UNIVERSITYOF AMSTERDAM
Master Algemene Sociologie Laura Wagenaar-Buit (0439851)
L.M.Wagenaar@gmail.com
Supervisor: Ms. Dr. L.H. Verplanke Second Assessor: Mr. Dr. C. Bröer
January 27, 2018
“Three Days Extra”
Neoliberal Ideology in Discourses on Dutch Labor-Care
Arrangements and The Limit on Political Change
T
ABLE OFC
ONTENTSTable of Contents...3
Acknowledgements...5
Abstract...7
1. Introduction...9
Looking For A New Boom: The Dutch Road To Equal Care Sharing...11
Mother Knows Best – Care And The Stalled Revolution...12
Markets Know Best – Economic Insecurity...12
How Do We Know Best? - Political Discourse And Academia...14
2. Research Questions and Methodology...17
2.1. Research Questions & Sub-questions...17
2.2. Discourse Analysis...18
2.2.1. Discourse Analysis In Sociological Research...18
2.2.2. Critical Discourse Analysis...19
2.3. Data & Analysis: Fairclough's Four Stage Methodology...21
2.3.1. Stage 1: Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspects...22
2.3.2. Stage 2: Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong. ...22
2.3.3. Stage 3: Consider whether the social order 'needs' the social wrong...26
2.3.4. Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles...27
3. Sketching Neoliberalism...29
3.1. The Origin Of Neoliberalism ...29
3.2. The Content Of Neoliberalism...30
Minimal State...30
Market Efficiency...31
The Human As Entrepreneur...31
3.3. Neoliberal Politics...32
Third Way Politics In The Netherlands...32
3.4. Neoliberalism As Ideology...33
3.5. Neoliberalism In Political Discourse...34
Depoliticization...35
The State As Facilitator...35
Self-managing Citizens...35
Market Efficiency...36
4. Theorizing the Themes ...37
4.1.1. Welfare & Culture...37
4.1.2. Welfare & Changing Industrial Relations...38
4.1.3. Welfare & Citizenship...40
4.1.4. Welfare & Neoliberalism...41
4.1.5. Threats To The Sustainability Of Welfare...42
4.2. Care...43
4.2.1. Care & Welfare...43
4.2.2. Care Ideals...45
4.2.3. The Paradox of Care: Precondition For And Obstacle To Autonomy...46
4.2.4. Changing Needs...48
4.3. Class...49
4.3.1. Meritocracy & The Precariat...50
4.3.2. Class Formation...51
4.4. Gender...52
4.4.1. Reconstructing Gender Roles...52
4.4.2. Sexual Citizenship Revisited: The Male Ideal...54
4.6. What's Wrong: Problematization Of The Themes...55
5. Analyzing The Themes: Results & Analysis...59
5.1. Analyzing The Debate...59
5.2. Welfare: Shaping Citizenship In A Minimal State...61
5.2.1.The Goal: The Next Boom In Female Employment...61
5.2.2.The Way: A Cultural Shift By Mutual Agreement...63
5.2.3.The Boundaries: Responsive Regulation In Welfare...66
5.2.4. Concluding Remarks...73
5.3. Care...73
5.3.1. Parental Sharing...74
5.3.2. Psychologicalization Of Care...75
5.4. Class...76
5.4.1. Income, Education & Collective Labor Agreements...77
5.4.2.Precariously Self-employed...79
5.4.3. Concluding Remarks...80
5.5. Their Best Selves: Reconstructing Gender...80
5.5.1. Gender As Cultural Category...80
5.5.2. Gender As Biological Category...81
5.5.3. Concluding Remarks...83
5.6. General Conclusion...83
6.1. Three Days Extra: Re-Constructing Labor-Care Arrangements With A Neoliberal Reflex....86
6.1.1. Welfare Depoliticized...86
6.1.2. Care Marketized...88
6.1.3. Class Denied...88
6.1.4. Gender Neutralized...89
6.2. The Way Forward...90
Epilogue...93
Bibliography...95 Appendix 1 – List of Primary Documents
Appendix 1a – 34617-2 voorstel van wet
Appendix 1b – 34671-3 Memorie van toelichting
Appendix 1c – 34617-4 deel 1 van 2, Advies Afdeling advisering Raad van State Appendix 1d – 34617-4 deel 2 van 2, nader rapport Asscher
Appendix 1e – 34617-5 Verslag vaste kamercommissie
Appendix 1f – 34617-6 Nota naar aanleiding van verslag uitbreiding kraamverlof Appendix 1g – 34617-7 Nota van wijziging
Appendix 1h – kamerbrief arbeid en zorg 16-12-2016 Appendix 1i – kamerbrief arbeid en zorg 31-08-2015
Appendix 1j – Antwoord kamervragen van lid Carola Schouten 31-08-2015 Appendix 2 – Selected Quotations
Appendix 3 – Table containing cross-sectional operationalization of themes Appendix 4 – Output Atlas.ti codes
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSThough not quite as long as the road to equal care sharing, the road to completion of this thesis was long and winded. No amount of 'thank you'’s will do justice to the patience and support of all the people that helped me complete it. First of all my family: my husband Danny who was reduced to single parenthood for weeks at an end as I crossed the academic swamps and inspirational desserts. My mother Elfriede who stood by his side when I could not and showered my children with love. My eldest Kiara who is absolutely convinced that writing a thesis must be the worst thing in the world. My youngest Leandra who went to sleep without my goodnight kisses much more often than she found tolerable. My dear grandmother Mies, who at 90 years old brought me coffee with foamy milk and sandwiches in bite-sized cubes so I could eat them with a fork as I typed. My cousin Anna, for her regular shout-outs and wise words. And last but certainly not least, my father Gerhard who became my trusted research assistant, keeping track of citations, editing appendices, sitting up with me to keep me at my work, reading drafts and even theory, though I think he rather enjoyed the last bit.
My friends: Bregtje for always allowing me to bring my ‘black dog’ (do you still have the bubbles? I think I am ready for them now), Marlien for being my WhatsApp cheerleader, Femke for giving me feedback and confidence when I needed it, Lieke, Esther, Sanne, Sarah and Marie for their unfailing encouragement, and Loes, who re-entered my life in the very last stage of writing and immediately suggested co-study sessions; I would have liked to have more of those.
My academic supporters: Marieke van Leeuwen who went above and beyond as study adviser, the Exam Committee for granting me extra time, René Hulst for believing in me. Second corrector Christian Broër for allowing me the time to write a much better thesis. My supervisor Loes Verplanke: I cannot begin to express how much I appreciate your patience, understanding and support, your critical remarks, your tolerance of my stubbornness and for making me feel I could do this. Guess what: I did it!
