volumes in English
in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Its English translation of Volume 1 does justice to the original text in Spanish. As
authors, we were able to tell this was the case because we are both bilingual. One of us is a native speaker. The other
author regularly employs her language skills in interview settings. As such, we were sensitive to the nuances used in both
languages. Our bilingual ability, moreover, made it possible for us to make sense of the original sentiments and intent of
participating interlocutors. It is always obviousit sticks out like a sore thumbwhen original language materials are
poorly translated. We found that this was not the case with The Gospel. Our bilingual ability would have made it painfully
obvious had a nonstandard translation been done. Neither of us detected any translation issues, which may explain why
many other scholars have relied, as we have, on the English translation. However, since the review process raised this
issue, we have since commissioned a translation reading by a bilingual third party. This third party also found the English
translation nonproblematic. Lastly, it is important to also recognize that the published English translation of Volume 1
was done by members of a monastic order who would have been familiar with the discourse of liberation theology, in
addition to being professional translators.
6 Of this editorial process, Father Cardenal admits to having slightly edited the transcripts of the discussion sessions, but
only for clarity, emphasis, economy, and always in the spirit of what was said (Cardenal 2003:432). In our estimation,
the four-volume collection stands as the record of an insider participant (Gold 1958). See Note 5 regarding the issue of
translation.
Laureano, Marcelino, and Oscar Mairena, Manuel Alvarado, Olivia Silva, and Old Tomas Pena.7
Their voices are actively present in Volume 1 and the remaining three volumes. It is safe to say that
these active members shared in common a collectivist orientation, a sense of we-ness centered
and constituted around revolutionary beliefs, goals, needs, and values (Choi, Kim, and Choi
1993:198). These active members had spent 11 years engaging the discourse of Christianity at
first as part of family-oriented discussions (19661971) and then as a way of critically evaluating
their sociopolitical realities (19711976).
At the start of the gatherings, participants set out to read the entire Bible. This activity was
soon conjoined with discussions of radical workse.g., speeches from Fidel Castro, Salvador
Allende, Che Guevera, and Mao Tse-tung, and the theological works of Camilo Torres and Jose
Porfirio Mirandaand participating in the misa campesina (a Mass that incorporates Nicaraguan
folk music, indigenous musical instruments, and liberation theology themes). On occasion, out-
siders joined in, including university professors, journalists, hippies, activists, members from
the economic and political elites, fellow CEB members from Managua, and artists from North
and South America, Europe, and the Caribbean. They also contributed to the Bible-focused dis-
cussions (Duenas Garca de Polavieja 2012; Cardenal 2003; Vivas 2000). In word and song,
participating interlocutors discovered the gospels as a legitimate source of political critique and
developed a commitment for change (Perez 2014). According to Olivia Silva, a local elder, the
gatherings had a powerful effect on their critical reading of social reality and their commitment
for change:
People . . . my age were practically being born again to a new reality. Despite having been so religious, we were
being reborn. Each day we would learn new things, and I tell you that this is the sort of thing where you couldnt
take it in and just live in peace. You begin to feel more committed, more concerned about others. (in Randall
1983:75)
Julio Valle Castillo, another participant, friend and fellow poet of Cardenal, recalls that by
the late part of 1977, the community had grown so much . . . the campesinos moral, ideal,
and spiritual horizons had widened . . . . [And a] sense of community, altruism, non-property,
and sharing was all part of what informed their worldview and their concientizacion (in Duenas
Garca de Polavieja 2012:7).8 As a result, many joined the Sandinistas, especially the young, who
felt they were going to be living the gospel as they struggled to overthrow the dictatorship (Silva
Guevara in Duenas Garca de Polavieja 2012:14). Father Cardenal recalls the following about the
joining of the young:
From the beginning the idea for the muchachos was to commit themselves to the people. Their first motivation
was purely religious. Later they became socially motivated, then politically motivated, and finally they became
Sandinistas. For many this meant an underground life. (2003:333)
7 Unless otherwise indicated, we used the actual names of interlocutors in our study. Of the Solentinamenos whose
voices are part of our analysis Alejandro, Donald, Gloria, and Julio Ramon Guevara (all siblings), Elvis and Felipe
Pena (brothers), Laureano, and Manuel joined the armed struggle during the insurrection (see Agudelo and Arcia 1982;
Cardenal 2003; Ramrez 2012; Randall 1983, 1985). Others, including Olivia, Natalia, and Old Tomas, respected elders
of the community, and Oscar Mairena, supported the revolutionary struggle. Six of Olivias children, including Alejandro,
Gloria, Julio Ramon, and Donald, participated in the armed struggle. Among revolutionary combatants, Alejandro, Felipe,
Laureano, and Manuel were among the most active interlocutors in Volume I.
8 Concientizacionsignifies the collective development of political awareness. The closest term in English that approxi-
mates its meanig is consciousness-raising. Cosciousness-raising, however, has more of an individualist connonation
and does not quite capture the collectivist orientation in the Spanish word Concientizacion (Bradstock 1987:80n2).
Also noting that young men and women did so:
out of their deeply held convictions, and after having weighed the matter a long time . . . . Why did they do it?
They did it for one reason alone: out of their love for the kingdom of God. Out of their ardent desire to establish a
just society, a true and concrete kingdom of God here on earth . . . . [And w]hen the time came, these young men
and women fought with bravery, but also as Christians. (Cardenal 1979:13)
As part of the October 1977 FSLN offensive, many Solentinamenos joined the armed struggle
and attacked the National Guard barracks in San Carlos, a small town on the mainland east of
the islands. Although a military failure, the October offensive proved to be a political success.
The event made the revolutionary struggle a palpable reality in peoples minds, despite the
death of many combatants, including two Solentinamenos, and the destruction of Solentiname
and other Sandinista holdouts by state forces. According to Humberto Ortega, one of the guerrilla
commandants in charge of the offensive, without October there could have been no January
[the outbreak following Chamorros assassination], no February [the spontaneous uprising in
Monimbo], nor September [the 1978 offensive] (in Morris 2010:83).
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
To determine the constitutive relationship between religious discourse and revolutionary

