The Captured Citizen: A Critique Of Social Marketing
Stream 23: Critical Marketing: Visibility, Inclusivity, Captivity
Christina-Effimia Raftopoulou
Manchester School of Management
UMIST
C.Raftopoulou@postgrad.umist.ac.uk
Doctoral Room
Manchester School of Management
UMIST
P.O. Box 88
Manchester M60 1QD
Tel.: 0776 23 25272
1
Abstract
This paper examines the Targeting Fraud campaign through a discourse
analytical framework and explores the ways the discourses of citizenship
and welfare are utilised in social marketing campaigns in order to support
their normative claims and existing power/ knowledge mechanisms. The
aim is to make as more aware of the way that language operates within
social marketing.
Introduction
Governments are increasingly making use of advertising in order to communicate to the
public information, values and ideas about social issues and problems. Social
advertisements are employed to promote a variety of causes, ranging from health issues
(anti-drug, AIDS prevention), to social issues (recycling, crime-prevention), political issues
(participation in elections) and cultural ideas (the promotion of American values to Muslim
countries (Klein 2002)). While commercial advertisers address and construct primarily our
consumer identity (Gabriel 1996), governmental advertisers address and construct our
identity as citizens. They promote their premises on the grounds of personal and social
well-being, they address the citizen, to contribute to this well-being and thus reciprocate to
society (Buurma 2000, Lupton 1999).
The promotion of ideas and social values is not a new practice, but the introduction of the
principles and experience of commercial advertising to the ‘markets of the mind’ (Lavidge
1970) systematises and organises these efforts in specific ways. Social advertisements
affect and shape the way in which we perceive our social realities and identities and this
paper explores this aspect through the examination of the recent anti benefit-fraud
campaign run by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). The objective is to
uncover the ways in which the use of advertising influences our public life and our
participation in it. A Critical Discourse Analytical framework is employed in order to
examine the construction of social identities, the representation of social relations, the
depiction of social processes and the formulation of social or common-shared values in
this campaign. In the theoretical part, I explore the wider context of this topic which relates
to welfare provision and its development in the past few years and examine the problem
of benefit fraud though this context. Then, I look at the notion of citizenship, which is
inextricably bound with welfare provision and examine it as an ideological discourse.
Finally, I briefly mention some of the basic ideas the activity itself, that is, social marketing.
2
Theoretical framework:
Context
Welfare provision, welfare reform and the emergence of the benefit fraud
problem
Benefit fraud is a problem directly associated with welfare provision and the systems and
mechanisms that organise and regulate this provision. Most writers associate the idea of
welfare with notions of ‘well-being’ (for example Sugden 1981, Titmuss 1969, Spicker
1995, Barry 1999) and with the principle that society should provide for the well-being of
all its members. George and Wilding (1994) suggest that ‘well-being’ can be understood
in various ways by different people in different societies, according to their political, social
and moral philosophies. Hewitt (1992) proposes that well-being is a concept that develops
historically: what was considered as well-being at a particular point in time may differ
significantly to what we perceive as well-being nowadays.
As well-being is not perceived in a universal sense, it is a rather complicated task to
identify the ways in which it can be achieved. This task involves an evaluation of
individual needs according to some generic standards, in order to identify which are the
most crucial for an individual’s participation in social life (Carter 1998). Gough (1993)
suggests that these needs are socially constructed, as they are the product of interaction
and political conflict between various social groups, which defines over the years what is
perceived as a problem and who is responsible to cater for these needs. For example
nowadays, it is widely assumed that all citizens of a country have the right to assistance
so that they do not have to face large and unexpected decline in their income (Barr and
Coulter 1990).
Wiseman (1992) locates the need for welfare provision in the existence of a ‘caring
feeling’, a sense of moral obligation to other members of society, to give them the
essential resources that will give them the opportunity to participate fully in social life.
Wilson and Wilson (1992) also associate welfare provision with notions of humanity,
community, social solidarity, fairness, equality and altruism. Moreover, Titmuss (1969)
suggests that welfare provision is needed for a society to survive as an organic whole
(Titmuss 1969) and to preserve its social, political and economic order and cohesion
(Spicker 1995). Barr and Coulter (1990) also note that welfare can be seen as a form of
social control which creates social values (e.g. the value of work) and shapes social
identities (e.g. as deserving or not) and relationships (e.g. between taxpayers and the
poor).
