No abstract

This article presents findings from a critical historical analysis of UK education policy discourse from 1972 onwards. It argues that the pronoun we was introduced as an important rhetorical tool by which New Labour was able to legitimate its policy decisions through the idea of a neoliberal 'consensus' on the context of education, while at the same time articulating a 'politics of inclusion'. The study combined a corpus-aided approach to critical discourse analysis with political economic theory in order to interpret the data in relation to its historical context of a profound rethink of the relationship between education, the state and the economy. The analysis reveals how the flexible semantics of person deixis are exploited in a highly systematic way so as to claim consensus over politically contestable claims.

This chapter explores changes in educational discourse in the United Kingdom during three decades of crisis and radical change in British capitalism. 1 Combining critical discourse analysis with corpus linguistic tools, it examines a corpus of seventeen White Papers spanning five Prime Ministers from Edward Heath to Tony Blair who, between them, led four alternating periods of Conservative and Labour rule. By linking social theory with corpus linguistic 'keywords' tools, the analysis identifies three successive educational policy concerns: a technocratic focus on educational outputs under Thatcher's neo-liberal government; a visionary discourse of competitiveness under Major's caretaker government; and a strategic policy aimed at building an internationally competitive, skills-based, economy under Blair's New Labour Government. As well as discussing the implications of these textual findings for education's role in economic policy, the chapter notes the contribution of this methodology to a systematic interdisciplinary investigation of public discourse.The dominant view that underpins recent social and economic strategies in advanced capitalist economies is that we now live in the 'age of human capital'in which the wealth of nations and success of individuals depend upon the 'imagination, creativity, skills and talents of all our people' (Department for Education and Skills, 2003: 2). At the heart of the post-industrial economy is the 'knowledge worker' because growth now depends increasingly on the production and application of knowledge (Bell, 1973;Castells, 1998). This shift in primacy from physical to intellectual labour is linked to an increase in the perceived importance of education: 'not only is education seen to hold the key to a competitive economy but it is also seen to be the foundation of social justice and social cohesion' (Brown and Lauder, 2006). In effect, investment in learning is now seen as a key political mechanism for achieving economic growth and social cohesion. This growing stress on 'productive social policy' is especially clear in joint policy strategies developed at the European level, where Europe's economic competitiveness is closely tied to a (lifelong) learning and entrepreneurial vision of citizenship (Dale and Robertson, 2006). In particular, the Lisbon Agenda (2000) set a clear ambition for the European Union to become, by 2010, 'the most dynamic, competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world, with sustainable growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion'. Importantly, this is an economic vision played out on a global scale with the aim of defending Europe's

This paper presents a critical discourse analysis of the UK government's 'Change4Life' antiobesity social marketing campaign, which uses colourful cartoon characters and simplified messages to 'reframe' the issue of obesity, and encourage the public to take an active role in addressing this policy problem. It stems from a wider political context in which insights from behavioural economics ('nudge') are increasingly turned to for solutions to policy problems. The approach particularly emphasises the importance of carefully crafted communication in securing public compliance with desired policy outcomes, and has gained considerable attention in political science, economics, and health research. This paper contributes to that growing debate by offering a systematic textually-oriented critical analysis of the discourse of nudge. It maps the public, private, and third sector practices comprising this campaign, and critically examines the underlying balance of power and vested interests. Detailed analysis of the launch advert and surrounding policy documents reveals how scientific claims about obesity are recontextualised, simplified, and distorted in this campaign. It is further argued that the use of behavioural psychology legitimate individualised policy solutions, squeezing out public deliberation over the complex structural causes of obesity.

No abstract