we-ness we coded the interchanges between interlocutors (N = 121) for the entire volume,
excluding from our coding the biblical verses present in the text: a total of 275 in Volume 1.
Before the content analysis, however, we copied, scanned, and subjected the original volume to
an optical character recognition (OCR) process in order to create a master electronic (Microsoft
Word) version of it. We then cleaned up the OCRed product using the spelling and grammar
check in Microsoft Word. After the creation of a master document, we created multiple data sets
to make the analysis of data more manageable. Once the multiple data sets were createdin
effect 29 data sets, one for each chapter in the original volumewe uploaded these into NVivo
10, a qualitative data analysis (QDA) software package, for individual coding and data analysis.
We then coded our data sets for six types of speech acts: accusations, declarations, directives,
exhortations, prescriptions, and warnings. Compared to standard manual techniques, using NVivo
10 makes for a more efficient and systematic exploration of data.
While our taxonomy of speech acts focuses on three out the five basic speech acts one finds
in natural language, it is by no means exhaustive.9 There are hundreds of variations of the basic
speech acts (e.g., Vanderveken 1990:166219). Our taxonomy, however, does represent what we
encountered in Volume 1 of The Gospel and it draws from the taxonomy Klimova (2009) used in
her research on political protest in Russia. Klimovas taxonomy includes accusations, declarations,
exhortations, prescriptions, and warnings. To this list we added directives. Her taxonomy, however,
also includes speech acts that were not relevant to our study. These included demands, proposals,
help pleas, protestations, and threats. Their lack of relevancy is most likely due to the fact that
our investigation is centered on revolution while Klimovas is not. Notwithstanding, given what
we came across in our close reading of the interchanges, our analysis focuses on assertives
(otherwise identified as accusations and some declarations), commissives (otherwise identified
as exhortations and warnings), and imperatives (otherwise identified as directives, prescriptions,
and some declarations).
Additionally, our coding matches Klimovas experience, who notes, naming the speech act
performed in [a] statement, like any interpretation, relies more on skill, which improves with
practice, than on any other set of rules . . . . Often only by encountering the same statement again
and again one begins to see the illocutionary point clearly (2009:112). We coded for accusations
9 Asnoted above, the basic speech acts found in language are assertives, commissives, declaratives, expressives, and
imperatives.
whenever interlocutors identified wrongs committed against them and those responsible for them.
We coded for declarations every instance interlocutors asserted identity claims focused on notions
of who we are, what we stand for, and what we aspire to. Lastly, we coded for prescriptions,
directives, exhortations, and warnings whenever interlocutors invoked taking action based on,
respectively, ought imperatives, presuppositions, incentives, and repercussions.
We then coded for various religious references (N = 52), including those associated with
liberation theology motives, paying particular attention to brotherhood, equality, social justice, and
liberation, the central ideological motives in liberation theology. Sixty percent of these religious
references are directly connected to the latter ideological motives (f = 31). We coded for these
motives in multiple ways. In addition to coding for their namesakes, we coded for related terms.
In the case of liberation, for example, we also coded for free(dom), liberate, and struggle,
as well as revolution, revolutionary, exodus, gospel, and prophet. The latter five terms
were often employed as proxy words for liberation. We also coded for liberation whenever this
particular action orientation was invoked in conversation. We coded for brotherhood every time
we came across the terms unity, unite, and community, as well as neighbor, kingdom,
and brotherly love. Although not always the case, kingdom and neighbor were often employed
as proxy words for the concept of brotherhood. We coded for equality every time we came across
phrases that contained or alluded to the terms equal and equality, but also whenever the
terms rich and poor were invoked in a discussion of social equality since these latter two
terms were invariably connected to this issue. Lastly, we coded for social justice every time
we came across the terms exploitation, exploiters, oppression, oppressors, and the
oppressed in a speech act. We also coded for social justice whenever the terms injustice,
persecution, disunity, and God came up in these. God was often employed as a proxy
for social justice.
Our analysis of discourse is based on coded speech acts (N = 801) and the religious ref-
erences contained in these (N = 2,608). Seventy-nine percent of the religious references (f =
2,067) in our coded speech acts are liberation theology motives. Sixty-five percent of participating
interlocutors in Volume 1 were male (f = 79), 24 percent were female (f = 29), and 11 percent
were gender neutral (f = 13). Additionally, of the total number of words coded, 80.5 percent (f =
44,231) can be attributed to male interlocutors, 14 percent (f = 7,793) can be attributed to female
interlocutors, and 5.5 percent (f = 2,905) can be attributed to gender-neutral interlocutors. A sim-
ilar pattern can be observed in terms of speech acts. For instance, the 20 most active interlocutors
consist of 15 men, three women, and two anonymous participants. They employed 73 percent
(f = 584) of the total number of speech acts coded (N = 801). Of the total number of speech
acts they employed, 81 percent (f = 473) can be attributed to male interlocutors, 15 percent
(f = 87) can be attributed to female interlocutors, and 4 percent (f = 24) can be attributed to
gender-neutral interlocutors. To ensure fidelity in the coding of speech acts, religious references,
and demographic information we coded the text together and simultaneously.
RELIGIOUS SPEECH ACTS AND REVOLUTIONARY WE-NESS
We now turn to defining and providing examples of the religious speech acts used to maintain
a sense of revolutionary we-ness at Our Lady of Solentiname. We also assess their function
in boundary work, identity assertion, and oppositional consciousness. It is important to note that
while each type of speech act contains distinct propositional contents and illocutionary forces,
there is no one-to-one correspondence between possible illocutionary forces on the one hand,
and illocutionary markers or performative verbs in actual natural languages on the other hand
(Vanderveken 1990:36). A declarative speech act, for instanceand as indicated belowcan
operate as an assertive speech act or imperative speech act simply because of the syntactic
modality present in it. We have attempted to remain as consistent as possible in our application
of our taxonomy. For clarity we have parenthetically inserted the propositional content for some
of the individual examples used below.
Boundary Work: On the Role of Accusations
Accusations are statements or claims of factin effect assertivesby which interlocutors

