Critical Discourse Studies

ISSN: 1740-5904 (Print) 1740-5912 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcds20

Promoting ‘Employ ability’: the changing subject of

welfare reform in the UK

Stuart Connor

To cite this article: Stuart Connor (2010) Promoting ‘Employ ability’: the changing
subject of welfare reform in the UK, Critical Discourse Studies, 7:1, 41-54, DOI:
10.1080/17405900903453930

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453930

Published online: 06 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 370

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcds20

Download by: [University of Saskatchewan Library] Date: 14 June 2016, At: 16:02
 Critical Discourse Studies
Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2010, 41–54

Promoting ‘Employ ability’: the changing subject of welfare

reform in the UK
Stuart Connor

School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

This paper provides a critical social semiotic analysis of the UK Department of Work and
Pensions ‘Employ ability’ initiative. Although this initiative can be read as an attempt to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

reduce the exclusion of people with disabilities from the workplace, it is argued that the
‘Employ ability’ initiative, should be read as part of a discursive strategy to legitimate neo-
liberal welfare reforms, where policies relating to the employment and underemployment
of people with disabilities remain fixed almost entirely on the supply side rather than the
demand side of labour. A number of semiotic resources are identified that attempt to make
a neo-liberal ‘problematic’ appear to be a natural and common sense response to questions
of welfare. Most notable is the use of an ‘empowerment’ discourse that seeks to legitimate
a (self) disciplinary welfare regime and attempts to fabricate an active citizenry so
necessary to the demands of neo-liberalism.
Keywords: employability; social policy; neo-liberal; semiotics; agency

I’ve never had the ability to speak, so I know how powerful the written word can be. (Andrew,
Copywriter)

Changing the subject

In November 2007, Remploy, an organization in the UK, that had as part of its remit the goal of
providing secure employment for thousands of people with disabilities, proposed the closure of
28 of its 83 factories. Established under the 1944 Disabled Persons (Employment) Act by the
Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, Remploy have employed thousands of people with disabilities
in the manufacture of a range of goods, including furniture, car parts, wheelchairs, nurses’ uni-
forms and chemical and biological warfare suits for the Ministry of Defence. Following reports
published by the National Audit Office (2005) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the Disability
Matters Chief Executive Stephen Duckworth (2006), Remploy was instructed to ‘modernise and
restructure’, with an emphasis to be placed on securing job placements, rather than subsidizing
factories – in order to provide better ‘value for money’ and be more in line with government
policy on integrating disabled people into their communities. Support for the modernization pro-
gramme, including the factory closures, came from the Employers Forum on Disability (2007)
and, notably, six leading disability charities, who in a letter to a national newspaper, argued that,
although the Remploy factories had been useful in the past, ‘disabled people are far more likely
to have fulfilling lives, and to reach their potential, by working in an inclusive environment
which the rest of us take for granted’ (Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, Radar, Scope, & the
Royal National Institute of Deaf People, 2007). In this respect, the factory closures were cast
as an attempt to find ‘meaningful work’ in the open market place, secure independence and


Email: s.a.connor@bham.ac.uk

ISSN 1740-5904 print/ISSN 1740-5912 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17405900903453930
http://www.informaworld.com
 42 S. Connor

move beyond the ‘yoke of paternalism’. In contrast, the unions representing the members of
those employed at the factories not only questioned the evidence drawn upon in the various
reviews, but in a series of campaigns and protests against the closures, argued that, far from
representing an opportunity for its members, the factory closures represented a push towards
a future of low-paid and low-skilled work or no work at all (GMB, 2009; Taylor, 2009;
Trades and General Workers Union, 2008).
For a brief period at least, the story of Remploy brought to the fore issues regarding the
employment of people with disabilities. It also illustrates how the language of independence
and empowerment has been used to justify a number of measures impacting on the welfare of
individuals and communities and arguably what counts as a legitimate form of agency in contem-
porary society. This securing of the language and imagery of empowerment and independence is
emblematic of attempts to legitimate what is described as a neo-liberal problematic, where paid
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