“the image of fractals alters the meaning of the silence to put language into practice articulation erects the borders between static order and incomprehensible chaos the border lies within not beyond human language”
A
BSTRACTA sustainable combination of labor and care is still problematic. On average women work less and care more than men, reducing their income levels. When they do combine care and labor,
overburdening is a risk. On the other hand, many men would like to spend more time with their children, but labor market pressures and lost income prevent them from doing so. In 2016 the Dutch Minister of Social Affairs proposed an expansion of paid partner leave after the birth of a child to encourage partners (mainly fathers) to take up care tasks. However, the expansion added only three days extra to the existing two. Why did the partner leave proposal amount to so few days? I
hypothesized that the influence of neoliberal ideology on political discourse limits the formation of such welfare arrangements. To investigate this I conducted a discourse analysis of the partner leave dossier, including Parliamentarian questions and two letters to Parliament. Furthermore I carried out an extensive study of relevant sociological literature on the core themes welfare, care, class and gender. My findings revealed a major care deficit caused by the influx of female labor participation that the welfare state was unprepared for. Meanwhile neoliberal policies in the last decades have eroded rather than improved conditions to combine labor and care. Instead of a counter reaction to it, Dutch political discourse displays a 'neoliberal reflex' that reconstructs welfare as sub-optimal solution and care as a private issue best left to individual agreements. Consequently the gender gap between labor and care remains severely under-addressed and moreover this also risks widening the gap between different classes. Even though the partner leave proposal is limited in scope and the dossier on it less than a hundred pages, discursive analysis of it points to a fundamental lack of care as integral part of citizenship.
1. I
NTRODUCTIONLooking For A New Boom: The Dutch Road To Equal Care Sharing
Kremer (2007) characterizes the Netherlands as a 'booming laggard' in her dissertation about welfare states and care. She refers to the fact that Dutch women entered the labor market relatively late but caught up with their European peers quite quickly: labor market participation of women rose from a meager 30% to 65,1% between the 1970s and 2016, with a particularly sharp increase in the 1990s (CBS 2017; Tijdens 2006). On average Dutch women still work less often than Dutch men, but just about as often as other European women (Eurostat 2016). However, female labor participation in the Netherlands follows a very specific pattern often termed the 1.5 earner model, or part time model: only 30% of Dutch women work full-time compared to 80% of men (CBS 2014). Even though this difference already exists when they do not have children yet, many women reduce their hours even more once they have care obligations to meet (SCP 2017). Part time work enables them to achieve labor-care balance, but it limits their ability to earn sufficient income. Furthermore through these trends in labor-care patterns stubborn inequalities in care sharing and economic independence between men and women are reproduced. The latter issue has become a growing concern as gender gaps have stabilized since the boom of the 90s and the emancipation of women seems halted. Many point to the much smaller portion of care that is being shouldered by men. In an attempt to stimulate involvement of partners of new mothers Social Affairs and Labor Markets (Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid – SZW) Minister Asscher proposed a law to expand paid partner leave from the existing two days to five days in 2019.
Since 2002 partner leave is granted to the partners of women who just gave birth. Its original two-day design was implemented to expand eligibility for this type of leave to all Dutch employees. At the time about 70% of sectoral labor agreements provided extra leave when an employee became a parent. In a way this widespread habit was codified in law. The main rationale behind the recent expansion is that the arrival of a baby is a major life event that takes time to adjust to and that it is important for the partner of the mother to bond with the baby. According to the explanatory memorandum of the law, this will likely improve the future relationship with the child and have a positive effect on sharing care tasks with the mother (SZW 2016). While these ambitions echo a long-standing public debate about balancing labor-care responsibilities and worries about unequal care sharing between men and women, a total of five days of paid leave seems quite short.
Especially compared to many other European countries where, often following the Lisbon Strategy, possibilities for partners (mainly fathers) to take paid leave were expanded more generously. The wide differences between arrangements complicate comparison, but leave periods often covered
two to ten weeks in 2015 (OECD 2016). So why, despite shared ambitions to stimulate more equal care sharing and improve women's labor market participation, is three days extra all we can muster?
Mother Knows Best – Care And The Stalled Revolution
Despite the downsides, part time work has become a stable feature of Dutch work-care
arrangements (Kremer 2007) and women generally do not want to work more hours unless they have very small part-time jobs (CBS 2010; Kremer 2007; SCP 2017). However, Dutch political advice councils like the WRR, SER, CPB and SCP1 have been pointing out the risks of part time
work in terms of poverty (especially after divorce) and missing out on talent and economic growth. Also external pressure to change has been building. In 2000 the Lisbon Strategy was formulated to modernize European labor markets and strive for full employment. An important strategy to increase labor market participation and combat poverty alike, is to increase labor market participation among women (Hemerijck 2013; Kremer 2007; Visser 2008).
Even though more women than ever before are employed, there remains much inequality in the distribution of care and housework between men and women (Bianchi et al. 2000; Rutgers 2017; Sayer 2010; Sayer & Gornick 2012). Moreover, notions that women are better at house- and care work seem hard to overcome (Dryden 1999; Rutgers 2017; SCP 2010). Resolving what Hochschild (1989) has termed 'the stalled revolution', which refers to the fact that men have not taken up household and care tasks like women have taken up paid employment, has become a topic of interest. The explanatory memorandum of Asscher's partner leave proposal explicitly promotes parental sharing as a route to more equality. It remains contested however if much success can be expected, and not just because of the limited amount of days the law would grant. Even in Sweden, a country that has had a gender neutral and generous parental leave policy since 1974, men take up less caring tasks than women (Axelsson 2014). More generally it has been noted that men are hesitant to take parental leave for fear it will negatively impact their careers (Axelsson 2014; Holter 2009; OECD 2015). Rather than simply at the center of a stalled revolution it seems care is a deeply contested issue in our society. Are women just naturally more drawn to care tasks? Is care worth our careers or economic independence? And who should pay the price: parents, employers or the state?
Markets Know Best – Economic Insecurity
A complicating matter is the changing landscape of labor markets and social security. In the Dutch context, as in many other European welfare states, social securities are often directed at the risks of paid employment (unemployment, disability, loss of income) as they were conceived in the
1CPB – Central Planning Bureau, SCP – Social and Cultural Planning Bureau, SER – Socio-Economic Council, WRR –
industrial labor relationships of the 1950s (Hemerijck 2013; Standing 2011; Visser 2009). Many of these industrial jobs were lost in more recent decades, affecting the employability of low educated workers. Furthermore in a 2017 report from the IMF the writers warn that wages have steadily been losing against income from capital since the late 1970s with no end in sight. This trend is linked to growing income inequality, meaning higher incomes disproportionately profit from productivity and their ability to invest capital in it (IMF 2017). At the same time labor markets flexibilized as
international competition grew and industries lobbied for better adaptability by easy hire and fire. Politicians were persuaded to believe this would also mean easier transition into new jobs for the unemployed and wage moderation would stimulate the creation of jobs (Kleinknecht 2015). The rewards of paid employment diminished while the risks grew and with it welfare budgets, invoking concern about their sustainability (Hemerijck 2013). In the Netherlands this took a special turn by a structural reform of social labor securities aimed at reducing costs in the late 1990s (Hemerijck 2013; Oudenampsen 2016). The so-called Premium-differentiation and Marketization of Unemployment Insurances Act (Wet Premiedifferentiatie En Marktwerking Bij
Arbeidongeschiktheidsverzekeringen or Wet “Pemba”) was premised on the idea that partial
marketization would lead to better affordability and less reliance on state budgets. As a consequence not only employers but also the self-employed are now expected to arrange for (part of) their disability insurances themselves.