assess, classify, describe, and/or identify the egregious conditions affecting them and those
responsible for them. They are a linguistic means by which interlocutors create a boundary
between an us and a them and a corresponding sense of right (us) and wrong (them).
Klimova reminds us that with an accusation, an interlocutor is effectively saying, [t]he opponent
is doing / has done / is about to do something wrong (2009:114). Accusations make it possible to
denounce existing conditions as unjust and to blame the agents responsible for these. In doing so,
they establish a moral relation between the accuser and the accused, attributing moral authority
to the actions of the former and moral failure to the actions of the latter. Accusations, that is,
provide moral orientations to interlocutors. Ultimately, when interlocutors use accusations, they
come to understand what they will not stand for and who they will stand against. These latter
two attributesindicative of languages mapping capacitymake it possible to align accusations
with the collective identity feature of boundary work.
In Our Lady of Solentiname interlocutors identify a number of opponents and offenses.
Among others, opponents include Wall Street, capitalism, imperialism, exploiters, the govern-
ment, and blinded Christians. The rich, however, are the most consistently identified opponents
in this component of discourse. They are embedded in capitalism, a radically evil, wrong, im-
moral, obscene, outrageous, and unjust economic system. This is consistent with liberation
theologys class-based assessment of institutional oppression. The offenses committed by these
opponents are numerous, ranging from economic exploitation and political corruption to de-
pravity and unbrotherliness. Opponents are responsible for creating class distinctions (Carde-
nal 1976:94); torturing and killing campesino leaders, the innocent, and the defenseless
(Cardenal 1976:7375); and humiliating, rejecting, and keeping the poor down (Cardenal 1976:49,
77, 200). They crush, disregard, and insult the poor (Cardenal 1976:48, 82, 200). Through bound-
ary work, interlocutors also identify the means by which wrongdoers perpetuate their offenses:
lies, propaganda, advertising, misinformation, and promoting biblical misunderstandings are at
the root of such perpetuation. Boundary work is also an opportunity to reflect about why things
are the way they are. Among the explanations provided, one finds that Christians have sided
with injustice (Cardenal 1976:191), people in authority consistently abuse their power, and
people misuse the Bible to screw their neighbor (Cardenal 1976:239).
Identity Assertion: On the Role of Declarations10
Declarations can be both assertive and imperative speech acts. As an assertive, to make
a declaration is to affirm publicly ones commitment to the truth of an expressed proposition.
10 Conventional declarations require an extra-linguistic institution for them to be performed (Searle 1976:6, 2002).
This is a unique feature that sets them apart from other speech acts. Typically, institutional authorities, e.g., a bishop
or judicial member, are the ones who deliver declarations. Declarations generally do not assert propositional content
either. Instead, they bring about a correspondence between propositional content and reality. Their successful performance
guarantees that the propositional content corresponds to the world: if I successfully perform the act of appointing you
chairman, then you are a chairman; if I successfully perform the act of nominating you as candidate, then you are a
candidate; if I successfully perform the act of declaring a state of war, then a war is on (Searle 1976:13). Our definition
of declarations does not exactly conform to the aforementioned traits. Instead, we have aligned declarations with assertive
and imperative speech acts by emphasizing their assertoric and imperative linguistic features without forsaking the
extra-linguistic institutional character that is normally associated with them. Searle refers to this type of declaration as
linguistic declarations (2002:170). Declarations of a linguistic kind are those that are in the indicative mood and which
generally serve to make assertions (Vanderveken 1990:171). The illocutionary force of declarations in our case does not
come from an institutional authority, either, but rather from the institutional setting and the linguistic relation interlocutors
have in common because of this setting.
Among other things, we declare our sins, our feelings, or our love (Vanderveken 1990:171).
As an imperative, a declaration expresses a desired state in the objective world (Habermas
1984:325). With a declaration, an interlocutor is effectively saying, I/We believe/stand for X or
I/We want Y because I/We believe/stand for X. Their use in discourse is a way for interlocutors to
effectively assert identity claims. The presence of declarations in discourse, as such, effectively
operates as a carrier and reinforcerin fact, an asserterof institutionally sanctioned ideological
identity claims. This latter role as asserter of identity makes it possible to align declarations with
the collective identity feature of identity assertion.
When participating interlocutors at Our Lady of Solentiname employ declarations, we con-
tend, they are sanctioning and bestowing authority to liberation theology, in particular its ideolog-
ical motives. They do so as active members of a para-institutional setting. And in effect they are
directly approving, confirming, ratifying, promulgating, or decreeingin fact consecratingthe
meanings of prophetic Christianity as significant and legitimate orientations to existing states
of affairs. When interlocutors employ declarations, they are also simultaneously, but indirectly,
repudiating, disapproving, revoking, or repealingin effect renouncingthe normative expecta-
tions/understandings associated with traditional Christianity. Declarations, to put it simply, infuse
revolutionary we-ness with a shared sense of affectivity and morality. They make it possible
for interlocutors to identify with the prophetic churchs goals and values by virtue of affirming
these in discussions. When interlocutors employ declarations, they are in effect actively defining
themselves in terms of the moral orientations inherent in revolutionary Christianity; and in do-
ing the latter they are simultaneously defining themselves, if only indirectly, against traditional
Christianity.
During Bible study discussions, as such, interlocutors reinforced brotherhood, equality, social
justice, and liberation as significant ideological concerns for Christians. At the level of justice,
for example, they asserted that God is on the side of the poor (Cardenal 1976:3, 209); that
injustice is sinful (Cardenal 1976:7, 22); that Jesus, and as such Christianity, aims to put an end
to injustice (Cardenal 1976:38); and that God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice
(Cardenal 1976:177). At the level of liberation, for example, interlocutors asserted that the gospel
is meant for the liberation of the poor (Cardenal 1976:240), that the mission of Christianity is to
liberate the oppressed, the poor, and society from class distinctions, class exploitation, and class
oppression (Cardenal 1976:14, 94, 189, 202), that liberation is a social justice goal in and of itself
(Cardenal 1976:210), that the gospel calls for Revolution as the ultimate form of liberation
from class oppression, and that a revolutionary Christian fearlessly faces oppressive power in her
striving towards liberation (Cardenal 1976:28, 29, 54, 77, 85). At the level of equality, they also
asserted, for example, that equality is the true compass of Christianity (Cardenal 1976:44), that
early Christianity prioritized it as a social measure, and as such they should themselves embrace it
as a goal (Cardenal 1976:130), that Christian brotherhood is predicated on it (Cardenal 1976:174,
210), and that the creation of a just system requires it (Cardenal 1976:212). Lastly, at the level
of brotherhood they asserted that God called on people to love one another (Cardenal 1976:9, 180,
201, 242), that the absence of brotherhood is an indication of injustice (Cardenal 1976:196), that
the love of money is incompatible with brotherly love (Cardenal 1976:226), that love of neighbor
implies a break with a system of exploitation (Cardenal 1976:200), and that the promotion of
brotherhood requires the uncompromising denouncement of injustice (Cardenal 1976:10713).
In the excerpt that immediately follows, for example, Felipe reveals social justice and equality
as central ideological concerns when he proclaims a world full of equality and companionship
a worthy Christian goal (Cardenal 1976:21112):
May your will be done also means may your teachings be fulfilled. That is, may justice be done. The creation of
a just system, of equality and companionship, and not of exploitation. In other words, may the word of God be
fulfilled. This is the same petition as for bread: that we all have enough. [I declare that the will of God is social
justice and equality]. (discursive contribution on Mathew 6:715)
Oppositional Consciousness: On Prescriptions, Directives, Exhortations, and Warnings
Prescriptions, directives, exhortations, and warnings operate as the communicative in-