work is ‘the’ route out of poverty and the means by which citizenship is earned and bestowed. A
political and moral project, rather than just an economic imaginary, neo-liberalism seeks to
remake and regulate society through the discipline of the market and the fabrication of an
‘empowered’ and active citizenry (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Gill, 1995; Harvey, 2007;
Leitner, Peck, & Sheppard, 2007; Schild, 2007). Characterized by efforts to promote permanent
innovation and flexibility in relatively open economies, the work first and workfare regimes envi-
saged by exponents of a neo-liberal project attempt to reconstitute a population that is flexible,
adaptable, entrepreneurial and self-reliant (Jessop, 1999). Through a combination of legislative
and institutional mechanisms, the role of a neo-liberal social policy or what Daly describes as
‘societal policy’ (2003), is to empower an idealized ‘consumer-citizens’ to act responsibly, i.e.
independent of the state (Bryson, 2003; Clarke, 2005; Daguerre, 2007; Lister, 2004; Newman
and Vidler, 2006). Whether it is actively seeking and competing for work, securing educational
advantage, pursuing a healthy lifestyle or preparing for ‘old age’, the common thread is that these
are all acts of self-responsibility. An active subject is a healthy subject, both figuratively and lit-
erally. It is in this context that welfare, now understood as a ‘function of particular levels of skill,
enterprise, inventiveness and flexibility’ has become a phenomenon to be governed (Daly, 2003).
The market is the predominant mechanism of power for disciplining populations, but the role
of the state, albeit as represented by an assemblage of institutions and practices rather than a
coherent and unified ‘centre’, should not be neglected. The state’s role in attempting to
secure and ensure the self-regulation and ‘responsibilization’ of individuals and reproduce the
conditions that neo-liberalism requires is pivotal to a neo-liberal project (Barnett, 2003;
Curtis, 1995, 1997; Schild, 2007; Valverde, 1995). In this respect, welfare regimes should not
just be seen as responses to particular economic and social problems, but as playing a key
role in fabricating the subjects that are a precondition and consequence of a neo-liberal
project (Barry, Osbourne, & Rose, 1996). Therefore, insights to be gained from the literature
on the technologies and practices of governmentality (Rose & Miller, 1992) can and should
be combined with the insights that can be gained from a political economy perspective that
attempts to make sense of these practices in the context of an actual and existing neo-liberalism
(Brenner & Theodore, 2002).
Alongside attempts to document the nature and extent of changes in the welfare landscape
there is a growing literature that notes and examines the importance of language and imagery
in these transformations (see Fairclough, 2000; Fischer, 2003; Jacobs and Manzi, 1996;
Hastings, 1998; Marston, 2000, 2004). For example, Bourdieu and Wacquant (2001) identify a
new planetary ‘vulgate’ (e.g. globalization, flexibility, governance, employability, exclusion)
which does not just reflect changes, but plays a significant role in these socio-economic trans-
formations (Althusser, 1969). Of particular interest to this paper is the means by which a new
order is explained and legitimated (Fairclough, 2003, van Dijk, 1993, 1998; van Leeuwen
 Critical Discourse Studies 43

2005, 2007). All forms of authority attempt to propagate a belief in its legitimacy (Weber, 1964).
This can in part explain the way that governments and institutions are increasingly employing a
range of discursive strategies and practices in an attempt to legitimize and realize particular
policy projects (Franklin, 2004). The development and implementation of policy are now ‘com-
municative events’ where policymakers now dedicate significant resources to communicating
policy meanings to its various ‘audiences’ or ‘readers’ (Marston, 2004; Yanow, 1996). At a
time when it has been alleged that the role of the state with respect to welfare is being diminished,
Governments are working hard to ensure that they are seen as the administrative and value centre
of society (Chandler, 2007). Neo-liberalism may be trans-national in its appearance and ambi-
tions, but strategies for its realization and legitimacy will be expressed differently within particu-
lar social, political and cultural formations (Schild, 2007). There is a need to examine how a
neo-liberal project is realized and communicated in particular places, in this case the UK. It is
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

envisaged that the reading offered in this paper will have a resonance and relevance well
beyond the borders of the UK. Attempts to ‘realign’ the identities and relationships of
institutions and citizens in a number of settings have sought to adopt the language, if not the prac-
tices, of a range of new social movements in an attempt to justify these changes (Barnes, 1990,
1999; Barnes & Mercer, 2006; Lunt, 2008; Schild, 2007). Not only does this ‘borrowing’ shift
attention from some of the economic imperatives driving a neoliberal project, but can make criti-
cisms of such measures appear, if not regressive then misplaced (Roulstone & Morgan, 2009).
This helps illustrate what makes the employment of a range of semiotic and material practices
so vital to a re-imagining and transformation of welfare (Connor, 2007; Fairclough, 2003;
Jessop, 2004; Lunt, 2008). Thus the semiotic and discursive aspects of policy are a significant,
if not the significant dimension of power in attempts to seek legitimacy as part of the policy
making process (Edelman, 1977; Jacobs & Manzi, 1996; Marston, 2004).
From this perspective the language and imagery of policy are considered important units of
analysis in their own right, particularly with regard to attempts to naturalize and legitimate the
‘problematic’ a particular policy represents. As an example of what Bacchi (1999) describes as
a ‘what’s the problem?’ approach to policy analysis, rather than start from the assumption that
social policies reflect an inevitable response to pre-existing givens, attention is paid to how a
‘problem’ is fabricated and how a particular response to a ‘problem’ is legitimated. This
‘what’s the problem?’ approach to policy analysis can be seen as part of what has been labelled
an argumentative turn in policy analysis (Fischer & Forester, 1993; Fischer, 2003; Jacobs and
Manzi, 1996; Marston, 2004; Yanow, 1996), where the role of language and imagery in enabling,
constraining, including and excluding a range of policy actors and practices is fore-grounded. It is
in the exposition of the semiotic resources used in the fabrication of a text/policy that it is possible
to identify how particular discourses are being enunciated and, when placed within a wider
context, examine the role of these texts in a hegemonic struggle over the ‘meaning’ and practice
of welfare (Caldas-Coulthard & van Leeuwen, 2003; Fairclough, 2003; Jessop, 2004; Marston,
2000 2004; van Dijk, 1993, 1998). As such, the term ‘critical’ is used, not to denote a particular
method or technique, but to signal that the work is undertaken as part of a project that is rooted
in a radical critique of social relations (Billig, 2003). An attempt is made to unsettle the taken
for granted suppositions and meanings of policy to identify particular threads to be followed
which may present possibilities for reconstructing social action. To this end, a critical social
semiotic analysis of the UK government’s ‘Employ ability’ initiative is provided.

Promoting ‘Employ ability’?