The relationships between workers and the labor market on the one hand, and between citizens and welfare states on the other, have changed considerably under these influences
(Hemerijck 2013; Standing 2011; Tonkens 2012; Visser 2009). It is often theorized that the specifics of welfare state regimes influence behavior as they impose certain norms about dependency on labor markets, protection against poverty and low wages and eligibility for welfare arrangements (Esping Andersen 1990; Kremer 2007). If the norms about redistributing resources through the welfare state change and protection against the risks reduced, this will likely affect possibilities for parents to reconcile work and family interests (Visser 2009). Even more profound than that, welfare state policies by these norms define an important portion of the content of citizenship and whether this includes a right to give or receive care (Kremer 2007; Lister 1997; Pateman 1988). Since the Pemba Act f.i. this includes accessibility to social insurances, pensions and leave arrangements such as parental leave for the self-employed2. The consequence is that the content of citizenship varies
2From 2004 to 2008 this also included maternity leave for self-employed women. When they united themselves and
successfully complained to the CEDAW (only after the Dutch High Court ruled in favor of the Dutch State in 2011), state funded maternity leave was reinstated for self-employed women. At last in 2017 the Central Court for Appeal (CRvB) ruled the Dutch state should also compensate self-employed women that were denied maternity leave between
between citizens with different employment statuses. According to some, this fits within a growing influence of neoliberal ideology on politics.
The economic researcher Standing has written extensively about the influence of
neoliberalism. He argues that reducing structural inequalities was sidelined as neoliberalism gained ground. Instead a focus on individual equal opportunity measures, such as legal prohibitions against discriminatory human resource policies, gained ground. He further elaborates that these
anti-discrimination laws did far less for disadvantaged groups, and especially women, as the restrictions imposed by their socioeconomic circumstances largely stayed the same (2011). This observation is relevant to the topic of labor-care equality in the Netherlands as higher educated women have much higher employment rates and work more hours (with smaller gender gaps) than their less-educated counterparts (Kremer 2007). According to Pateman, writing already in 1988, socialist politicians, persuaded by the promises of economic growth and prosperity by deregulating markets,
pragmatically hopped on the wagon of individualistic strategies to reduce inequalities. She warned that 'market-socialism' might underestimate the influence of class (1988). In the Netherlands, many social-democrats, concerned about the rapidly rising costs of welfare arrangements, argued that a more pragmatic approach was necessary in which the extent of the welfare state was bound to what economic growth would allow (Oudenampsen 2016)3. Oudenampsen (2016) also beliefs this is due
to the growing influence of neoliberalism of those days. This begs the question how influential such neoliberal tenets still are on the meager expansion of partner leave.
How Do We Know Best? - Political Discourse And Academia
If we are serious about gender equality in sharing labor and care, as I think we should be, current political action falls short. Especially now that we face growing uncertainty and precariousness of lower to middle class employees (Standing 2011; WRR 2017), a loss of middling jobs (Hemerijck 2013) and flexibilization of the labor market (CPB 2016). Possibilities that parents have in
shouldering labor and care responsibilities are affected by their economic security. Three days extra is not going to begin to repair the growing gap between those able to attain it and those left out. How much do politicians expect from this proposal and do they link it to the broader question of economic inequality that complicates a sustainable and more equal labor-care balance further? In other words: what is the neoliberal impact on the partner leave debate? Is it in decline or not, and what does this mean for the potential of the welfare state to adapt to modern challenges, both in
3Or as the labor party (PvdA) prominent Rick van der Ploeg wrote in his 1992 inaugural speech: “Veel
beleidsmaatregelen zijn goedbedoeld en pogen de positie van de zwakkeren te verbeteren. Helaas wordt vaak over het hoofd gezien dat dergelijke maatregelen een efficiënte werking van de markt verstoren. Aan het ethisch principe van rechtvaardigheid zit nu eenmaal een prijskaartje.”
terms of inequality and labor-care balance? I want to take a closer look at how the proposal to extend partner leave with three days was debated in Parliament to see how current political discourse on the topic of work-care arrangements is ideologically informed.
In addition I feel that current academic explanations for the relationships between cultural practice and welfare policy have their limits, not in the least because they are often either mostly approached on a macro-level (statistic) or micro-level (culture). Comparative welfare state studies are abstract and lose sight of contextual nuance as different policies are crudely taken apart in order to compare them. I agree with Kremer as she analyzes a top-down effect on behavior is often assumed, possibly over-estimating possibilities for change (2007). In many cultural approaches on the other hand, the focus is on preferences, values and/or feelings that inform people's choices rather than abstract policy. They are rich in description and point out the diversity and internal inconsistencies of the ideals and beliefs people hold (f.i. Swidler's concept of 'cultural repertoires') or how they manage emotion as their ideals contrast with factual behavior or circumstance (f.i. Hochschild's feeling and framing rules). As a result macro-developments often loom large on the horizon, or as Tonkens says in her critique on Hochschild, they “emerge as an undesignated, powerful monster, lurking in the background, somehow responsible for much evil” (2012:200).
In her critique Tonkens also takes issue with the use of ideology as an explanatory tool. If societies functioned on ideologies alone she says, it would require only persuasion to realize social change. I think she is too quick to dismiss it. She proposes regimes as conceptual middle ground. However, regimes do not impose themselves either. They are constructed through collective conversations in which ideologies represent different factions and schools of thought. As linguistic creatures we use language to further or break with cultural definitions, categories and ultimately, practices. We link concepts, experience and knowledge to create interpretations and representations of reality that are more or less ideological. Politicians in particular reflexively align themselves with certain ideologies to generate political power (Van Dijk 1997). Kremer cites what she deems the most useful explanation of culture: “the noise of society’s conversation” (Inglis 2004, in Kremer 2007:62). What that means to me is how the concerted effect of all of our conversations, public and private, written and spoken, through the contingent ways they are connected and refer to each other, either as elaborations or refutations, creates the tacit whole that we experience as our cultural environment. As such discourse is to me the thread of the social fabric that is woven between material realities and our conscious conceptualization of them. This is why I think discourses can account for both micro-level cultural contradictions and heterogeneous meaning and the way social reality is reproduced, with or without modifications, on a macro level. I want to make the
conversation central and take a detailed look at how the crucial concepts of care, welfare, class and gender are (re)constructed in the debate. I want to take a specific look at the influence of neoliberal ideology on this construction. Ultimately I hope to glean some insight into how we can increase the possibilities for more progressive labor-care arrangements in the Netherlands.