frastructures of oppositional consciousness, the final collective identity feature that embodies
revolutionary we-ness. Because these speech acts encourage interlocutors to take action, this
makes it possible to align them with the collective identity feature of oppositional consciousness.
When an interlocutor uses a prescription, she is essentially striving to commit her audience to
a certain course of action by asserting that it is the right course by virtue of what the speaker
and their audiences know about right and wrong. The propositional content of these statements
can be summed up as follows: you/we ought to do X/what is right (Klimova 2009:128). Pre-
scriptions are in essence imperatives of the kind that appeal to an audiences sense of justice.
Like declarations, they project a desired state of social conditions. However, whereas declarations
are more about who we are, what we stand for, and what we aspire to, prescriptions are
more about what we ought to do given what we aspire to and what we stand for. The
former are based on normative understandings, the latter based more concretely on normative
expectations. They should not be taken to be the same, although they usually reinforce each other.
As appeals, prescriptions are earnest request[s] for aid, mercy or support on grounds such as
justice, common sense, [or] humanity (Vanderveken 1990:191). They embody, as such, morally
predicated actions aimed at changing things in the world.
Interlocutors at Our Lady of Solentiname reveal themselves as potential revolutionaries in
terms of good Christian prescriptions, i.e., in terms of what a Christian revolutionary ought
to do when faced with social injustices in light of her understanding of liberation theology.
Prescriptions tell us about what is normatively expected of a Christian revolutionary. Among
other traits, a Christian revolutionary ought to devote herself to the cause of brotherly love, is
expected not to exploit others, and models herself after the Christ of liberation (Cardenal 1976:27,
28, 239). A Christian revolutionary also ought to contribute to the existent class struggle because
she seeks the unity of the Christian community, ought to be humble because she understands
she is an equal, goes against parental and community expectations for the cause of liberation,
and is committed to raising the consciousness of her brothers and sisters in the name of a better
Christian future (Cardenal 1976:48, 56, 95, 96). She shows her parents the road to God, lives
her life in word and deed, and knows that sharing is the Christian way (Cardenal 1976:102,
105, 107). She also rejects the temptation of pride, of haughtiness, of the power of people over
people, to exploit and oppress the weak (Cardenal 1976:122). She does more than contemplate;
she is compelled to change her world, to improve the living conditions of all people, and to
speak out against injustice (Cardenal 1976:125, 166, 183, 256). She fights for social change,
the Revolution, and social justice, and loves her neighbors as she loves herself (Cardenal
1976:202, 237, 264). Below, Manuel underscores, for instance, the significance of commitment
as a prescriptive dimension of revolutionary Christian personhood (Cardenal 1976:95):
And young people should disobey when their parents want to keep them just for themselves, when they want
to take them away, from the community, from their work with other young people, from their duty, from the
struggle. [A good Christian ought to disobey her parents for the cause of liberation]. (discursive contribution to
Luke 2:4152)
Directives are imperative speech acts that direct the hearer to assume a particular course
of action. They are attempts . . . of varying degrees . . . by the speaker to get the hearer to
do something (Searle 1976:11). They are claims or statements by which an interlocutor in
effect advises, challenges, commands, dares, defies, directs, entreats, instructs, invites, requests,
recommends, or orders a fellow interlocutor to undertake a particular course of action. Directives
are demands that express a strong will to get things done. Unlike declarations and accusations,
but like prescriptions, they imply corrective action. Directives allow interlocutors to maintain a
needed sense of agency during discourse. Like prescriptions, they commit interlocutors to taking
action. However, they do this without making the reasons for assuming a course of action explicit.
The reasons to perform a required course of action are presupposed. Ultimately, directives play
up the course of action itself. When interlocutors at Our Lady of Solentiname employ them they
do so to call attention to the need for people to assume a role in changing their circumstances.
Their employment in discourse stands as a call to engage in resistance, and to intensify efforts at
changing the world. Although some are nuanced, this type of speech act tends to be especially
short and to the point. We refer to one concrete example below. In it, Laureano calls on others to
engage in resistance and to work towards the transformation of their world (Cardenal 1976:10;
131; 232):
Its up to us to fix the world, to establish justice on earth, to make the Revolution. (discursive contribution on John
1:118)
Exhortations and warnings are commissive speech acts in that they commit interlocutors
to a future action. These speech acts, respectively, address the incentives and repercussions of
engaging in action. They extol the benefits or warn of the hidden perils of pursuing a certain
course of action. Whether the benefits or costs are [debated] or the focus is on what [one] stands
to gain or lose, the speaker engages the [ideological] interests of fellow interlocutors in order
to influence their actions (Klimova 2009:128). In our case, exhortations and warnings reinforce
and complement declarations and prescriptions in that they are another way of defining and living
up to what it means to be a Christian revolutionary. Like prescriptions and directives, they mainly
promote action. Exhortations and warnings make it possible for interlocutors to assentas in
agreeto the pursuit of revolutionary action.
With warnings, a speaker forewarns fellow interlocutors of the costs of pursuing a righteous
course of action, not to deter them, but to make them aware of what is at stake. In discourse, for
example, those who believe and work towards accomplishing the true message of Christianity,
i.e., its call to liberate humanity from class domination, at the very least risk becoming pariahs and
the very worst risk their own lives. Warnings, as is the case with prescriptions and declarations,
are a way to draw a distinction between good (revolutionary) and bad (conventional) Christians.
This distinction, however, is made not in terms of what ought to be done or what one stands for,
as is the case, respectively, with prescriptions and declarations, but instead in terms of what is at
stake should one opt not to take the revolutionary Christian path. The threat of death, persecution,
jail time, and ostracization by family and community members may be, among others, the fate of
Christian revolutionaries, but accepting these risks is a necessary step in the seeking of justice:
as one strives to be virtuous, as one pursues change in the here and now, or as one strives to move
beyond the ravages of class inequality. The excerpt below is a typical example of a warning used in
discourse. In it, an anonymous interlocutor, Someone Else, reflect on the potential consequences
of persecution (Cardenal 1976:247):
Somebody in Nicaragua preaches Jesus message without changing a word and he gets persecuted at once and
can be jailed and they can even kill him. (discursive contribution on Matthew 10:1625)
Exhortations are statements that describe the benefits that would follow, should an inter-
locutor decide to abide by a normatively expected course of action (Klimova 2009:129). They
remind interlocutors of what awaits them. In doing so, they encourage and urge them to take
action. Like warnings, exhortations are similarly based on the distinction between good (revo-
lutionary) and bad (conventional) Christians. They also reinforce and complement declarations
and prescriptions in discourse at the level of ideological orientations, making it possible for
the involved interlocutors to understand what it means to be a Christian revolutionary. Exhorta-
tions essentially remind interlocutors that their ideal of a just society will present itself as their
communitys future reality. In doing so, exhortations reinforce the ideological understandings
of revolutionary Christianity while correspondingly promoting a model of action for Christian
revolutionaries. Below, Marcelino considers the rewards of action at the level of social recogni-
tion, brotherhood, and, significantly, the material consequences for the community as a whole
(Cardenal 1976:236):
The kingdom of God is love. And justice, its the same. Lets try to bring about this society of love and justice, and
then there will be no more exploitation. And therefore there will be abundance for everybody. Well all have not
only food and clothing but also schools, clinics, hospitals, adequate housing, all we need. (discursive contribution
on Matthew 6:2434)
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The object of the present article has been dual: (1) to determine the extent to which revo-
lutionary we-ness is constituted through discourse by way of speech acts and (2) to determine
the degree to which religious discourse is a carrier of ideological meanings. The first objective
required us to ascertain the types of speech acts that were present during discourse. Once we
identified these speech acts, we coded for them using NVivo. The second objective required us
to identify and code for the central ideological motives in liberation theology. To determine the
degree to which religious discourse is a carrier of ideological meanings, we correlated the speech
actsand their corresponding collective identity featureswith liberation theology motives.
Table 1 shows the frequency and distribution of speech acts for the entire volume, the type of
speech act they are, their orientation as verbal markers, and their function as collective identity
features. Tables 2 and 3 show the degree to which ideological motives are promoted through
speech acts. We take their saliency in religious discourse to mean that they are resonant of lib-
eration theology. Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of ideological motives according to
speech acts. Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of ideological motives according to identity
features.
Our content analysis reveals boundary work as the least salient identity feature, although
accusations are the second most frequent speech act used by interlocutors (f = 57; Table 1).
Only 20 percent of the total number of speech acts is geared towards identifying the opponents
and the offenses they commit against the community. This suggests that, in the context of a
growing revolutionary situation, oppositional consciousness and identity assertion are the most
salient collective identity features in revolutionary we-ness. Our content analysis also shows that
liberation and social justice are the most pronounced ideological motives in boundary work. This
suggests that when it comes to identifying the opponents and the offenses they commit against
the community (i.e., accusations), social justice (striving towards equitableness) and liberation
(the unburdening of unequal and oppressive conditions) are the most relevant ideological motives
by which interlocutors seem to determine what wrongdoings have taken place and who is to
blame for them. Boundary work, it appears, is primarily defined by concerns for justice and a
corresponding need for liberation.
Our content analysis reveals declarations as the most frequently used speech act by interlocu-
tors at Our Lady of Solentiname (f = 366; Table 1). Declarations, for example, are employed at
more than twice the rate of accusations (f = 157; Table 1), and at 14 times the rate of exhortations
(f = 26; Table 1). This suggests that declarations are the principal communicative means by
which interlocutors constitute revolutionary we-ness, making identity assertion its most salient
identity feature. Forty-six percent of the total number of speech acts is geared towards the as-
sertion of identity claims. Identity assertion also contains a greater and more equal distribution
of ideological motives. Compared to the other identity features, liberation theology motives are
disproportionally represented in identity assertion by as many as 2.6 times (boundary work,
f = 372) and as little as 1.4 times (oppositional consciousness, f = 721) the rate in the other two
Table 1: Numerical and percentage distribution of speech acts in volume 1
Identity Primary Type of