Launched in March 2008 by the Department of Work and Pensions, the ‘Employ ability’ initiat-
ive has the stated aim of urging employers to challenge their assumptions about people with
 44 S. Connor

disabilities in the workplace. A website provides a resource hub for the ‘Employ ability’ initiat-
ive (Department of Work and Pensions, 2008a). ‘Practical’ information and support is made
available in a number of forms, including workshops and a range of information packs and
downloads. A number of these resources will be used in a textual analysis of the ‘Employ
ability’ initiative. The unattributed quotes highlighted below all come from different elements
from the ‘Employ ability’ initiative and are available through the website. The ability to under-
take such an analysis is based on the premise that the signs in a system derive their value from
their place in that system. Signs only work through the relationships they hold with other signs.
However, the system is not considered fixed. A great deal of work goes into the maintenance of
this stability, as the system is continually being reproduced by and through the enunciation of
texts. As people and institutions have different levels of access to power and resources, the
use of semiotic resources and the ability to produce and circulate texts, particularly to large audi-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

ences, remains closely connected to socio-political systems and inextricably linked to the
(re)production of socio-political power (van Dijk, 1993; Volosinov, 1973).
With respect to the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, a relatively high degree of control, and arguably
power, is exhibited by the ‘producer’ in their ability to choose the topic (‘Employ ability’), genre
(poster, website, leaflets, report), style (promotional), timing and location of the texts used in the
initiative. The control over these semiotic features can have a significant effect on the reading of
the text, even if these effects are taken for granted by the reader. For example, the ‘quote’ from
Andrew cited at the beginning of the paper is taken from one of a series of posters that have
appeared on road-side bill boards in an attempt to ‘spread the word’ about the ‘Employ ability’
initiative. One may not know the details of what is involved in the erection and display of the bill-
board and posters, but their very presence suggests that the ‘author(s)’ have access to significant
resources if they are in a position to produce and display posters of this size. As noted by Hodge
and Kress (1988), a range of institutions, legalities and social and economic relations determine
where billboards can be erected and what texts can be made available on these billboards. The
physical scale of the poster and the billboard not only implies that considerable resources have
been employed in its production, but also add weight to the claim that the ‘text’ is significant.
This gives the text and the ‘author’ a distinct status and at the same time plays a part in the posi-
tioning of the reader. Implicitly it is clear that the poster is the result of an institutional/collective
act, whereas the ‘reader’ can normally only read the text privately, as an individual. In addition, a
‘problem – solution’ relation is established (Hoey, 1983, 2001; Winter, 1982). The ‘reader’ is cast
as having a lack/problem which the producer can fill/solve. Many advertisements and increas-
ingly, policy texts, are built around this relation where the ‘problem’ is the needs or desires attrib-
uted to potential consumers and the ‘solution’ is the product/service made available. In this
respect, the ‘Employ ability’ initiative can be seen as exemplifying what Wernick (1991) has
described as a ‘promotional culture’ – that is, those texts which communicate a promotional
message as at least one of its functions. Some work still needs to be done as to the significance
of the text or otherwise, but in terms of the initial hailing of the reader, semiotic resources are
already in action. Not only is a community being constituted and appealed to, but the form also
suggests that there is a choice and case to be made (Edelman, 1977).

Be inspired to want to think and act differently

In an exposition of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative’s problematic, the textual realization of equiv-
alence and difference is pivotal. What Fairclough describes as those:
tendencies towards creating and proliferating differences between objects, entities, groups of people,
etc. and collapsing or ‘subverting’ differences by representing objects, entities, groups of people etc,
as equivalent to each other. (Fairclough, 2003, p. 88)
 Critical Discourse Studies 45

It is argued that this equivalence and difference is part of an ongoing social process of classifi-
cation. Classification and categorization help shape how people think and act as social agents
and that equivalence and difference is in part realized through textual relations. A model devel-
oped by Heider (1958) and applied to communication systems by Newcomb (1974) and Hodge
& Kress (1988) is useful for illustrating such categorizations. By examining how this classifi-
cation and categorization is realized in texts, insights can be provided into the processes that
fabricate the changing subject of welfare reform. For example, the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA) 2005,1 which arguably, in part informs the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, potentially
creates an antagonistic relationship between employees (potential and actual) and employers
(see Figure 1).
The problem that the DDA seeks to address is that people with disabilities are excluded from
the workplace and other sites due to a number of ‘barriers’ (Abberley, 1996; Barnes, 1991,
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

Finkelstein, 1980; Oliver, 1996). Potentially, this places the government at odds with either the
employer(s) or people with disabilities. By introducing legislation that can lead to the prosecution
of employers, the government could be cast as the enemy of ‘business’. Alternatively, if the gov-
ernment is perceived as introducing toothless legislation and failing to make resources available to
enable these prosecutions to take place, the government’s commitment to ‘social justice’ and the
inclusion of people with disabilities is questioned. However, in the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, this
potential conflict is avoided, and a very different ‘problem’ is presented. In the outline to the
workshops and material made available by the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, it is stated that:
Through interactive and thought provoking presentations, you will be challenged about the way you
think about recruiting disabled people; reminded about the pool of talent you are missing out on, and
be inspired to want to think and act differently.
Any challenge to the employer is restricted to their ‘thinking’. At the same time, the challenge to
the employer does not come from legislation, but ultimately from and to themselves. Rather than
foreground the legal consequence of discriminatory behaviour, as defined by the DDA, the
‘Employ ability’ initiative focuses on what can be lost to the employer if they do not ‘think
again’ and open up to the possibilities of employing people with disabilities. For example, a
series of introductory quotes on the website inform the reader:
Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that almost two thirds of
businesses believe that having a diverse pool of talent contributes to the bottom line.
Just like you, disability is very individual. And just like you, disabled people have skills, abilities and
talents that should be recognised and used. So the next time you’re recruiting, remember there’s a
wide range of potential out there.