2. R
ESEARCHQ
UESTIONSANDM
ETHODOLOGY2.1. Research Questions & Sub-questions
Before I will divulge my research question and sub-questions, a few introductory words are in order. Inspired by a critical discourse analysis method from Fairclough (more about this further in this chapter), I set about formulating 'objects of research' in close relation to relevant theory and literature. Looking for a guiding principle to order data and theory alike, four main themes
emerged: Welfare, Care, Class and Gender. As it turned out most theory dealt with a cross-section of these themes: f.i. Kremer's work revolves about the relationship between welfare and care (or to what extent care becomes a part of citizenship within different welfare states and the care ideal they engender). Hochschild's main interest would be care and gender (the balance between labor and care for women specifically). Standing writes about welfare and class (or how neoliberal welfare retrenchment gives rise to a new precarious class). Within the debate too these themes (after some initial detours) proved most adequate to form the basis of my coding scheme. The themes became so ingrained in every aspect of this thesis, research questions without them were no longer
conceivable. That is why I introduced them here, for better understanding of the questions.
Another main departure point for this thesis is Kremer's definition of full citizenship (2007). She argues care should be easy to include in Marshall's definition of citizenship: the ability to live “the life of a civilized being, according to the standard prevailing in society” (Marshall in Kremer 2007:18), though personally I would prefer the term 'dignified' over 'civilized' as the latter is bound to the legal vernacular of western nation states. In this definition Marshall leaves much room for varying standards. While every standard is contextual and never universal, I do agree with Kremer that the right to give and receive care should be such a standard, or as she puts it “working, caring, and earning should be available and viable options at the same time” (2007:39). I would argue this further entails an important role for welfare states, especially in the context of capitalist production. I suspect this puts me at odds with many classic liberals who feel citizenship is best protected by individual freedom, also from an overbearing state. This political opposition is an important part of my thesis as partner leave is a welfare arrangement aimed at improving the right to care.
I want to investigate if closer inspection of the Dutch political debate around partner leave can shed light on the current stand-off between the wish to create more labor-care equality between men and women and the limited amount of change that is thus far achieved. Specifically, I will be looking at the role of the liberal revival, or 'neoliberalism', that influenced welfare states in the past couple of decades. Where in the debate on the partner leave proposal can neoliberal ideology be
detected and what are the consequences for including care in citizenship? My main research question is:
What is the influence of neoliberal ideology on the political discourse concerning Minister Asscher's recent proposal to expand paid partner leave?
With the following sub-questions:
How can neoliberal ideology be described for analytical purposes? (Chapter 3)
How are welfare, care, class and gender, and the relationships between them, theorized in sociological literature to gain a deeper understanding of the debate? (Chapter 4)
Where does neoliberal ideology conflict with the integration of care into citizenship? (Chapter 4)
How are welfare, care, class and gender reconstructed in the political debate and where can a neoliberal influence be found? (Chapter 5)
What does this mean for the integration of care into Dutch citizenship (Chapter 6)?
2.2. Discourse Analysis
2.2.1. Discourse Analysis In Sociological Research
What is meant by discourse depends on the level of analysis (Ruiz Ruiz 2009). On the level of utterances or content, discourse analysis refers to textual analysis and it is as Gee and Handford say “the study of language in use” (2012: 1). Secondly, the enunciation level asks of the researcher to understand the text in terms of social practices, their origins and their aims. The context can be described as the circumstances and actors that produced the text (situational) and the other texts that it refers to or enters into dialogue with (intertextuality) (Ruiz Ruiz 2009). Discourse as such is not a neutral reflection of reality in language, but “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (Jorgensen & Philips 2002). Fairclough describes this level as the order of discourse, or the configuration of “genres, discourses and styles” that is specific to a certain field (e.g. medical discourse, that has certain conventions pertaining to legitimate sources and content of medical knowledge and proper professional conduct) (Fairclough 2012). Lastly, the third level is the sociological level. This goes beyond understanding how the text came to be, but what it implies. It interprets the text(s) as a specific moment in (re-)creating social reality, as part of a wider social development (Ruiz Ruiz 2009). It is the more general way in which “meaning-making [is] an element of the social process” (Fairclough 2012:11) and which Fairclough for better distinction from more mundane uses of discourse, refers to as semiosis.
Discourse analysis fits within a constructionist approach (Jorgensen & Philips 2002). The ontological premise considers social reality not as an objective reality that answers to pre-existing rules. Rather social reality is formed by contingent, dialectical relationships where cause and effect cannot easily be separated. To know this reality, a researcher cannot trust on her or his observational skills alone as the way reality enters into our consciousness is formed by our own specific
submersion in it. The knowledge, experience, associations and concepts we use to dissect and categorize reality are formed by countless engagements with events, texts and conversations, which in turn are contingent on our broader cultural environment. As you engage discourse analytically, you engage a genealogy of cultural and intellectual knowledge within yourself and within the topic of your analysis. The social scientist is faced with the task of estranging her/himself from habituated conceptions and interpretations of reality. This makes social scientists investigating discourses especially dependent on theory and methodology which is why abundant theorizing and rigorous exploration of the data is prescribed by most, if not all, discourse analysts (Fairclough 2012; Ong 2011; Ruiz Ruiz 2009; Silverman 2006; Timmermans & Tavory 2012).
What this means for social research is, as Silverman puts it, to go beyond the texts as a resource for information on what the author means or what it means to the reader, but to treat them instead as topics (2006). The researcher must be not so much interested in what the text says, what that means and whether that is true or not, but what effect it has in the context (or: order of
discourse) of its origin.
2.2.2. Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) will form the foundation of my methodology. CDA focuses on the very close dialectical relationship between reality on the one hand and on the other, ideological perceptions of those realities that in turn have their impact on the reconstruction of reality
(Jorgensen & Philips 2002). The renowned critical discourse analyst Fairclough describes it as follows:
“Take for example the commonsensical construal of public finances as being in all essentials analogous to household budgets, a construal beloved by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and by many other politicians, so that for instance governments have to.‘budget and save’ just as households do. This is open to normative critique as a false claim, in that the analogy does not stand up to serious economic scrutiny, and as an ideological one, in the sense that it is a discourse that can contribute to sustaining an unjust and inequitable socioeconomic order.” (Fairclough 2012:10)
The focus on ideology and its effect on the extent to which inequity is allowed to persist, is
of neoliberal thought on contemporary texts (Block, Gray & Holborow 2012). A focus on ideology in discourse is complicated and the difference between them at times confusing. One could define ideology as to include virtually every representation of reality if you take the constructed nature and the continuous discursive reconstruction of reality to its epistemological end. There would not remain a reality to know and what then will be the difference between neoliberal ideology and neoliberal discourse? Holborow argues Fairclough loses sight of this when he describes neoliberal ideology as “both a system and discourse”(2012:7). She poses he under-theorizes neoliberalism leading to “the replacement of ideology by discourse [that] represents an epistemological shift which signals the displacement of the real in favor of the representational” (Holborow 2012:24). In other words: ideology refers to a specific representation of reality or an ideal, while discourse forms the actual nitty gritty hard work of writing and talking that ideal into existence.
