Technocratic Discourse: A Primer

Abstract

This article describes the linguistic and semantic features of technocratic discourse using a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framework. The article goes further to assert that the function of technocratic discourse in public policy is to advocate and promulgate a highly contentious political and economic agenda under the guise of scientific objectivity and political impartiality. We provide strong evidence to support the linguistic description, and the claims of political advocacy, by analyzing a 900-word document about globalization produced by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Using Discourse to Restore Organisational Legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ After an Incident in a German Nuclear Power Plant

“…By contrast, subsequent accounts are characterised by metaphors and differentiation indicative of the discourse of stakeholder engagement. Technocratic discourse draws on scientific and technological discourse and shares lexical features with managerialism and the military (McKenna and Graham, 2000). By claiming rational objectivity and promoting action based on reason and fact, technocratic discourse communicates instrumental rationality (Elsbach, 2001).…”

Abstraction as a limit to semiosis

“…The serene lack of interest on the part of the speech act theorist towards the perlocutionary effect of one's illocutionary act may in this light appear as a form of irresponsibility. Compare this with, for example, the concerns underlying McKenna and Graham's (2000) discussion of the obfuscatory use of abstract nominals in technocratic discourse.…”

Predication and propagation: A method for analyzing evaluative meanings in technology policy

“…The first is the characteristic tendency of policy authors to rely on extremely abstract, nominalized processes and 'thematic condensation' to convey meaning (cf. Halliday and Martin 1993: 21;Lemke 1995: 59-65;McKenna and Graham 2000). The second is in the nature of policy itself.…”

“…The third is that once technology and its social effects become part of policy, they are necessarily set in some significant relation to the proposed outcomes of policy. That is, technology and its effects are presumed to be a significant social force, which can lead to the personification of technology as an active, conscious agent (Graham 1999McKenna and Graham 2000). The fourth problem is that to operationalize the hortatory function of policy requires that a set of express or implied proposals be formulated by its authors.…”