Figure 1. Antagonistic relationship established by DDA.

 46 S. Connor

Phrases such as ‘pool of talent’, ‘bottom line’ and the citing of sources such as the Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development, ensure that the message is sent in a language that is fam-
iliar and arguably reassuring and persuasive, but make it clear that it is the ‘self-interest’ of the
employer being appealed to, rather than any moral or judicial rhetoric.

I wasn’t going to make my illness an issue

According to the ‘Employ ability’ initiative and the ‘testimony’ of employees in the ‘real-life
stories’, any potential conflict or difference is resolved by the positive ‘actions’ and ‘attitudes’
of the people with disabilities. The use of ‘real-life stories’ using a combination of directly and
indirectly reported speech features prominently throughout the ‘Employ ability’ initiative.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

Switching between a case study and journalistic style of reportage, the stories are presented
in a format that resembles ‘corporate’ in-house publications. This ‘style’ is reinforced through
the use of images inserted in the text which show photographs of the employer and employee
either in or outside their respective work environments. This is a genre that the ‘preferred’
reader will not only be familiar with but also associate with a form of ‘credible’ authority.
This is reinforced through the direct addresses made to employers throughout the texts, either
through the use of the you ‘pronoun’ or through rhetorical questions and ‘messages’ from and
to employers in each of the real-life stories. The point being that the semiotic resources are
giving the impression that these are real people, in real situations, telling real stories that under-
stand and reflect the needs of ‘employers’. For example:
I wasn’t going to make my illness an issue. My strategy was to make sure my employers knew that
my illness wouldn’t get in the way of my work.
Sarah puts her ability to manage her successful career and live with a serious health condition, down
to attitude.
The alleged preferred reader (employer) is ‘reassured’ by the message that Sarah possesses the
right attitude and will take responsibility for her illness. Taken from one of the ‘Employ ability’
posters, the quote by Andrew cited at the beginning of the paper states, ‘I’ve never had the ability
to speak, so I know how powerful the written word can be’ (emphasis added). The hypotactical
linking of two declarative clauses (Fairclough, 2003; Halliday, 1994) suggests that what may
have been perceived as a problem or challenge in this instance actually contributes to a
quality that is considered essential to Andrew’s profession and any potential employers. The
potential ‘problem’ of employing people with disabilities is inverted and is shown to be a sol-
ution (untapped talent) to the ‘problem’ of not being able to recruit people with the rights
skills and attitudes for the demands of the modern workplace. This is a theme and mode
adopted throughout the material of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative. In this reformulation of the
problem of labour market exclusion, all three parties as represented within the ‘Employ
ability’ initiative are seen to be in a positive, potentially harmonious relationship. This
balance is made possible by all parties sticking to their assigned roles and the creation of the
as yet, un-stated ‘other’. That is those people with disabilities who do not show the rights
skills and attitudes and remain in receipt of benefits (see Figure 2).
Thus, one of the achievements of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative is to differentiate figures into
acceptable and unacceptable forms. Once the split is established, antagonistic relationships
between these different groups can be established and these antagonisms established for a
variety of purposes (Connor, 2007).
It is at this point the assumed values that help fabricate the world represented by the ‘texts’
used in the ‘Employ ability’ initiative need to be considered. A premise for this work is that, for
texts to ‘work’, they need to draw on, contain and refer to assumptions, ‘What is said in a text is
 Critical Discourse Studies 47

Figure 2. Harmonious relationship established through ‘Employ ability’.

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

said against a background of what is unsaid, but taken as given’ (Fairclough, 2003, p. 40). Every
sign has the traces of other signs and texts, even if these are not apparent to the reader. As such
all texts are inevitably ‘dialogical’ in that any ‘utterance’ is a link in a complexly organized chain
of other utterances within which it enters into one kind of relation or another, where these
relations can be friendly or hostile (Bakhtin, 1986). Assumptions are not generally attributable
to a specific text, but the implicit/explicit relation between this text and what has been commu-
nicated elsewhere (Fairclough, 2003). With respect to the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, a relatively
high degree of dialogicity is apparent, at least with respect to the range of sources that have been
included. That is, an open, unmediated and deliberative communicative act is suggested through
the use of directly reported and indirectly reported speech from a number of employers and
employees. Normally, those texts that exhibit a high degree of intertextuality can be read as
offering a high degree of dialogicity. The inclusion of different voices and what appear to be
different viewpoints is evident in the ‘Employ ability’ Initiative. The inclusion of a range of
voices does not itself suggest a high degree of dialogicity, particularly if each of the voices is
following a similar narrative. However, a closer look reveals that the different texts and
voices that have been used operate from and constitute a particular problematic where an indi-
vidual is responsible for their successes and failures.
Textually an ‘elsewhere’ is also referred to through the use of what Aristotle described as
enthymemes or rhetorical/abbreviated syllogisms, where the major premise is not explicitly
stated and normally assumed. From an Aristotelian perspective, rhetorical arguments are used
when the author believes that the assumption (stated and un-stated) will ring true with the par-
ticular audience that they are addressing. Frequently found in advertising, the use of hidden pre-
mises in enthymemes can be used obscure a questionable or erroneous premise in reasoning.
Enthymemes are found throughout the texts employed in the ‘Employ ability’ initiative and it
is argued that they play a part in (re)producing a consensus as to what is taken to be common
sense and in turn plays a part in fabricating a preferred subject position. For example, one of
the posters provides the following quotes:
HIV made me change the way I organise my life, so I’m not afraid of adapting to new ways of
working. (Anna, IT engineer)
One way of rewriting this quote and exposing a hidden premise would be:
. Being (and a willingness to be) organized and adaptable is a good thing (major premise –
assumed).
. Anna has demonstrated that she is organized and able to adapt (minor premise – stated).
. Anna has shown she is not afraid of adapting and being organized (minor premise stated).
 48 S. Connor