Speech acts Total Total % function orientation speech act
Accusations 157 20 Boundary work Moral Assertive
Declarations 366 46 Identity assertion Moral Assertive/imperative
Directives 81 10 Oppositional consciousness Action Imperative
Exhortations 26 3 Oppositional consciousness Action Commissive
Prescriptions 105 13 Oppositional consciousness Action Imperative
Warnings 66 8 Oppositional consciousness Action Commissive
Total 801 100
Table 2: Distribution of ideological motives by speech act
Liberation
theology
motives Accusations Declarations Directives Exhortations Prescriptions Warnings Total
Liberation 124 360 121 30 109 96 840
Brotherhood 34 153 22 23 47 8 287
Equality 101 200 23 8 28 27 387
Social justice 113 261 40 27 71 41 553
Total 372 974 206 88 255 172 2067
Table 3: Distribution of ideological motives by identity feature
Liberation
theology Boundary Identity Oppositional
motives work assertion consciousness Total Average
Liberation 124 360 356 840 280
Brotherhood 34 153 100 287 95.67
Equality 101 200 86 387 129
Social justice 113 261 179 553 184.33
Total 372 974 721 2067 689
identity features (see Table 3). Social justice and liberation, as it is the case with boundary work,
are more pronounced in identity assertion. This suggests that calling attention to unjust conditions
(injustice) and their unburdening (liberation) are both significant ideological motives by which
interlocutors come to terms with their goals and values, and, as such, affirm their identity as
Christian revolutionaries (declarations). The predominance of identity assertion in discourse and
the predominance of ideological motives in identity assertion also suggest that identity assertion
is the primary means through which ideological understandings were communicated at Our Lady
of Solentiname.
Our content analysis reveals oppositional consciousness as the second most salient identity
feature in revolutionary we-ness (see Table 1), showing that next to reinforcing shared ideological
orientations (as declarations do for identity assertion), considering doing something about the
circumstances besetting a community (as directives, exhortations, prescriptions, and warnings
indicate) is not an unexpected position for interlocutors to assume. Thirty-four percent of the
total number of speech acts is geared towards doing this. Interlocutors arrive at the decision to
take action, however, through various communicative means. Table 1 shows us that they primarily
decide to take action because they are urged to do so by fellow interlocutors (as directives and
prescriptions indicate), because they have incentives to do so (as exhortations indicate), or because
they accept the risks in doing so (as warnings indicate). The latter two reasons, however, are less
consequential. Exhortation and warnings are the least frequently used speech acts in discourse
(respectively, f = 66 and f = 26). This suggests that interlocutors would not need as much
convincing or reminding in terms of incentives (exhortations) or risks (warnings) in order for
them to consider taking action. This would not be too far-fetched a scenario. Interlocutors at the
seminary, as shown above, thoroughly define themselves according to liberation theology motives.
The frequent use of declarations and prescriptions in discourse would seem to indicate a high level
of ideological alignment on their part. The underutilization of exhortations and warnings, as such,
may be an indication that they play more of a supportive rather than substantive role in deciding
to take action. Their less frequent use may be also an indication that Christian revolutionaries
are less motivated to confront a world of injustice based on a cost and benefit calculation of their
circumstances. They put themselves on the line, instead, out of their moral convictions. Lastly,
our content analysis also shows the ideological motives of liberation and social justice, as is the
case with the other two collective identity features, as being more pronounced in oppositional
consciousness. This suggests that when it comes to considering taking action based on moral
obligations, incentives and costs, or a sense of agency (i.e., oppositional consciousness), social
justice (striving towards equitableness) and liberation (the unburdening of unequal and oppressive
conditions) are relevant ideological motives through which interlocutors embody their actions.
Oppositional consciousness, as is the case with boundary work and identity assertion, is also
primarily defined by concerns for justice and a corresponding need for liberation.
Religious discourse in Solentiname was similarly a carrier of ideological meanings. The
ideological motives associated with liberation theologybrotherhood, equality, liberation, and
social justiceare consistently asserted in the varied employment of speech acts. Table 2 gives
us an impression of how this is the case. Their consistent presence in discourse we maintain
is an indication of resonance. Liberation (f = 840) and social justice (f = 553) are the most
prevalent ideological motives behind oppositional consciousness, boundary work, and identity
assertion. This suggests that calling attention to unjust conditions (injustice) and their unburdening
(liberation) are the most significant ideological motives giving orientation to interlocutors during
discourse. Yet, all four ideological motives are more equally distributed in identity assertion,
suggesting that this identity feature functions as the primary carrier of ideological meanings.
Brotherhood (f = 287) and equality (f = 387), however, are the least represented ideological
motives in discourse. The fact that brotherhood is the least represented out of the four is somewhat
odd, given how brotherhood is at the center of liberation theologys logic. The underrepresentation
of brotherhood may be an indication that action-oriented ideological motivesi.e., liberation and
social justiceare more relevant in prerevolutionary contexts.
CONCLUSION
An approach based on speech act theory, Klimova maintains, focuses on the pragmatic
function of communication, revealing a whole range of social action accomplished by commu-
nicative means. . . . These communicative acts fall below the radar of framing theory (2009:132).
A speech act focus allows one to come to terms with the building blocks of collective under-
standings. Such a focus reveals discourse more concretely as constitutive of identity. Because of
its specific focus on linguistic behavior, it reveals the framing of reality from the sustaining
communicative (speech) components present in discourse. The pragmatic intent behind speech
acts, to be more specific, is a reflection of group cohesiveness. Pragmatic intent in this case is
to assert membership status and cohesiveness with the group (Johnston 1995:228). Ultimately,
speech act theory offers us a means of identifying and quantifying how performatives, as the
communicative content of the framing of reality, successfully produce we-ness. In doing so, it
fills a void in framing theory. It also confirms religious discourses capacity to promote alternative
political self-understandings and commitment to revolutionary action.
In our case study, religious discourse embodied boundary work, identity assertion, and op-
positional consciousness. Religious discourse in sum embodied revolutionary we-ness. We have
demonstrated this was accomplished through the employment of speech acts. These functioned
as a tool through which interlocutors in Solentiname could come to terms with and intervene on
their social order. Specifically, interlocutors in Solentiname engaged in boundary work through
accusations, asserted identity claims through declarations, and expressed oppositional conscious-
ness through directives, exhortations, prescriptions, and warnings. Speech acts also operated as
vocabularies of motive, shaping the definitions of revolutionary situations, providing pragmatic
orientations to interlocutors as they encountered these. When interlocutors employed declara-
tions, this made it possible for them to assert identity claims. Their employment, that is, made
it possible for interlocutors to assert what kind of Christianity they represented. Through them,
interlocutors essentially asserted that the primary aim of Christianity was to liberate society and
the Christian community from class distinctions, exploitation, and oppression. Declarations also
made it possible for them to assert an alternative vision of existent social arrangements, and
they proved an opportunity to promote new modes of thinking and action and, ultimately, rev-
olution. Interlocutors, in short, envisioned a world of justice, equality, and brotherhood through
declarations. Their frequent employment46 percent of all speech acts used in discourse are
declarationssuggests that identity assertion, contrary to received wisdom, is the most signifi-
cant feature in the process of revolutionary we-ness (collective identity) formation at the level of
discourse.
Accusations established group environment as well as in-group and out-group relations.
Their employment made it possible to denounce existing conditions, and to blame and attribute
moral failure to those responsible for their happening. Through accusations, interlocutors deemed,
among other conditions, the scarcity of the poor, economic exploitation, political corruption, and
the systematic killing of the defenseless as unacceptable social conditions. Through them
interlocutors similarly deemed the rich culpable. Twenty percent of all speech acts used in
discourse are accusations. Although they are not the least frequently used speech act, their function
as boundary work reveals this collective identity feature as playing a lesser role in revolutionary
we-ness. Prescriptions, exhortations, and warnings maintained rationales for action. Prescriptions
provided opportunities to explore various motives for action on the bases of moral obligations;
exhortations highlighted the rewards of pursuing a righteous course of action; and warnings
accentuated the costs of engaging in revolution. Directives promoted a sense of agency. Thirty-
four percent of all speech acts used in discourse share in common an action orientation, showing
that, next to having a Christian revolutionary identity, doing something about existent social
circumstances based on oppositional consciousness is the second most significant component of
revolutionary we-ness. Importantly, our analysis also reveals that interlocutors in Solentiname
were primarily motivated to confront a world of injustice and economic exploitation based
on moral (accusations, declarations, prescriptions) as opposed to instrumental (warnings and
exhortations) convictions.
We have attempted to show a constitutive relationship between discourse, ideology, and
revolutionary we-ness through a historical and quantitative (insofar as content analysis counts
as such) approach. We have attempted to do this by focusing on speech acts and the ideological
motives within these. Our case study not only shows how religious discourse (via speech acts)
facilitated the embodiment of revolutionary we-ness, it also confirms religious discourses