The Discursive Hegemonic Conjuncture Of Neoliberalism
Gramsci's concept of hegemony (and hegemonic conjuncture to describe the current neoliberal crisis) is thankfully applied by Holborow and her co-authors to describe the settlement of an ideological conflict in society into common sense discourse. I suppose it also enlightens the difference between ideology and discourse. As neoliberal ideology became accepted by politicians and other authorities to be a useful guiding principle for policy, it became ever more concrete in systematic reform, detaching itself from idealist notions into common sense experience. The result was a (temporary) political consensus or hegemony concerning the best way to organize and rule society. Since the 2008 financial crisis some actual consequences of the idealist principles of neoliberalism have become apparent. This has caused opponents to raise their voices in criticism and protest and proponents to argue that the current implementation may fall short, but their specific articulation of liberalism is still the most viable or pragmatic solution (Block, Grey & Holborow 2012). At any rate, the routines and procedures engendered by the liberal revival have solidified and dissolving them to make place for something else, will require much political strife.
A Marxian Material Base In Discourse Analysis
The existence of a material base, to use a classical Marxian term, that discourses stand in dialectical relationship with, is a classic issue in discourse analysis. Laclau and Mouffe f.i. take the purist standpoint that everything is discourse. Despite our material existence, all our knowledge about matter and all the ways in which we organize production of commodities are linguistic agreements. That these discourses become more or less 'sedimented' in extensive physical spaces and
instruments, administrative offices or legislation, in their eyes does not diminish their discursive nature (Jorgensen & Philips 2002). I find it helpful to compare this to the idea of the multiverse:
every slight action or decision detaches our specific universe from the infinity of the multiverse. As linear beings we perceive a single reality, but if we could live without the limits of time and space we could see that a multitude of alternatives pre-exist and our own specific existence is just a temporary convergence of these different realities into a node that immediately gives rise to a new multitude of possibilities. Fairclough, despite Holborow's critique that he displaces the real with the representational, does not ascribe to this purist, almost transcendental view. In fact he emphasizes that semiosis is only one part of social reality and highly contingent on the other elements (social structures, practices and events) (2012). Philosophically I am drawn to the interpretation of Laclau and Mouffe, but practically I accept our specific 'node in space and time' as a reality that imposes itself as a singular, though not necessary, material base that we can discursively relate to in ways that are more or less ideological.
2.3. Data & Analysis: Fairclough's Four Stage Methodology
For this thesis I have studied and used a particular articulation of CDA by Fairclough as a starting point. In this approach he does not “sharply separate theory and method”, because in his view CDA is not a matter of simply applying a method, but a “trans-disciplinary process of theoretically constructing the object of research” (2012:13). Constructing the object of research is the ongoing analysis of the specific relationship between semiotic meaning-making and other elements of social reality ( pertaining to the discourse under research). In my case I have taken this to mean an
ongoing analysis of the demarcations and differences between political debate, neoliberal ideology, sociological theory and constituted realities - or context - in terms of existing arrangements,
practices and policy. I took Holborow's remarks about conflating ideology and discourse as fair warning to reflexively assess where and how neoliberal ideology appears to us in the
representations of reality employed by politicians and how this influences the semiotic reconstruction of the four themes.
Fairclough breaks down his methodology in four stages (Gee & Handford 2012). I have not followed them to the letter, specifically because Fairclough's approach is quite normative. He describes critical social analysis as “normative and explanatory critique” (2012:9) and departs from the formulation of a social wrong. To me this makes it hard to approach the texts as topics rather than resources. The effect of departing from a wrong is that you are tempted to assess the verity of the texts, or whether they adequately represent reality. This comes too close (though it is not entirely the same) to deciding on true or false. It would make me participant in rather than analyst of the debate (this effect is particularly strong because as a Dutch citizen I am also subject of the text and feel its impact). Aware of the pitfall that critique can become and end in itself, Fairclough's
stages and steps were useful in undertaking this study as they forced me into dialogue with methodology, theory and discursive topicality. I will use the stages as headings for the paragraphs below which specify my decisions on data selection and analytical structure.
2.3.1. Stage 1: Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspects.
This stage entails selecting a research topic that points up to a social wrong and to delimit and specify it. The overarching social wrong that is indicated by the partner leave proposal is the marginalization of care in society since women have entered the labor market. This topic can be trans-disciplinary and semiotically approached as the proposal is part of a political process that shapes citizenship within the Dutch welfare state and as such entails (normative) views on labor and care, (existing) welfare arrangements, employment markets and relations, gender roles and the role of the state. The second step is to construct 'objects of research' by theorizing them in a trans-disciplinary way. Beside studying relevant sociological theory on welfare, care, class and gender, I have delved into economic theory, neoliberal ideology and the useful formulation of key concepts such as citizenship, ideology and regimes. This object construction resulted in a problematization of the themes that became the last paragraph of chapter 4 (4.6.).
2.3.2. Stage 2: Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.
This stage pertains to the realization phase of the research project. Much of it overlaps with the traditional methodological aspects of data selection and analysis. The first step of this stage is to analyze dialectical relationships between semiosis and other social elements. This I have taken as a rather complex way of saying the researcher has to deconstruct the specific representation of reality in the texts, taking into account the context of their origin. It relates to Silverman's (2006) assertions on the need to funnel all possible sources for your dataset into a concise and homogeneous package of original texts that can answer a specific research question. Law proposals are political texts that (potentially) shape legal circumstances for citizens. They are formulated within the bounds of government pacts (especially in the coalition politics of the Netherlands) and have to be strategically convincing to be passed as law. Representing reality in politics is not so much an endeavor of being precise and exhaustive, but to find a way of presenting the issue that enough parties can align themselves behind it. In the case of partner leave this might be a focus on family values, bridging inequalities between citizens or increasing labor participation of women. The ultimate political moment (apart from elections) is when a proposal is voted into law. This means the proposal has to be realistic in terms of feasibility and address an issue deemed important enough to warrant the investment of implementation. As such the texts provided by the responsible Minister
should form a coherent argument, supplied with relevant facts and advice from legitimate
organizations (State Council, Academic Advisory Board, statistical data and so on). As I shall show, these elements play a part in shaping the discussion and possible outcomes.
Data Selection & Coding
Secondly the researcher has to narrow down the specific texts and categories for their analysis. What your data can tell you is dependent on the selection of texts and who produced them for what purpose (see Silverman). I looked at all types of texts commenting on partner leave, or as it is sometimes referred to, paternity leave. I explored the significance of (popular) media texts, considered opinion articles in newspapers, advice documents from relevant social organizations (such as Women Inc or the Bernhard van Leer Foundation), reports from political advice councils and so on. Every genre had interesting aspects, but some told stories about different cultural beliefs (media debate), the interests of specific parties (social partners and organizations), were so elaborate as to defy in-depth analysis (advice reports) or not publicly available (internal documents from the Ministry itself).