Well-being is thus understood in a social context as we live in an organised, rulegoverned society where our lives are influenced by the lives of others. There are opposing
views as to whether it is society in its organised forms to manage welfare provision and
George and Wilding (1994) examine the variety of approaches from different political
viewpoints. The main ways of providing welfare are identified by Pinch (1997) as: the
family, charitable and voluntary organisations, private markets and the state and
Cochrane (1998) adds to these ‘self-help’. During the past few years, under the neoliberal agenda, well-being is believed to be best achieved though the freedom of the
market rather than through state intervention (Rodger 2000) and there has been a shift
towards individual responsibility and through allocation of some services to the private
sector (Hughes and Lewis 1998).
3
However, the neo-liberal agenda suggests that well-being is achieved though individual
choices which are better exercised through the freedom of the market rather than state
intervention (Pinch 1997; Rodger 2000, Hughes and Lewis 1998). Welfare is the locus of
many debates, and has been undergoing significant reforms in the past few years, to
respond to the new realities of the changing social economic and political conditions.
Peck and Theodore (2000) discuss how these changes are reflected in the case of
unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits levels have dropped significantly since
the 1980s and rules of entitlement are more tightly drawn and certain jobseekers are
required to undertake work or training in order to receive benefits. Cochrane (1998) also
analyses the consequences of the notion of ’workfare’ that aims to encourage the
unemployed to return to the workforce through providing benefits as a temporary measure,
a safety net for a small group of people. There has been a shift from unemployment
benefits to jobseeker’s allowance which implies, according to Novak (1997) that the
people receiving them should be actively looking for jobs.
The increasing utilisation of market principles and commercially modelled forms of
organisation in the public sector that change the way we view welfare. Clarke and
Newman (1997) argue that the consumer has been the central reference point for public
sector reform. Du Gay and Salaman (1992) also discuss the ways in which the public
sphere has been dominated by the ‘enterprise culture’ which is the expression of the
colonisation of the public sphere by the market. They argue that this becomes apparent in
the language used, and political debates are centred on enterprise rationality, around
arguments of ‘effectiveness’, ‘targets’, ‘stakeholders’. In the case of welfare benefits for
instance, there have been continuous efforts to improve the system’s efficiency and
prevent loss through false claims. Thus, the issue of benefit fraud received much more
attention and several actions to deter fraud have been taken (cf. Social Security
Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997047.htm ).
The discourse of the enterprise has thus penetrated the discourse of welfare and it has
also changed the way we view our identity as citizens and our relation to the state and
public services (Fairclough 2000). I will briefly mention some of the main ideas related to
citizenship, since it is through citizenship that our relationship with the welfare state is
constructed.
The discourse of citizenship
The discourse of welfare is supported through the notion of citizenship. Being a citizen
automatically grants someone the right to welfare provision and, at the same time, the
citizen has an obligation to contribute and support the welfare state in order to make its
existence possible (Lister 2001).,As Yeatman (2000) notes, citizenship hence, is in the
centre of debates over social rights, welfare issues, social membership and social identity.
Turner (1993a) sees citizenship as the set of juridical, political, economic and cultural
practices that define a person as a competent member of society, and which shapes the
flow of resources to persons and social groups (emphasis added). Following van Dijk
(1995) I examine citizenship as an ideological discourse, organised by the opposition that
defining the ‘ingroup’ [citizens] and ‘outgroup’ [non-citizens, second-class citizens]. This
4
distinction is based upon elements of both a national identity and a human identity but
also through the individual’s ability to fulfil the role by carrying out the obligations attached
to it.
Faulks (2000) views citizenship as one of the most important concepts of social life, for
the exploration of issues of belonging, identity and personality in the modern world, as it
defines the way we perceive ourselves and others, the rights and obligations that social
groups have and the resources that are available to us and, most importantly, it forms a
basis for human governance. Roger (2000) adds that the discourse of citizenship is
utilised to promote the principles of achievement, consistency and social interdependence
for social institutions and social policies.
This social membership includes the existence of rights and responsibilities for all
members (Turner 1993). The rights that citizenship entails can be in the form of access to
resources, material, symbolic and political. Focusing on the symbolic resources, Shotter
(1993) suggests that citizenship plays an important role in the way we perceive ourselves
as members of society and the ways in which we understand our participation in social life
(Elliot 2001). Thus citizenship helps form the basis of social relationships and shapes
social identities. Bulpett (2002) provides an analysis of exclusion within different welfare
regimes though the utilisation of the discourse of citizenship.