capacity to promote alternative political self-understandings, and, significantly, commitment to
revolutionary activism. Ultimately, we have demonstrated how religious discourse can function
as more than an expression of real suffering. Religious discourse makes the protest against
real suffering possible. But more to the point, the discourse the criticism of religion produces, as
shown above, is conducive to the transformation of suffering conditions (Boer 2011; McKinnon
2006; Rojo 1988).
Notwithstanding these findings, we acknowledge the limitations of this work and the ques-
tions it may raise for future research. For example, a greater exploration of dialogic and interactive
dynamics of particular turns of talk was beyond the scope of our analysis. The same may be said
of the influence of speech acts outside the seminary setting. We are certain that results from
such research efforts would certainly challenge and complement our speech-act-based findings.
In addition, more opportunities should be sought to study the relationship between speech act
use and the social location of interlocutors (e.g., class, gender, race, education, and nationality).
As noted above, for instance, men predominated discussions. Father Cardenal also assumed a
prominent position in these. Yet, a careful reading of the text shows women and some anony-
mous participants making substantive discursive contributions. These discrepancies in patterns
of participation between genders and principal facilitator and other participants are telling and
require further investigation. The impact of discrepancies based on educational, national, and
racial differences also require additional investigation.
Also, while revolutionary religious discourseand the speech acts contained in itdoes play
a role in the making of revolution, as indicated above, it is important not to exaggerate its role.
Revolutionary religious discourse has been present in both successful and failed revolutionary
scenarios, so if it is indeed an important causal factor in revolutionary mobilization, this is the
case because other elements have been in place.11 It would be somewhat ludicrous to suggest,
for example, that the revolutionary situation in El Salvador came to naught because Salvadorians
lacked a revolutionary religious discourse. Discursive conditionsreligious and otherwise
were indeed present in El Salvador, and like in Nicaragua, a Christian movement inspired by
liberation theology also played a role in the unfolding of El Salvadors revolutionary situation.
What contributed to this nations failed revolution, unlike Nicaragua, was in fact the absence
of a multi-class coalition, a factor that can be appreciated with a serious reading of its political
history (Foran 2005). Comparing similar and contrasting cases, we speculate, might prove to
be a revealing and insightful endeavor. Analogous or contradictory results, for example, might
be found in similar prerevolutionary Christian contexts (e.g., the Philippines and South Korea in
the 1970s), non-Christian prerevolutionary contexts (e.g., Iran, Somalia, and India), or in reform-
oriented contexts (e.g., the American civil rights era). A comparative approach, that is, would
add more to our understanding of the relevance of religious discourse, including the role speech
acts play in it, for the formation (or absence thereof) of revolutionary we-ness. This is, indeed,
the next step to be taken in order to arrive at a more general and nuanced understanding.
Lastly, more work could be done to explore the relationships between the speech acts we
employed in our analysis and frame bridging, amplification, extension, and transformation. Never-
theless, in identifying particular speech acts as elements in the construction of collective identity,
linking them into a functional framework, and observing associative patterns for core ideolog-
ical elements in a religious discourse, we have shed light on the communicative constitution
of revolutionary we-ness. By focusing on speech acts, this and future research can begin to
constructively put more flesh on the bones of framing theory.
11 On this point about the combination of structural factors and religion in relationship to social change dynamics, see
Billings (1990).
REFERENCES
Agudelo Mejia, William, and Nubia Arcia. 1982. El asalto a San Carlos: Testimonios de Solentiname. [The assault on
San Carlos: Testimonies of Solentiname.] Managua, Nicaragua: Asociacion para el Desarrollo de Solentiname.
Ammerman, Nancy T. 2003. Religious identities and religious institutions. In A handbook of the sociology of religion,
edited by Michele Dillon, pp. 20724. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Assmann, Jan. 1999. Das kulturelle gedachtnis: Schrift, erinnerung und politische identitat in fruhen hochkulturen. [The
cultural memory: Scripture, memory and political identity in early advanced civilizations.] Munich: Beck.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baltodano, Monica. 2010. Memorias de la lucha Sandinista [Memories of the Sandinista fight]. Managua: Instituto de
Historia de Nicaragua y Centroamerica.
Belli, Gioconda. 2003. The country under my skin: A memoir of love and war. New York: Anchor Books.
Benford, Robert D. 1997. An insiders critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry
67(4):40930.
Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology 26(1):61139.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
New York: Doubleday.
Bernstein, Mary. 1997. Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement.
American Journal of Sociology 103(3):53165.
Berryman, Phillip. 1984. The religious roots of rebellion: Christians in Central American revolutions. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books.
Billings, Dwight B. 1990. Religion as opposition: A Gramscian analysis. American Journal of Sociology 96(1):131.
Boer, Ronald. 2011. Opium, idols and revolution: Marx and Engels on religion. Religion Compass 5(11):698707.
Boff, Leonardo. 1978. Jesus Christ liberator: A critical Christology for our time. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. 1984. Salvation and liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Bradstock, Andrew. 1987. Saints and Sandinistas: The Catholic Church in Nicaragua and its response to the revolution.
London: Epworth Press.
Cabestrero, Teofilo. 1985. Ministros de dios, ministros del pueblo: Testimonio de 3 sacerdotes en el gobierno revolu-
cionario de Nicaragua: Ernesto Cardenal, Fernando Cardenal, Miguel DEscoto. [Ministers of God, ministers of
the people: Testimony of 3 priests in the revolutionary government of Nicaragua: Ernesto Cardenal, Fernando
Cardenal, Miguel DEscoto.] Managua: Ministerio De Cultura, Nicaragua Libre.
______. 1986. Revolutionaries for the gospel: Testimonies of fifteen Christians in the Nicaraguan government. New York:
Orbis Books.
Cardenal, Ernesto. 1972. En Cuba [In Cuba]. Buenos Aires: Ediciones C. Lohle.
______. 1976. The Gospel in Solentiname, vol. 1. New York: Orbis Books.
______. 1978. Lo que fue Solentiname (Carta al pueblo de Nicaragua). [What Solentiname was (A letter for the people
of Nicaragua). Nueva Sociedad [New Society] 35(1):16567.
______. 1979. SolentinameThe end. Index on Censorship 8(1):113.
______. [1978]1982a. The Gospel in Solentiname, vol. 2. New York: Orbis Books.
______. [1979]1982b. The Gospel in Solentiname, vol. 3. New York: Orbis Books.
______. 1982c. The Gospel in Solentiname, vol. 4. New York: Orbis Books.
______ 1987. El evangelio en Solentiname fue obra del pueblo [The gospel in Solentiname was the work of the people].
In Nicaragua trinchera teologica: Para una teologa de la liberacion desde Nicaragua [Nicaragua theological
trench: For a theory of liberation from Nicaragua.], edited by Giulio Girardi, Benjamin Forcano, and J. Ma Vigil,
pp. 34142. Salamanca, Spain: Loguez Ediciones.
______. 2003. Las nsulas extranas, memorias II [The strange islands, memories II]. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura
Economica.
Casanova, Jose. 1994. Public religions in the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CELAM. (1986). Medelln document on peace. In The theology of liberation: Selected writings from the Medelln
documents, edited by Alberto Rossa, pp. 1120. Quezon: Claretian Publications.
Choi, Sang-Chin, Uichol Kim, and Soo-Hyang Choi. 1993. Indigenous analysis of collective representations: A Korean
perspective. In Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context, edited by Uichol Kim and
John W. Berry, pp. 193210. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Clos, Ryne. 2012. In the name of the God who will be: The mobilization of radical Christians in the Sandinista revolution.
Journal for the Study of Radicalism 6(2):152.
Davis, Joseph E., ed. 2002. Stories of change: Narrative and social movements. Albany: SUNY Press.
Della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. 1999. Social movements: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dodson, Michael, and Laura Nuzzi OShaughnessy. 1990. Nicaraguas other revolution: Religious faith and political
struggle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Duenas Garca de Polavieja, Ignacio. 2012. Historia oral de la resistencia nicaraguense al somocismo: El proyecto de
Ernesto Cardenal en Solentiname como paradigma de la liberacion. [Oral history of the Nicaraguan somocismo
resistance: The project of Ernesto Cardenal in Solentiname as a paradigm of liberation.] Naveg@ merica 8(1):115.
Evans, Donald D. 1963. The logic of self-involvement: A philosophical study of everyday language with special reference
to the Christian use of language about God as creator. London: SCM Press.
Foran, John. 2005. Taking power: On the origins of third world revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foroohar, Manzar. 1989. The Catholic Church and social change in Nicaragua. Albany: SUNY Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1973. Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Gallo, Jeanne. 1989. Basic ecclesial communities: A new form of Christian organizational response to the world today.
Ph.D. diss., Boston University.
Gamson, William A. 1991. Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum 6(1):2750.
______. 1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Girardi, Giulio. 1989. Faith and revolution in Nicaragua: Convergence and contradictions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Girardi, Giulio, Benjamin Forcano, and J. Ma Vigil, eds. 1987. Nicaragua trinchera teologica: Para una teologa de
la liberacion desde Nicaragua. [Nicaragua theological trench: For a theology of the liberation from Nicaragua.]
Salamanca, Spain: Loguez Ediciones.
Gold, Raymond L. 1958. Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces 36(3):21723.
Gould, Deborah B. 2009. Moving politics: Emotion and ACT-UPs fight against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gutierrez, Gustavo. 1973. A theology of liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action, vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston:
Beacon Press.