. The modern workplace requires people to be organized and adaptable (major premise –
assumed).
. Therefore, employ Anna (conclusion – assumed).
For the logic of this enthymeme to be coherent, the reader needs to be able to recognize, if not
share, the assumed premise(s). The assumed premise is often taken to be common sense and
therefore does not need to be stated. In this instance, the common sense view is that success
(i.e. paid employment) is dependent on individual assets and attitudes (adaptability, hard
working organized and a willingness to learn). Within a re-casting of the problem –solution
noted above, the ‘Employ ability’ initiative fabricates ‘successful’ people with disabilities as
those who exhibit the right attitudes and possess the right skills. In the posters, when considering
people with disabilities, the impairment or health condition is not shown as the single defining
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

feature of the person but is shown to be an important part of that person’s identity, where the
experience of an impairment or health condition is portrayed as an ‘invaluable asset’ for work
and social life. This can be seen, and was no doubt intended, as a positive representation of
people with disabilities particularly when contrasted with previous campaigns to ‘see the
person, not the disability’ (Findlay, 1999). However, what is of interest is what counts as a posi-
tive representation.

Robert has always had a ‘can-do’ attitude

Throughout the ‘Employ ability’ initiative, the locus of action is clearly with the employees. The
values and narrative that run through and links these statements are of the individual who is
willing and able to work hard and overcome difficulties. Individualism is celebrated. The not
so subtle sub-text to the form of agency being expressed here is that individuals, as self-
regulating subjects, are expected to provide for themselves and take responsibility for their
welfare. The inverse of this assumption is those that are deemed to have failed (the unemployed)
lack these attributes. Arguably one of the most cherished myths of contemporary society, mer-
itocracy is useful for perpetuating notions that individuals are and should be responsible for the
successes and failure in their lives. As such the ‘real-life’ stories can be likened to what van
Leeuwen (2007) describes as Mythopoesis – cautionary and moral tales used to legitimate a
particular perspective. These mythopoetic tales have a ‘persuasively evaluative’ function
(Fairclough, 2003, p. 111). Textually this is achieved by the distinction between statements
and evaluation not being as distinct as one imagines (Graham, 2001; Lemke, 1995). The relation-
ship between grammatical mood and speech function may be tangential, but the use of ‘realis’
statements using declarative clauses, supports the view that the texts are principally concerned
with what Fairclough (2003) describes as ‘knower initiated knowledge exchanges’. For instance,
the following are examples of quotes to be found in the case studies made available through the
‘Employ ability’ initiative:
She wanted to work and she had the self-belief and determination to find employment.
Robert has always had a ‘can-do’ attitude. For the past twenty years he has had a successful career in
the high powered world of finance and although he has a disability, he has never been held back.
Sarah takes responsibility for her health . . .
These direct and indirectly reported statements, normally in the form of declarative statements,
can be read as knower initiated exchanges, where the reader is merely bearing witness to the
stories. However, textually, what is significant is that the factual statements one associates
with knowledge exchange can be read as presenting implicit evaluations and oriented to an
activity exchange. These statements also perform a strategic communicative function that
 Critical Discourse Studies 49

seeks action on the part of the reader. There is a slippage where the overt ‘communicative’
aspects of the text are overlaid with its strategic function in initiating action (Habermas,
1984). The effect is heightened in the case studies when set against more explicitly formulated
evaluative statements that significantly are not made by the ‘Employ ability’ initiative’s authors,
but are attributed to the employees:
Claire registered for incapacity benefit but felt uncomfortable about benefit payments. She explains:
‘I’d been ill all my life and I just felt like I was getting paid for being ill. I didn’t like that’.
It is argued that these ‘real-life’ mythopoetic stories not only represent examples of what people
with disabilities are like, but how they should be (at least from the producer’s perspective) and
what the reader should aspire to. By representing and advocating a preferred position, it is clear
how texts, through the blurring of statement, evaluation and ‘fact’, possess a performative poten-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

tial to bring into being what they may only purport to describe (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2001). As
such the texts that constitute the ‘Employ ability’ initiative can be described as hortatory reports.
The levelling of the criticism that the ‘Employ ability’ initiative needs to be seen as an
example of a promoting message and culture, may be akin to pushing at an open door. After
all, the stated aim of the campaign is to advertise a series of workshops and resources that chal-
lenge employers’ attitudes to employing people with disabilities. However, it is argued that the
performative scope of this text extends well beyond these stated aims. It is not only the
‘employer’ that is the preferred subject position of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative. People with
or without a ‘disability’ currently in paid work are being told that they are doing the right
thing, no matter how poorly paid or unsatisfying and insecure the work may be, whilst those indi-
viduals in receipt of benefit are being alerted to the ‘fact’ that they are not active or taking
‘responsibility’ and are being asked to take their cue from the successful case studies featured
in the posters and ‘real-life’ scenarios.