Citizenship also contains a normative aspect as it is related to a set of values such as
equality, fairness, social solidarity, interdependence (Faulks 2000). Citizenship is also
constructive of common shared beliefs and values. As Lupton (1999) points out, citizens
are unceasingly encouraged to participate in social life and take responsibility for their
own actions to tackle a social problem. Citizenship provides hence a strong legitimising
basis for the achievement and preservation of consensual governance. It provides the link
between individual and common well-being. Social marketing campaigns often base their
claims on our sense of citizenship, the feelings of obligation we feel we have towards
society. I will now examine briefly some of the basic ideas behind social marketing
practices.
Activity
Social marketing
Social marketing is the extension of the marketing concept in other, non-commercial fields
related to social issues. Kotler and Levy (1969) suggested first that marketing is a
pervasive societal activity that can be applied to other than commercial organisations.
Social marketing campaigns are defined as organised efforts conducted by the change
agent, which intends to persuade the target adopters to change certain ideas, attitudes,
practices and behaviour (Kotler and Roberto 1989). Traditional marketing tools (such as
product, place, price, promotion) are defined in this new field (Crompton and Lamb 1986)
under the non-commercial perspective.
Social marketing campaigns have been often criticised in terms of the tactics used
(Andreasen 2001), unwanted consequences (Kotler, Roberto and Lee 2002), conflicting
interests (McFadyen, Stead and Hastings 2003) or the legitimacy of the premises of
specific campaigns (Novatorov and Crompton 2001). Most of this research is based on
the study of attitudes, choices, consequences, however, here, under a poststructuralist
5
perspective, the focus will be on language and the ways in which this is employed through
social marketing campaigns.
Method of analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Discourse analysis is becoming recently increasingly popular in management studies
(Alvesson and Karreman 2000). Elliot (1996) identifies discourse analysis as a potential
method for analysis in marketing, in exploring areas of persuasion, ideology, and conflict
within and around marketing. My focus here is on the process of identity construction,
social groupings’ formation and the ways in which the world is understood through these
within the Targeting fraud campaign. I examine the discourses that are mobilised for the
promotion of this particular cause and the process of legitimisation and normalisation. The
purpose of my analysis is to investigate the ways in which power abuse, dominance and
inequality are produced and reproduced through language. Therefore analysis is not
restricted on the text per se or the specific interaction, but, in accordance with Burman
and Parker (1993) and van Dijk (1993), on the consequences of discourse, the ways in
which the our social reality is produced and reproduced.
Discourse refers to ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’
(Foucault 1972 : 49), to patterns of meaning which organize the various symbolic systems
which people draw upon to communicate with each other (Parker 1999). Discourse
analysis is defined by Potter et al (1993) as a theory and a method of studying social
practices and the actions that constitute them through language.
There are different approaches to discourse analysis according to their focus, and
Alvesson and Karemman (2000) have organised them along two dimensions:
a) A focus on the relationship between discourse and meaning (broadly defined) and
b) An attentiveness to detail and specific context versus an interest in more
standardised forms of language use.
In this case, discourse is assumed to be linked to broader meaning (that is cultural and
individual ideas, ways of sense-making, cognition) and I am looking at the broader social
context.
Discourses are considered as a structuring and constitutive force that frames the way in
which we understand ourselves, processes, and relations and have close links with extralinguistic phenomena. The aim is to examine the broader themes that operate through this
campaign (such as welfare or citizenship) in order to identify and the ways in which
language arranges and naturalises our world and ourselves in specific ways.
Critical Discourse Analysis is a form of discourse analysis developed mainly by Fairclough,
Chouliaraki and Wodak (Fairclough 1989, 1992, Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999), which
focuses on the ways in which language features in social processes. It is particularly
interested in the study of social issues and problems and examines the changes that have
taken place in the political and social sphere and how these feature and influence
language use. It seeks to reveal the ways in which language is situated within social
relations of power and domination, the ways in which language works ideologically and
the negotiation of personal and social identities in their semiotic and linguistic aspect.
6
My analysis is concerned with the textual analysis (in terms of vocabulary, grammar and
structure) in order to explore the representations of the world, social relations, social
identities and social values as these are played out in the text. It also involves an
interdiscursive analysis, that is, analysis of the genres and discourse as these are worked
together within the text and an interactional analysis, that is, analysis of the text in terms
of the interaction. Genres are according to Fairclough (2001) diverse ways of acting and
producing social life in a semiotic mode and discourses are different representations of
social life according to the social actor’s positions.