______. 1998. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hirsch, Eric L. 1990. Sacrifice for the cause: The impact of group processes on recruitment and commitment in protest
movements. American Sociological Review 55(2):24354.
Horton, Lynn. 1998. Peasants in arms: War and peace in the mountains of Nicaragua, 19791994. Athens: Ohio University
Press.
Hunt, Scott A. and Robert D. Benford. 1994. Identity talk in the peace and justice movement. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 22(4):488517.
______. 2007. Collective identity, solidarity, and commitment. In The Blackwell companion to social movements, edited
by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, pp. 43357. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hunt, Scott A., and David A. Snow. 1994. Identity fields: Framing processes and the social construction of movement
identities. In New social movements: From ideology to identity, edited by Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and
Joseph R. Gusfield, pp. 185208. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Instituto Historico Centroamericano. 1979. Fe cristiana y revolucion Sandinista en Nicaragua. [The Christian faith and
the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.] Managua: Instituto Historico Centroamericano (IHC).
Jimenez, Mayra, ed. 2006. Poesa campesina actual de Solentiname: Antologa. [Current peasant poetry of Solentiname:
Anthology.] San Jose: LIL S.A.
Johnston, Hank. 1995. A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schemata. In Social movements
and culture: Social movements, protest, and contention, vol. IV, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
______. 2005. Talking the walk: Speech acts and resistance in authoritarian regimes. In Repression and mobilization,
edited by Christian Davenport, Hank Johnston, and Carol Mueller, pp. 10837. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
______. 2014. What is a social movement? London: Polity Press.
Kane, Anne. 2011. Constructing Irish national identity: Discourse and ritual during the land war, 18791882. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kirk, John M. 1992. Politics and the Catholic Church in Nicaragua. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Klimova, Sveta. 2009. Speech act theory and protest discourse: Normative claims in the communicative repertoire of three
Russian movements. In Culture, social movements, and protest, edited by Hank Johnston, pp. 10533. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Kruijt, Dirk. 2008. Guerrillas: War and peace in Central America. London: Zed Books.
Lancaster, Roger N. 1988. Thanks to God and the revolution: Popular religion and class consciousness in the new
Nicaragua. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lichterman, Paul. 2008. Religion and the construction of civic identity. American Sociological Review 73(1):83104.
Mansbridge, Jane. (2001). The making of oppositional consciousness. In Oppositional consciousness: The subjective
roots of social protest, edited by Jane Mansbridge and Aldon Morris, pp. 119. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McKinnon, Andrew. 2006. Opium as dialectics of religion: Metaphor, expression and protest. In Marx, critical theory,
and religion: A critique of rational choice, edited by Warren Goldstein, pp. 1130. Boston: Brill.
Melucci, Alberto. 1980. The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information 19(2):199226.
Mguez, Bonino J. 1976. Christians and Marxists: The mutual challenge to revolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Miranda, Jose P. 1974. Marx and the Bible: A critique of the philosophy of oppression. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Montoya, Rosario. 1995. Liberation theology and the socialist utopia of a Nicaraguan shoemaker. Social History 20(1):23
43.
Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The origins of the civil rights movement. New York: Free Press.
Morris, Kenneth. 2010. Unfinished revolution: Daniel Ortega and Nicaraguas struggle for liberation. Chicago: Lawrence
Hill Books.
Mulligan, Joseph E. 1991. The Nicaraguan church and the revolution. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.
Nepstad, Sharon Erickson. 2004. Convictions of the soul: Religion, culture and agency in the Central America solidarity
movement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perez, Mery A. 2014. Empowered by song: The relationship between Misa Campesina and peasant involvement in
Nicaraguas revolution. M.A. thesis, University of Guelph.
Pinard, Maurice. 2011. Motivational dimensions in social movements and contentious collective action. Montreal: McGill-
Queens University Press.
Polletta, Francesca. 1999. Free spaces in collective action. Theory and Society 28(1):138.
______. 2006. It was like a fever: Storytelling in protest and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Polletta, Francesca, and James M. Jasper. 2001. Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology
27(1):283305.
Pring-Mill, Robert. 1979. Profile: Ernesto Cardenal. Index on Censorship 8(3):4953.
Ramrez, Sergio. 2012. Adios muchachos: A memoir of the Sandinista revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Randall, Margaret. 1983. Christians in the Nicaraguan revolution. Vancouver: New Star Books.
______. 1985. Cristianos en la revolucion: Del testimonio a la lucha. [Christians in the revolution: From testimony to the
struggle.] Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva America.
Reed, Jean-Pierre. 2008. Religious dialogue in the Nicaraguan revolution. Politics and Religion 1(2):27099.
Rodrguez Garca, Manuel. 1981. Gaspar vive. [Gaspar lives.] San Jose: Artes Graficas de Centroamerica.
Roelofs, H. Mark. 1988. Liberation theology: The recovery of biblical radicalism. American Political Science Review
82(2):54966.
Rojo, Sergio. 1988. La religion, opium du peuple et protestation contre la misere reele: Les position de Marx et le Lenine
[Religion, opium of the people and protest against real misery: The positions of Marx and Lenin]. Social Compass
35(23):197230.
Rosales, Juan. 1987. Cristianos y marxistas en Nicaragua: La revolucion es un sueno compartido. [Christians and
Marxists in Nicaragua: The revolution is a shared dream.] Buenos Aires: Editorial Antarca, S.R.L.
Ruiz-Junco, Natalia. 2011. Losing neutrality in your everyday life: Framing experience and activist identity construction
in the Spanish environmental movement. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40(6):71333.
Sabia, Debra. 1997. Contradiction and conflict: The popular church in Nicaragua. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Samuel, Ralph. 1994. Theatres of memory volume 1: Past and present in contemporary culture. New York: Verso.
Sawchuk, Dana. 1997. The Catholic Church in the Nicaraguan revolution: A Gramscian analysis. Sociology of Religion
58(1):3951.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
______. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language and Society 5(1):123.
______. 2002. Consciousness and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Selbin, Eric. 2010. Revolution, rebellion, resistance: The power of story. London: Zed.
Smith, Christian. 1996. Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central America peace movement. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
______. 2002. Las Casas as theological counteroffensive: An interpretation of Gustavo Gutierrezs Las Casas: In
search of the poor of Jesus Christ. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(1):6973.
Smith, Jesse. 2013. Creating a godless community: The collective identity work of contemporary American atheists.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52(1):8099.
Snow, David A. 2001. Collective identity and expressive forms. CSD Working Papers, Center for the Study of Democracy,
University of California at Irvine.
Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontiers in social movement
theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, pp. 13355. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51(4):46481.
Steinberg, Marc W. 1998. Tilting the frame: Considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory
and Society 27(6):84572.
______. 1999a. Fighting words: Working-class formation, collective action and discourse in early nineteenth-century
England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
______. 1999b. The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among
nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. American Journal of Sociology 105(3):73680.
Swarts, Heidi. 2011. Drawing new symbolic boundaries over old social boundaries: Forging social movement unity in
congregation-based community organizing. Sociological Perspectives 54(5):45377.
Taylor, Verta and Nancy E. Whittier. 1992. Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist
mobilization. In Frontiers in social movement theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, pp.
10430. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 2002. Stories, identities, and political change. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Valocchi, Stephen. 2007. Ideology, organization, and biography: The cultural construction of identity talk among pro-
gressive activists in Hartford, Connecticut. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 27(1):189217.
______. 2009. The importance of being we: Collective identity and the mobilizing work of progressive activists in
Hartford, Connecticut. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 14(1):6584.
______. 2012. Where did gender go?: Same-sex desire and the persistence of gender in gay male historiography. GLQ:
A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 18(4):45379.
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1990. Meaning and speech acts, vol. I: Principles of language use. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
van Dijk, Teun A., ed. 2004. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
______. 2008. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vivas, Antonina. 2000. Aquellos anos de Solentiname. [Those years of Solentiname]. Managua: Anama Ediciones.
Walhout, Clarence. 1999. Narrative hermeneutics. In The promise of hermeneutics, edited by Roger Lundin, Clarence
Walhoot, and Anthony Thiselton, pp. 65131. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Williams, Philip. 1989. The Catholic Church and politics in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Wood, Richard L. 2002. Faith in action: Religion, race and democratic organizing in America. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1997. The cultural turn: Stories, logics, and the quest for identity in American religion. In Contemporary
American religion: An ethnographic reader, edited by Penny Edgell Becker and Nancy L. Eiesland, pp. 24565.
Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
______. 2011. Taking talk seriously: Religious discourse as social practice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
50(1):121
APPENDIX A: BIBLICAL VERSES USED IN VOLUME I, PER CHAPTER THEMES
Chapter Themes Biblical Verses