Embrace freedom – or else . . .

There is a need to advance the social rights of economically vulnerable and excluded individuals
and groups and tackle the exclusionary forces faced by people with disabilities (Thornton, 2005;
Leonard Cheshire, 2008). However, as evident in this reading of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative,
in the UK at least this advancement has been reduced to a project of employability (Grover &
Piggott, 2005). ‘Work first’ and supply side approaches to labour markets have become the cor-
nerstone of social policy and have entered into the ascendancy within the academic and political
discourse (see Daguerre, 2007; Lunt, 2006; Peck, 2001; Thompson 1996; Zeitlin & Trubeck,
2003). Paid employment is seen as the means by which economic, emotional and moral
welfare is secured (Clarke, 2005). However, as seen in the case of Remploy, paid work in
itself does not seem to be sufficient. A work place that is subject to the ‘discipline’ of the
market is also required. People with disabilities are urged to consider employability as a
noun, and focus on the ‘means’ and capacity by which individuals can cope with changing
employment conditions (Lunt, 2006; Tamkin & Hillage, 1999).The benefits to the individuals
entering the paid workplace are considered to be self-evident. However, all too often, and
what appears to be the case with former Remploy employees, is that the type of jobs offered
to people with disabilities are low status, low waged occupations with poor working conditions
and few opportunities for advancement (Taylor, 2009). People leaving out-of-work benefits fre-
quently face employment in low paid, ‘flexible’ sectors of the economy where there are few
long-term prospects for career or wage advancement (TUC Commission on Vulnerable Employ-
ment, 2008). This may be presented as ‘entry level’ work, but the limited number of higher paid
jobs makes ‘moving on’ all the more difficult. Policy-makers are therefore faced with the
 50 S. Connor

dilemma of what can be done to keep people in low-pay and low-reward jobs with few pro-
spects? It is argued that it is in this context that the ‘Employ ability’ initiative needs to be under-
stood. That is, as part of a strategy to legitimate and enact a neo-liberal project of welfare reform
where attempts to reduce collective responses to risk are cast as opportunities for individuals to
realize their life project. Short-term contracts and the privatization of risk and welfare are now
cast as opportunities to exhibit freedom. It is this rhetoric of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’, where these
concepts are expressed as freedom from outside interference from ‘tyrannical’ institutions that
have played an important part in building up an acceptance/tolerance of a neo-liberal regime
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2001; Clarke, 2005; Fairclough, 2000; Harvey, 2007; Schram, 1995).
Rather than see the new welfare landscape as the expression of any financial or institutional
interests, or even a leviathan-like ‘given’, it is cast as something desirable, a pre-condition for
realizing autonomy. An environment where self-reliant atomistic agents have the freedom to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

be separated from others, the freedom to present oneself as a commodity and the freedom to
be exploited and subject to the discipline of the market.
For those who are unwilling to exercise their ‘freedom’, rewards and sanctions are available
to provide encouragement (Piggott & Grover, 2009; Schild, 2007). In the ‘Employ ability’
initiative, the message, to ‘think again’, as an employer or someone in receipt of benefit, to
‘choose’ to adapt and manage and adopt the right attitude, is ‘backed up’ by the possibility
that, if the right choice is not made, then sanctions will be used. For the employer, ultimately,
this is the threat of legislation. For people with disabilities it is the reduction of alternatives
(i.e. Remploy) and the promise of a ‘revolution in welfare’ (Department for Work and Pensions,
2007, 2008b). It would appear that the readers of the ‘Employ ability’ initiative are ordered to
embrace freely what can and will be imposed on them anyway. The manipulative falsity of this
offer is that it is made available as a ‘free choice’, where it is considered to be in people’s (self)
interests to take the ‘preferred’ option (Zizek, 2001). However if it was really in people’s (self)
interest, it raises the question of why any sanctions are deemed necessary to support this choice?
The social and political theories and practices discussed in this paper can appear to weigh
heavily on the textual analysis that lies at the heart of this paper. However, it is argued that,
without the type of textual analysis that has been provided in this paper, it is not possible to
show how semiotics perform the role that one may theoretically ascribe to it (Fairclough,
2003). The ‘Employ ability’ initiative may appear unremarkable, if not inconsequential, and
therefore not worthy of serious attention, but it is this apparent ‘unremarkableness’ that should
make the ‘Employ ability’ initiative the subject of analysis. Received with very little, if any,
comment, it is the ‘Employ ability’ initiative’s capacity to position itself seamlessly within an
already crowded physical and media landscape, that somewhat perversely points to its signifi-
cance. It is the ‘Employ ability’ initiative’s sheer thereness, taken for granted and apparently
widely shared assumptions, that points to its role in a hegemonic project. Put another way, why
is that the closure of factories, as noted above, that once offered secure employment to thousands
of individuals, comes to be viewed as an ‘opportunity’, whilst those who oppose the closures are
cast as being unable to recognize or assume the agency and independence of people with disabil-
ities? The collective agency of the Remploy employees as evidenced through and by the Unions is
not only deemed old-fashioned, but in statements devoid of any irony, considered to be acting
against the ‘real’ interests of people with disabilities. However, it is worth remembering that
there are different notions of freedom and routes to its realization. One can contrast the
freedom to choose, adapt and be flexible to one that is ‘transformative’ and includes the possibility
of redefining the conditions of existence and the parameters of one’s own actions (Annetts, Law,
McNeish, & Mooney, 2009; Howard, 2000; Lavalette & Mooney, 2000; Piven & Coward, 1977,
1993; Schram, 1995; Zizek, 2001). These alternatives need to be a part of any attempt to provide a
critical analysis and response to contemporary forms of welfare.
 Critical Discourse Studies 51