The text is then located within the situational and institutional context which indicate the
orders of discourse used, that is, the semiotic aspect of particular social structures. This
part emphasises the social effects of discourse and the social determinants of discourse,
the ways they are produced and employed through dominant views of reality and the
ways in which they produce and stabilise social realities.
Analysis
Identities, representations, relations, values
Vocabulary
Following Fairclough (1989, 1995), I examine the Targeting Fraud text
(http://www.targetingfraud.gov.uk/ ) firstly in terms of the representations of social
identities, the world, social relations, and common-shared values that are employed in the
vocabulary, grammar and structure of the text.
The social groups that are identified are the benefit fraudsters, the valid benefit claimants,
the general public (citizens) and the government. Benefit fraudsters are generally linked
with wrongdoing (stealing, crime, wrong, unfair). They are defined through their antithesis
to valid benefit claimants (not entitled to-people who need it, dishonest- honest, different
kind of person) and they are in danger of being identified with them (§25, §26). They are
also excluded from the group of the citizens as the later is referred to mainly as ‘you’ while
benefit fraudsters are referred to in the third person (e.g. §5, §2). The benefit fraudster is
seen as doing something wrong to the general public and the other claimants. The social
group of benefit fraudsters is also associated with legal punishment (prosecuted,
punished, caught) establishing in this way their identity as offenders. The only exception
where the fraudsters are addressed directly is through the advertisement itself (we are on
to you).
Valid benefit claimants are constructed in terms of entitlement and need (§2, §10)
something which implies that those people who need help correspond to those who are
entitled to state benefits. They are portrayed in the text as the victims of benefit fraud but
they are not presented explicitly as a subdivision of the general public who are also
presented as victims of benefit fraud. This is evident through addressing the general
public mostly in the second person, while benefit claimants are addressed mainly in third
person (e.g. §5, §2). The reader would normally identify with the group of the general
public, as it is addressed to in the second person. However, there are instances where
the general public is referred to in the third person or indirectly (most people do not realise,
everyone’s problem), usually when negative values are associated, such as unawareness
of the facts about benefit fraud (§10), or when they are subjects to government’s action
(§10, §11).
7
The social group of citizens is not explicitly identified in the passage, but they are
constructed through the reference to ‘every household in Britain’ and ‘every taxpayer’.
The marginalisation of the benefit claimants from the rest of the public is also evident
through the reference to taxpayers as a separate group from those in need (§18 third
bullet point). Claimants are thus marginalised due to their inability to pay taxes in full.
In addition, the public is depicted as unaware of the facts (most people do not realise), as
opposed to the government (we know from research, we want people to realise) and as
possessing the wrong attitudes that the government can change through the campaign
(§10). The government is also presented as decisive and effective (we aim, targets,
committed, successfully, determined) as well as organised and responsible (long-term
government plan, not part of a quick-fix attempt). In this way their authority is asserted
and their normative recommendations gain more validity and credit.
Features of the vocabulary, grammar and structure of the text also describe social
relations. As discussed above, the relationships between fraudsters -valid claimants and
fraudsters -citizens are depicted as wrongdoer-victim relationships. Benefit fraudsters are
described as subject to the state’s disciplining and monitoring mechanisms (we are on to
you, cheats do get caught and penalised, fight against benefit cheats). The government is
thus linked with other institutions in this fight against benefit fraud such as the police and
the courts (§34). In addition, the government is depicted to express and control the
common-shared values of the society, showing for example to the citizens that benefit
fraud is socially unacceptable (§13) wrong and unfair (§4), making people less tolerant
(§13). The government is also presented as being responsible to protect common wellbeing (§25, §34), as knowing (we know from research, we want people to realise). This
knowledge is supported by knowledge producing mechanisms (independent report,
research and evaluation) something which reinforces the legitimacy of their claims and
their relative power. The public is depicted as capable of contributing to common good in
specific ways (we also need your help). Finally, benefit claimants are also labeled as
customers (§36), reflecting in this way the infiltration of the ‘enterprise discourse’ in the
realm of welfare.
Benefit fraud is described in monetary terms, and its overall cost (i.e. the public money
lost) is associated with individual loss (§10), establishing therefore the link between social
well-being and individual well-being.
The process of claiming benefits is portrayed as an official, thorough and closely
monitored procedure (§ 36). It is associated with processes of providing evidence of
personal data, setting standards, tightening up procedures, using specialist staff and
using technology to support this effort. These cue to notions of effectiveness and formality,
hence to difficulty to deceive the system.