I kept coming back to the question of three days extra: how does a proposal that aims to help overcome gender gaps in care and labor practices amount to three days of paid leave? Focusing on this question condensed the dataset to a distinct genre and order of discourse. In this case that would be the political order with their policy reports from advice councils, legislative proposals,
explanatory memorandi, parliament debates, ministerial letters to parliament and commentaries by social partners. As policy reports from advice councils tend to be rather bulky (100 pages is no exception) I mainly used these as background information. For my final set of texts I settled on the documents within the government file 34617: Expansion of partner leave in order to strengthen the bond between partner and child. This is a relatively small but very relevant dataset that is bound to the specific realm of political debate in parliament. It furthermore represents the most direct source of how this specific debate reflects on contemporary conditions of labor and care and to what effect these reflections amount. The addition of two related letters to Parliament provided more insight into the background of the partner leave proposal. These letters inform Parliament on the progress of the 'Labor & Care Act' (Wet Arbeid en Zorg or WAZO) that was at the time part of Minister Asscher's portfolio. The partner leave proposal is part of this act that seeks to modernize labor and care arrangements. A full list of texts is added below (table 2.1).
Table 2.1.: Dataset: list of texts
Voorstel van Wet incl. memorie
van toelichting (2 delen) 25-11-2016 11 Asscher MSZW kamerstuk
~ voorstel van wet kamerstuk nr. 34617-2
~ memorie van toelichting kamerstuk nr. 34617-3
Advies Raad van State (2 delen) 8 MSZW kamerstuk nr. 34617-4 ~ advies Raad van State (deel 1
van 2) 11-11-2016 5 Donner (vice-vz RvS) RvS No.W12.16.0277/I II
~ nader rapport bij wetsvoorstel
('deel 2 van 2') 25-11-2016 4 Asscher MSZW 2016-0000256202 Nota n.a.v. verslag (incl.
34617-5 Verslag vaste kamercommissie van de vz. A.
Bosman) 27-1-2017 24 Asscher MSZW kamerstuk nr. 34617-6 Nota van wijziging (uitbreiding
kraamverlof) 27-1-2017 4 Asscher MSZW kamerstuk nr. 34617-7 Kamerbrief 'Arbeid en Zorg' 31-8-2015 3 Asscher MSZW kamerbrief 2015-0000233238 Kamerbrief 'Arbeid en Zorg' 16-12-2016 15 Asscher MSZW kamerbrief 2016-0000268212 Antwoord kamervragen van lid
Carola Schouten (CU) 31-08-2015 2 Asscher MSZW kamerbrief 2015-0000240594
After selecting the texts, reviewing my literature and some initial open coding of the texts and memo writing in Atlas.ti, I brought the complexity of the debate and all its elements down to my four main themes: Welfare, Care, Class and Gender. Not only was I able to categorize my theory using cross-sections between these four themes, almost all segments of the texts could be coded in this manner. A table containing this initial operationalization scheme is added in the appendix (app. 3). During the process of coding the data based on this scheme, I kept a separate methodological log to track my decisions. Also I engaged in extensive memo writing, especially on the level of quotes which aided my memory and later interpretation. The iterative process and continual review of the literature helped to increase my distance to the texts and served to defamiliarize myself with common interpretations and break with habituated perception (Timmerman & Tavory 2012).
I further devised a set of more detailed coding to specify who or what or which relationship between them was being discussed. Some examples are aspects of inequality such as income and gender, or responsible parties such as the state or employers. Together these formed my first coding set. However, already early on I added a code termed 'Bureaucratic Considerations' for many segments of text that were not relevant representations of reality, but policy measures, budgetary concerns and administrative implementation considerations. Soon this category grew out of proportion. Further analysis of text segments coded 'Bureaucratic Considerations' revealed fertile
ground for analyzing the influence of neoliberal ideology on political semiosis. Most of these codes pertained to the reconstruction of welfare as they described more or less concrete policy proposals, their consequences and their limitations. I transformed the code into a category, 'Welfare',
containing several sub-codes.
This revelation prompted a full revision of my coding scheme departing from the cross-sectional logic back to the four main themes. A coding category (or 'Family' within Atlas.ti terminology) I added in a later stage of analysis labeled 'Aims' contained mostly views on (the benefits of) care and parental sharing, so I decided to relabel it 'Care'. The family of inequality-codes mostly described different aspects of socioeconomic status discussed in the proposal. Evidently, I relabeled it 'Class'. The only inequality that was not an aspect of class, was the code 'M/F inequality'. Gender proved to be an inter-sectional category as parents and employees, citizens and partners can be all be divided into men and women. Gender is not so much a topic in this debate, but discursive gender reconstruction emerges as a consequence of other issues. In other words: it is not so much about a 'natural' or desired role based on gender, but the actual inequalities between men and women are interpreted by politicians where they empirically appear under
socioeconomic and care related topics. The codes under my four main code families are derivatives from the codes yielded by initial open coding, re-defined and polished within a continuous
development of my objects of research among which the articulation of the neoliberal perspective. This is why in chapter 5 (5.1) I return once more to how my codes relate to the problematization of the themes into the 'wrongs' discussed in 4.6. Table 2.2. contains the final coding scheme.
Table 2.2.: Analytical Coding Scheme
Family Codes Used
WELFARE Customization 25 Contains measures/proposals referring to 'Maatwerk' Decentralization 6 Turned out to be an elaboration of Customization By Mutual Agreement 26 Contains measures/proposals referring to 'In
overleg'
Raising Awareness 21 Contains measures/proposals referring to 'Voorlichting'
Less Bureaucracy 34 Discussion about the complexity, generic components, employer costs
Not Enough Government Budget 9 Argument against expanding number of days (CARE – Proposed Leave Days Too Modest) Implementation specifics 45 Less relevant discussion about legal/formalistic
details (consequence for pensions, employees abroad and so on)
CARE Psychological Benefits 28 Refers to individualized discourse on care that emphasizes the psychological well-being of citizens
Parental Sharing 36 Refers to sections of text where the ideal of parental sharing is promoted
Work/Care Balance 53 Refers to benefits of care other than psychological Proposed Leave Days Too Modest 14 Refers to the critique on the length of partner leave
as proposed
CLASS Employment Status 27 Refers to discussions about the exclusion of the self-employed
Education Level 4 Refers to arguments correlating education level to care leave
Income 11 Refers to arguments correlating income to care leave
Sectoral Agreement 20 Refers to arguments correlating collective labor agreements (CAO) to care leave
GENDER M/F Equality 42 Contains the instances where equality between men and women is discussed, either as problem or goal. In my analysis I furthermore paid attention to instances of gender-neutral or gender-specific language.