Prophecy John 1: 118; Luke 1: 2636, 4655, 6780; Luke 2: 620,
(Chapters 115) 2936, 4152; Luke 3: 123; Luke 4: 113, 1630; Matthew 1:
1825; Matthew 2: 123 = 170 verses total
Miracles John 2: 112; Luke 4: 3137; Luke 5: 116 = 35 verses total
(Chapter 1619)
Revolutionary Christian Luke 6: 2426; Matthew 5: 114, 2126; Matthew 6: 715,
(Chapter 2026) 2434; Matthew 7: 612 = 50 verses total
Social Challenges Matthew 10: 1631, 3437 = 20 verses total
(Chapter 2729)

Reed Et Al-2015-Journal For The Scientific Study of Religion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reed Et Al-2015-Journal For The Scientific Study of Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL for the

SCIENTIFIC STUDY of RELIGION

Religion and Revolutionary We-Ness: Religious

JEAN-PIERRE REED SARAH PITCHER

Keywords: religious discourse, liberation theology, revolutionary we-ness, speech acts.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2015) 54(3):477500

critical interpretation of sociopolitical realities, and the assumption of revolutionary identities

SOCIAL MOVEMENT DISCOURSE AND REVOLUTIONARY WE-NESS

change to conditions of domination (Taylor and Whittier 1992:114). Oppositional consciousness

ON RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE, SPEECH ACTS, AND POLITICS: SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

Liberation theology proclaimed it a Christian responsibility to denounce material poverty,

Also noting that young men and women did so:

To determine the constitutive relationship between religious discourse and revolutionary

RELIGIOUS SPEECH ACTS AND REVOLUTIONARY WE-NESS

Boundary Work: On the Role of Accusations

Accusations are statements or claims of factin effect assertivesby which interlocutors

Identity Assertion: On the Role of Declarations10

Oppositional Consciousness: On Prescriptions, Directives, Exhortations, and Warnings

Prescriptions, directives, exhortations, and warnings operate as the communicative in-

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Table 1: Numerical and percentage distribution of speech acts in volume 1

Identity Primary Type of

Table 2: Distribution of ideological motives by speech act

Table 3: Distribution of ideological motives by identity feature

APPENDIX A: BIBLICAL VERSES USED IN VOLUME I, PER CHAPTER THEMES

Chapter Themes Biblical Verses

You might also like