Reporting benefit fraud is presented in a positive way, it is the only means proposed to
help the government (§5) and is presented as a service (§6). It is shown to be the desired
product of reduced tolerance and social unacceptability (§17). Also, the process of
tackling fraud is presented as a dynamic and effective process (put a stop to it,
determined to deal with it, tougher, harder-hitting, cracking down) and the campaign itself
is presented as part of this process.
The reference to common-shared values is both explicit and implicit in the text. For
instance as far as benefit fraud is concerned, there is explicitly evaluative vocabulary
(wrong, unfair, socially unacceptable). There is also association of fraud with a crime and
8
theft, which are normally perceived as something bad, so people would not agree with it.
In this way, the evaluative judgement of the campaign is reinforced and its ethical
recommendations are supported, without making explicit judgements (at least not in this
instance). Other ways of associating benefit fraud with common shared negative values
are apparent when describing fraud as everyone’s problem (§10), at everyone’s expense
(§18), a victimless crime (§18). Reporting a benefit fraud on the other hand is associated
with positive values for example through association with honesty which is generally
perceived as good and this helps alleviate association with snitching.
Grammar
The text is analysed mainly in terms of modes (that is, if clauses are declarative,
interrogative or imperative), modality (if modal verbs, adjectives or phrases are used) and
transitivity (types of processes and verbs used in clauses) (Fairclough 2001). In this case
there are mainly declarative clauses, although there are a few interrogative ones.
Declarative sentences in general inhibit discussion as they show greater conviction in a
certain truth. One striking example is in paragraph 10:
‘Many people see it as a victimless crime. It is not’.
Although this sentence can be seen as the expression of a judgement or belief, here it is
expressed in declarative mode, as a universal truth. This is reinforced by the identity of
the government which was constructed earlier as knowing, as opposed to the public
which is unaware.
There are some interrogative clauses and a section of the website labelled as the
‘questions and answers’ section. However, this dialogue is simulated and does not
resemble real discussion as it is the speaker (i.e. the government) that poses the answers
and then replies. Also, the government is asking the public to act in order to help fight
fraud and this indicates position of authority, as is giving information and presenting the
public with the facts. The slogan of the campaign (We‘re on to you) is a threat directed to
fraudsters and indicates again a position of power.
In terms of modality, there are only few sentences that modality appears the most
frequently used is can (§ 5, §18, §31, §36, §37) which is mainly used to outline the
possibilities that the public has to report a fraud.
In terms of types of processes, the government mainly features as an agent, that is a
acting upon someone else or giving someone information. The ‘patients’ of its actions,
that is, the recipients, are benefit fraudsters who are watched, caught and punished, and
the general public (we want people to realise (§10), change the way people look at benefit
fraud (§11)). The government is depicted in a responsible, controlling position, able and
determined to take the correct actions to solve this problem.
Benefit fraudsters are presented also as actors, usually of negative actions such as
stealing, committing fraud thus appointing responsibility to them with patients the public
and other benefit claimants. The public is identified as an actor mainly for reporting fraud
(§5, §37, §38).
Clause combination
9
Most of the sentences in the extract are single clauses that are linked together through
their vocabulary. For example in paragraph 2 the first and the second clause are linked
through association in meaning between ‘cost’, ‘stealing’, ‘money’, ‘£2’. Throughout the
text several sentences can be associated with each other in similar ways. ‘Many people
see it as a victimless crime’ is for instance associated with the previous sentence through
meaning connections between ‘stealing’ and ‘crime’. This may help conceal
presuppositions that are made when constructing the arguments.
One of the sentences that are linked with ‘and’ is in paragraph 6 where two sentences
with identical meaning are linked together, for emphatic purposes. Although there are
arguments in the text, the connections are not made explicit through connectors but
through the vocabulary (crime-victims -wrong-unfair-punished), (stealing- everyone’s
expense-taxpayer-victims).
There is only one complex sentence in the passage (§31) which gives the reasons for not
being able to provide feedback on a benefit fraud report, and justifies in this way this
deficiency and is one of the few explicit legitimisations that are manifested grammatically.
In general, the text has rather simple combinations of clauses, and that is also due to the
fact that it is a website text, so it has to be reader-friendly and organised in themes that
may be linked with each other.
Whole-text language organisation
The text is structured first of all in accordance with promotional websites structure. It is
organised in main themes (homepage, the advertising campaign, questions and answers,
report a benefit cheat and links) and there are hyperlinks that connect different pages.