To conclude, an attempt to recognize and cultivate the reflexive agency of individuals is not
itself considered problematic. The recognition and development of agency has been and con-
tinues to be an inherent precondition for transformative collective action (Garay, 2007;
Mooney & Law, 2007), but it is clear that those attempts to recognize ‘creative, reflexive,
welfare subjects’ (Williams, Popay, & Oakley, 1999) within the accounts and practices of
welfare have all too easily been appropriated and emptied of their progressive intent. Sub-
sequently, what is being questioned is the form of activity that has come to be valued. It is
argued that what is censured from a discourse of emancipation and freedom, at least within
the terms of a neo-liberal project, is the interdependent nature of society for us all. Against
this omission, the foothold offered by the inclusion of ‘progressive discourses’ in the reform
of welfare, should provide an opportunity to reaffirm that ‘real’ emancipation takes a form
that recognizes and reconfigures the social forces that we are all subject to. An emancipatory
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

project is not one that reflects attempts to ‘enable’ people to subject themselves to the needs
of the economy, but puts attempts to make the economy serve the needs of the people at its heart.

Notes on contributor
Stuart Connor is a Lecturer in Social Policy in the School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham.
Research and teaching interests include two distinct, but related strands. The first involves developing
and exploring the use of critical social semiotic approaches in the analysis of ‘wealth, inequalities and
welfare’, with a particular interest in examining attempts at developing the surveillance and regulation
of ‘subjects’ in contemporary welfare regimes. The second involves the role of social movements and com-
munity-based approaches in contemporary social welfare.

Note
1. The DDA, originally introduced in 1995, now significantly extended, most recently by the Disability
Discrimination Act 2005, is a law designed to end discrimination against disabled people. Under the
Disability Discrimination Act, small to medium-sized businesses have to make reasonable adjustments
so they do not discriminate against disabled customers or employees. If employers fail to do what is
reasonable, legal action can be taken for treating the person with a ‘disability’ unfairly.

References
Abberley, P. (1996). Work, utopia and impairment. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging
issues and insights. Harlow: Longman.
Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx. London: Verso.
Annetts, J., Law, A., McNeish, W., & Mooney, G. (2009). Understanding social welfare movements.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics. Sage: London.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. M. Holquist & C. Emerson (Eds.), Translated
by C. Emerson. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Barnes, C. (1990). Cabbage syndrome: The social construction of dependence. Brighton: Falmer Press.
Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. London: Hurst & Co.
Barnes, C. (1999). Disability studies: new or not so new directions? Disability and Society, 14, 577–580.
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2006). Independent futures: Creating user-led disability services in a disabling
society. Bristol: Policy Press.
Barnett, N. (2003). Local government, New Labour and ‘active welfare’: A case of ‘self responsibilisa-
tion’? Public Policy and Administration, 18(3), 25–38.
Barry, A., Osbourne, T., & Rose, N. (1996). Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and
rationalities of government. London: UCL Press.
Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.),
Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–46). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 52 S. Connor

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2001). New-Liberal speak: notes on the new planetary vulgate. Radical
Philosophy, 105, 2–5.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and
Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bryson, A. (2003). From welfare to workfare. In J. Millar (Ed.), Understanding social security: Issues for
policy and practice. Bristol: Social Policy Association/Policy Press.
Caldas-Coutlhard, C.R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). Critical social semiotics: Introduction. Social
Semiotics, 13(1), 3–4.
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.
Clarke, J. (2005). New Labour’s Citizens: activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned? Critical
Social Policy, 25(4), 447–463.
Connor, S. (2007). We’re onto you: A critical examination of the Department for Work and Pensions’
‘Targeting Benefit Fraud’ campaign. Critical Social Policy, 27(2), 231–252.
Curtis, B. (1995). Taking the state back out. Rose and Miller on political power. British Journal of
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

Sociology, 46(4), 575–589.

Curtis, B. (1997). Reviewing moral regulation: metaphorical capital and the field of disinterest. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 22(3), 303–318.
Daguerre, A. (2007). Active labour market policies and welfare reform: Europe and the US in comparative
perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Daly, M. (2003). Governance and social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 32(1), 113–128.
Department of Work and Pensions (2007). Welfare reform act [online]. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/legislation_bill.asp.
Department of Work and Pensions (2008a). Employ ability [online]. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://
www.dwp.gov.uk/employability/.
Department of Work and Pensions (2008b). No one written off: Reforming welfare to reward responsibility
– public consultation [online]. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/
welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/.
Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic
Press.
Employer’s Forum on Disability (2007). Employer’s Forum on Disability supports Remploy’s factory
closures [online]. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://www.efd.org.uk/media-centre/media-
releases/2007/forum-supports-remploys-proposals.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language? London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Findlay, B. (1999). Disability rights and culture under attack. Disability in Arts, 149, 6–7.
Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fischer, F., & Forrester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Franklin, B. (2004). Packaging politics: Political communications in Britain’s media democracy, 2nd ed.
London: Arnold.
Garay, C. (2007). Social policy and collective action: Unemployed workers, community associations and
protest in Argentina. Politics and Society, 35(2), 301–328.
Gill, S. (1995). Globalisation, market civilisation and disciplinary neoliberalism. Millenium: Journal of
International Studies, 24(3), 399–423.
GMB (2009). GMB Remploy workers [online]. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.
gmbremployworkers.info/index.html.
Graham, P. (2001). Space: Irrealis objects in technology policy and their role in a new political economy.
Discourse and Society, 12(6), 761–788.
Grover, C., & Piggott, L. (2005). Disabled people: The reserve army of labour and welfare reform.
Disability and Society, 7, 705–717.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action, Vol. 1. London: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hastings, A. (1998). Connecting linguistic structures and social practices: A discursive approach to social
policy analysis. Journal of Social Policy, 27(2), 191–211.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
 Critical Discourse Studies 53

Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George, Allen & Unwin.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction. London: Routledge.
Howard, M.W. (2000). Self-management and the crisis of socialism: The rose in the fist of the present.
Oxford: Roman and Littlefield.
Jacobs, K., & Manzi, T. (1996). Discourse and policy change; the significance of language for housing
research. Housing Studies, 11(4), 543–560.
Jessop, B. (1999). The changing governance of welfare: Recent trends in its primary functions, scale and
modes of coordination. Social Policy and Administration, 33(4), 348–359.
Jessop, B. (2004). Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies,
1(2), 159–174.
Lavalette, M., & Mooney, G. (2000). Class struggle and social welfare. London: Routledge.
Leitner, H., Peck, J., & Sheppard, E.S. (2007). Contesting neoliberalism: Urban frontiers. London:
Guilford Press.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics. London: Taylor & Francis.

Leonard Cheshire (2008). Disability poverty in the UK [online]. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://
www.lcdisability.org/?lid¼6386.
Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Mind, Radar, Scope, & the Royal National Institute of Deaf People (2007).
Letter. Guardian, Saturday May 19.
Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. Cambridge: Polity.
Lunt, N. (2006). Employability and New Zealand welfare restructuring. Policy and Politics, 34(3),
473–494.
Lunt, N. (2008). From welfare state to social development: Winning the war of words in New Zealand.
Social Policy and Society, 7(4), 405–418.
Marston, G. (2000). Metaphor, morality and myth: a critical discourse analysis of public housing policy in
Queensland. Critical Social Policy, 20(3), 349–374.
Marston, G. (2004). Social policy and discourse analysis: Policy change in public housing. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Mooney, G., & Law, A. (Eds.). (2007). New Labour/hard labour? Restructuring and resistance in the
welfare industry. Bristol: Policy Press.
National Audit Office (2005). Gaining and retaining a job: the Department for Work and Pensions’ support
for disabled people [online]. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.nao.org.uk/
publications/0506/gaining_and_retaining_a_job.aspx.
Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: the most popular art. New York: Doubleday.
Newman, J., & Vidler, E. (2006). Discriminating customers, responsible patients, empowered users:
Consumerism and the modernization of health care. Journal of Social Policy, 35(2), 193–209.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Peck, J. (2001). Workfare states. New York: Guildford.
Piggott, L., & Grover, C. (2009). Retrenching incapacity benefit: employment support allowance and paid
work. Social Policy and Society, 8, 159–170.
Piven, F., & Coward, R.A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Piven, F., & Coward, R.A. (1993). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare, 2nd ed.,
New York: Vintage Books.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Duckworth, S. (2006). A strategic direction for Remploy: review of future
business options. Commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions [online]. Retrieved
August 29, 2006, from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2006/remploy.
Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: problematics of government. British
Journal of Sociology, 43, 173–205.
Roulstone, A., & Morgan, H. (2009). Neo-liberal individualism or self-directed support: Are we all speak-
ing the same language on modernising adult social care. Social Policy and Society, 8(3), 333–345.
Schild, V. (2007). Empowering ‘consumer-citizens’ or governing poor female subjects? Journal of
Consumer Culture, 7(2), 179–203.
Schram, S.E. (1995). Words of welfare. The poverty of social science and the social science of poverty.
Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Tamkin, P., & Hillage, J. (1999). Employability and employers: The missing piece of the jigsaw. Report
361, Institute of Employment Studies.
Taylor, A. (2009). Remploy’s bad timing. Community Care, January 29, 6–7.
 54 S. Connor

Thompson, N. (1996). Supply side socialism: The political economy of New Labour. New Left Review, 216,
37–54.
Thornton, P. (2005). Disabled people, employment and social justice. Social Policy and Society, 4(1),
65–73.
Trades and General Workers Union (2008). Remploy campaign. Fighting back to keep Remploy factories
open [online]. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Campaign.
asp?Action¼Display&NodeID¼93587.
TUC Commission on Vulnerable Employment (2008). Hard work, hidden lives: The full report of the com-
mission of vulnerable employment, Trade Union Congress [online]. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from
http://www.vulnerableworkers.org.uk/cove-report/.
Valverde, M. (1995). The mixed social economy as a Canadian tradition. Studies in Political Economy, 47,
33–60.
van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:02 14 June 2016

van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimacy in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication,
1(1), 91–112.
Volosinov, V.I. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organisation. New York: The Free Press.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture. London: Sage.
Williams, F., Popay, J., & Oakley, A. (1999). Changing paradigms of welfare. In F. Williams, J. Popay, &
A. Oakley (Eds.), Welfare research: A critical review. London: UCL.
Winter, E. (1982). Towards a contextual grammar of English. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington,
DC: George University Press.
Zeitlin, J., & Trubeck, D. (Eds.). (2003). Governing work and welfare in a new economy: European and
American experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zizek, S. (2001). On belief. London: Routledge.