The final step of stage 2 involves carrying out analysis of the texts. Fairclough directs researchers to do so both inter-discursively and a linguistic/semiotic analysis. Within the scope of this thesis an inter-discursive analysis (how genres and styles develop within a certain order of discourse, f.i. how the representation of the issue has shifted from earlier attempts of expanding care leave for
partners), was not possible. As I have deviated from Fairclough's more normative approach which risks conflation of ideology and discourse or a right or wrong assessment, I have focused on the construction of the themes through the political representations of reality and the implicit ideas on the functioning of this reality present in proposed measures and argumentation. Specifically I have traced where these representations and ideas constitute neoliberal ideology.
2.3.3. Stage 3: Consider whether the social order 'needs' the social wrong
Stage 3 asks the researcher to consider why it is inherent to the current social order that it exists. This stage offers explanatory critique by asking what the social function could be. It is a systemic analysis that is complex precisely because Fairclough conflates ideology and system. Fairclough suggest as an example to imagine whether the wrong can be solved within the system of capitalism (2012:15). In my case I have reworked this to consider whether the political discursive
reconstruction of the four main themes is endemic to the tenets of neoliberalism. However,
neoliberalism is not the only feature of the debate nor does it fully account for all aspects of Dutch welfare and labor markets. I have taken this stage to place the debate within the recent development
of the Dutch welfare state that I would describe as heavily influenced by neoliberalism. How is the current debate impacted by neoliberal ideology and does this constitute a break with recent
reformative trends?
2.3.4. Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles
What is necessary for the wrong to be addressed? This stage is meant to turn the normative and explanatory critique into constructive clarification and/or proposals for further research to expand knowledge on questions that could not be answered.
3. S
KETCHINGN
EOLIBERALISMIn order to assess the extent of neoliberal influence on the partner leave debate it is necessary to draw some contours around neoliberalism. As Holborow emphasizes this is not a job that can be done with much precision as neoliberal ideology has become a stable feature of a wider setting of settled common sense experience. She describes neoliberalism as a melting pot of economic, political and social theories (Holborow 2012). In this chapter I will shed some light on this melting pot by approaching neoliberalism in terms of its origin, content, politics and eventually as an ideology. This chapter will be concluded with some neoliberal tenets that appear to us in daily political discourse.
3.1. The Origin Of Neoliberalism
The term neoliberalism was coined in 1938 by Alexander Rüstow at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium held in Paris. This symposium, held in reaction to the threats of fascism and communism, was attended by an intellectual avant-garde of liberally oriented scientists. The participants, among others Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, decided to promote the term as a third way in between free market and socialism because of the diminishing influence of liberalism in the political national-socialist context of those days (CIS 2009). However, this initiative was overruled by World War II and the term only came back in the nineties, now used by critics of the growing influence of free-market politics.
Foucault describes in lectures given at the Collège de France in 1978, adapted for publication by Lemke, the dispute between the German and American school on neoliberalism (Lemke 2001). The Germans (or 'ordo-liberals') gave the state a substantial role within an economic free market model (the social market economy), intended to offset the negative impact of economic exchange. For the Germans there is no innate logic to the movements of capital, or markets, but these dynamics are guided by external forces. As such there is not one form of capitalism, but it can be seen as an open economic-institutional system subject to political changes. The state does not stand in opposition to capitalism, in fact the state is an essential precondition (Lemke 1997:242-250). The American Chicago School of Economic rejects state interventions and the political supervision of markets. Instead the markets should lead as these are guided by internal laws that seek to create a natural balance. They see both the public and social domain as essentially economic processes, governed by these market rules.
Absent from American neoliberalism is a sociological interpretation. Lemke clearly distinguishes sociological from neoliberal thinking in the quote below, which also illustrates the
philosophical differences between German and American neoliberalism:
Während die Liberalen die Gesellschaft als eine (freiwillige) Assoziation der Individuen begriffen, wobei das Ganze aus der Summe seiner Einzelteile bestand, auf die sie immer wieder zurückzuführen war ….. dreht die soziologische Objektivierung das liberale Verhältnis der Summe und ihrer Teile um: Die Gesellschaft ist nicht die Vereinigung individueller Subjekte, sondern wird selbst zum Subjekt mit eigenem Gesetzen und
Regelmäβigkeiten, die sich den Individuen als eine ihnen fremde und äuβerliche Realität auferlegt. (1997:217) Another founding neoliberal thinker that was particularly opposed to the idea of an independent social reality that impinges on free individuals, was Ayn Rand. In her most important work Atlas Shrugged she sketches a Utopian world in which a perfect balance takes shape by egoistic individuals led by self-interests and competition. In this utopia there is no room for solidarity or collectivism, the world revolves around making money, with no government to subsequently steal it. Rand had many influential admirers, among them American presidents Ford and Reagan and the president of the American Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan. The latter especially for decades enforced neoliberal financial policies with deregulation of markets all over the world (Achterhuis 2010).
3.2. The Content Of Neoliberalism
Minimal StateHarvey, in A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005), describes the basic premise of neoliberalism as follows:
"Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional
framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. (...) if markets do not exist (in areas such as land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution) then they must be created, by state action if necessary. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture." (2005:2)
The limited role of the state as preserver of an institutional framework enabling free markets to thrive is a useful notion for analysis. The idea of a minimal state characterizes liberalism,
sometimes to the point of outright antipathy against it, as in the case of Rand. However this is not an inevitable consequence of neoliberalism as we have seen in the debate between ordo-liberals and the Chicago School of Economics. Common ground is found though in the ideal of a state that only sets rules for the game and never a norm for the outcome of capitalist trade (Lemke 1997). This is a result of the guiding principle of market efficiency.
Market Efficiency
Though the extent to which the state has a role in shaping capitalism is subject to debate, state interventions based on the fulfillment of collective needs are commonly considered
counterproductive in neoliberal thought. The market dynamics of supply and demand will allow every citizen to contract every need. Holborow states the most important claim by neoliberalism is that free market economics has the status of natural law (2012:18). The central assumption is that free markets optimize progress and the balance between creation and distribution of wealth: progress because competition stimulates producers to make ever better products and services, and balance because incongruence between demand and supply disappears under influence of buying and producing individuals seeking their own interest (Standing 2011). Neo-classical economic theories, expounded by f.i. Friedman, warn that socialist states with income transfers hamper this market efficiency, decreasing the wealth of a nation. Unemployment allowances f.i. disturb the labor market because wages stay unnaturally high, introducing inefficiencies and less prosperity.
The Human As Entrepreneur
In Lemke's reworking of Foucault's Collège de France lectures the latter gives an explanation of neoliberal thinking on labor and human resources. The modern practice of 'Human Resource Management' is telling: on the one hand it expresses economically productive human beings as (financially relevant) objects that can be plugged in and out when necessary and on the other hand it reflects that the individual itself manages his or her human capital. Money earned with labor, Foucault explains, must not be seen as salary, but as reimbursement for lending this human capital to the benefit of a certain economic production. The worth of human capital is unique and bound to the individual as from childhood onward innate qualities develop under influence of nurture, love, education, training, experience, information and so on. In this view the employee is not dependent on an employer, but he or she is an entrepreneur. By exploiting one's capital this entrepreneur seeks to add value for profit, taking responsibility for all the investment decisions in his or her life. A government should give this entrepreneur the space needed to optimize the fruits of his or her labor (Lemke 1997; 2001). As the socioeconomic position of a citizen is individualized, a government's main role is to make sure each individual citizen has a fair opportunity to freely exploit their human capital. Shared fates and collective needs, or in other words a concept of class, become meaningless in this human resource discourse.
3.3. Neoliberal Politics
importantly, within international financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Hemerijck (2013) outlines its objectives: balanced government budgets, low inflation, stable currencies, privatization, labor market reform (flexibilization) and welfare retrenchment. Mascini (2012) thinks neoliberalism has become a “reflex” in political control of industries. In his article on the practice of responsive regulation4, he calls the one-sided focus on and analysis of only the formal aspects and
not the normative implications “congruent with the dominant neoliberal reflex to depoliticize the regulation of capitalist economies” (2012). Depoliticization to me is a consequence of the neoliberal prohibition on collective norm-setting. The outcome of the game is not to be controlled as this impinges on both market efficiency and individual freedom. Key policies accordant to these objectives were and are “to free the markets from regulations, free trade, no state interventions and small government, strong (private) property rights and marketization of public services” (Hemerijck 2013:127). This has turned clients into customers, or in the terms used by Tonkens, welfare states transformed from welfare-recipient regimes with benefit transfers to active citizenship regimes in which individual citizens have to manage their own welfare needs as independently as possible (2012).
Third Way Politics In The Netherlands
Neoliberal politics in the Netherlands stands for the wave of privatization, state retrenchment and deregulation that took place in the 1990s. Oudenampsen (2016) describes them as part of the Third Way politics that liberalized previously state-run public services such as the national railway and the markets for energy and health insurances. The Dutch welfare system was restructured drastically from 1998 onward under the Pemba Act, part of which entailed marketization of unemployment insurances and activation policies, making welfare much more dependent on labor market participation (Oudenampsen 2016; Berghman et al. 2003). The marketization of services within areas that in the 1960s and 1970s had become part of the public domain under socialist governments (especially under Labor Prime Minister Den Uyl), shows how Dutch politics have become
compliant with neoliberal ideas about the efficiency of free markets and non-intervention policies of the state. It will be interesting to see how much of this is still present in the debate around partner leave.
3.4. Neoliberalism As Ideology
Before turning to Holborow's fruitful ideology approach to neoliberalism, I will spend a few lines on a startling view on neoliberalism seen through the mathematics of system optimization. In an
4 Responsive regulation refers to a non-authoritative style of government regulation that in the first instance seeks
online column scientific engineer Brigitte van Gerven (2012) describes neoliberal assumptions about self-optimizing market efficiency as a mathematical optimization problem. She argues neoliberalism does not fulfill the most elementary preconditions: neither goal nor constraints are described or operationalized. She gives the simple example of calculating the optimal speed limit on a public road. The goal is to minimize collisions. Without (normative) constraints such as a
maximum of time it may take to get from A to B, the result of the model will always be a speed limit of 0, which is hardly a satisfactory result. Without reflection on the goal and constraints any optimization result can be right or wrong, whether it does justice to actual reality or not. Holborow puts it as follows:
“The gap between what [neoliberalism] proclaims and what its promoters actually do has always characterized neoliberalism, which is, no doubt, why definitions have proved so difficult. When neoliberalism coincided with what appeared to be an economic boom […] it was often taken to mean a whole range of phenomena: an economic doctrine, a political mindset, but also the actual working of a self-regulating market, privatization, financial deregulation, even an entirely new phase of capitalism. Perhaps due to its widespread presence, neoliberalism seemed to stand for a social representation and a social reality at the same time.” (2012:14) She argues neoliberalism is a representation of reality that is constantly and diffusely reiterated and adapted on account of events with the claim they comply with a neoliberal worldview. This process creates different strands and degrees of fundamentalism within the ideology as a whole. As such neoliberal thought takes the form of a 'repertoire' in the sense of Swidler's concept of culture as a diverse set of 'habits, skills and styles' out of which social actors can compose 'strategies for action' (Swidler 1986). A lack of sociological and philosophical
reflection on the truth of the representation, suggests that we are dealing with natural, independent and neutral developments in society, hardly to be discussed or criticized. The many contradictions between neoliberal assertions and what actually happens, constitute it as an ideology (Holborow 2012).
Holborow defines ideology as a very specific representation of reality: “a one-sided representation;
articulated from a particular social class but constructed as a world-view; part-believed and part-rejected;
influenced by real world events;
coextensive with language but distinct from it.” (Holborow 2012:29)
Holborow does not align herself with Laclau and Mouffe, not everything is discourse (“real life events”). She also does not see ideology as a purely linguistic exercise (“co-extensive with
language, but distinct from it”). The material base is not absent from ideology, rather in its specific representation it tries to conserve parts of that material reality that protect the interests of the specific social class that articulates it, opposes the forces that threaten those interests and uses other (authoritative) representations (such as classic economic theory) in reality to substantiate its claim. Neoliberalism fits with the interests of a dominant business class that has much to gain from representing society as driven by the market. At the same time the idea that the market resembles natural law is partly accepted, partly rejected (see also Lemke). The market logic is deemed
acceptable in some sectors, but not in others (Holborow 2012). This constant process of adaptation and reformulation in conversation with other interests, causes ideas to be slowly replaced by new ones. Some elements within those ideas are temporarily sidelined or even forgotten, as Pateman and also Standing would argue happened to the concept of class.
This may not come as much of a surprise, but many aspects of market theory have not proven themselves in practice. Hemerijck (2013) offers convincing evidence that important
assumptions do not hold up to the test. Furthermore, the economic crisis of 2008 in which enormous sums of public money were required to save the financial system from a total collapse, exposed the neoliberal premise that free markets naturally seek balance as problematic to say the least. In light of this, one would expect that the fundamental belief in the self-regulating properties of markets would have been critically assessed as ideological. What fascinates Holborow is that this did not happen (2012). At least not far beyond the incidental level, as the quote below from Alan
Greenspan's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shows: Greenspan: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms… Waxman: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working. Greenspan: Absolutely, precisely. You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. (Coll 2008)
3.5. Neoliberalism In Political Discourse
Foucault coined the term 'governmentality', a concept that describes both a manner of exercising state power and a historical development of an authoritative and disciplinary state towards an administrative state that finds its way into the internalized modes of thinking of its citizens. This type of social control rests on the dissemination of political knowledge by the state, concerning the functioning of the state and directing the self-government capabilities of its citizens (Lemke 2001). In this view an inevitable part of governing is to choose forms of representation of a contested item in such words and pictures that a (wished for) solution already announces itself. It will be