The arguments that are constructed in the text usually operate by identifying the problem
(i.e. benefit fraud), providing a solution (i.e. campaign), suggesting action (reporting fraud),
evaluating the solution (achieved, suc cessfully). However, they are not elaborated
through discussion as they are presented in brief, summarised forms in order to make
them more reader-friendly (for eg,. in the form of bullet points).
The website has also the purpose to inform the public about benefit fraud and this is
apparent in the section named ‘The Advertising Campaign’. Rather than just giving
information about the campaign, this section also has the structure of an argument
(problem-solution-evaluation). Although the section of questions and answers is
presented in the form of dialogue, this dialogue is fictional and controlled, it operates more
as a way of organising the text and make it more relevant to the reader rather than
present counterarguments and create discussion. In general, there is little presence of
other voices in the text: the voice of the public for example is spoken out through research
and evaluation. The government is controlling the dialogue, and this is part to the text’s
promotional character.
Interdiscursive analysis
The text belongs first of all in the promotional genre as it is part of the campaign against
benefit fraud and this is apparent through the use of slogans (‘we are on to you’, ‘targeting
fraud’), the use of the second person, the use of simple sentences (sometimes presented
in the form of bullet points), the vocabulary (informal) but also its non-dialogical form.
10
Although websites have the potential of interactive communication, here the only
instances of actual two-way communication are through a section dedicated to reporting a
benefit fraud and a section for the expression of views about the campaign. However,
through these sections two-way communication cannot be established and public
dialogue is not stimulated. Since the government manages the website, they are in a
relative position of power as they can define the topic (your views about the campaign)
and the basis of this dialogue. Here, there is no evidence that these views are going to be
commented upon and they are not made public either.
There are also elements of other genres. It can be argued that it has elements of political
party manifesto as it argues about the effectiveness of government’s taken actions and
about intended actions (§24) and it discusses targets and achievem ents. It can also be
viewed as a public information website, as it is provides information about benefit fraud
levels, government measures and ways to report fraud. This is also a non-dialogical genre,
dominated by categorical assertions, even when these involve evaluations and
judgements. The evaluations and judgements apparent in the text signal the normative
character of the text through references to what society accepts (§13), what is unfair,
wrong (§19, §21) and what should be done (§5, §11, §28).
Interactional analysis
The objective of the website is to present the campaign and argue for it, to raise public
awareness and provide a medium for those who want to report fraud but also to inform
and promote of the government’s actions towards fraud. The campaign’s website consists
of an introductory section that defines the problem of benefit fraud, informs about
Government’s measures and locates the campaign among them, appeals to the visitor’s
help in the pursuit of their aims and defines the ways to do that.
The other parts of the website can be accessed in variable ways and order (through links
within the text or through the list in the initial page) and each section can be seen
independently of the others. Several points are repeated almost identic ally in different
parts of the website. For instance the sentence ‘benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and will not
be tolerated’ is repeated more or less the same in most of the sections (§4, 13, 17, 19,
21), so that every person that visits the website reads this point, even if someone does
not access a particular section. Most of the sections deal with the same topics, in greater
or lesser detail.
There is also a section which viewers can use to express the views about the campaign.
There is also a form that can be used for reporting a fraud and there is a section with links
to other relevant websites such as the DWP official website, the Jobcentre Plus website
and others something which is also characteristic of a website structure and format.
Context and Discourse Types
The campaign is located within the discourse of welfare and this is apparent through
references to entitlement and need and the appeal to citizen’s participation. It is also
related to the discourse of welfare reform which is referred to in the text through notions of
effectiveness, targets and through the reference to benefit claimants as customers. This
signals the presence of the language of the enterprise which was discussed earlier.
11
In addition, the text is located within the discourse of citizenship which becomes apparent
through reference to some of the main ideas underpinning citizenship, such as fairness
and through the link of individual with common good.
Discussion
This campaign is used to promote citizen’s participation in the government’s efforts to
tackle benefit fraud. However, its normative recommendations are based on existing
dominant views about what welfare is and about what citizenship involves. The campaign
helps sustain and reproduce these views and through these, existing power and
knowledge mechanisms.
Through the analysis of the language used, I was able to identify firstly the social
identities that are supported through the text. The identities of the benefit fraudster and
the valid benefit claimant were constructed around the discourse of welfare, through sets
of oppositions such as entitled/ not entitled and need/ not in need. Derrida (1976)
suggests that such binary oppositions operate through privileging one term over the other
and hence stabilising and providing authority to the privileged terms (Willmott 1998). This
closure in meaning and authority are ascribed through convention and power and in this
way certain views of the world prevail over others. In this case, by assigning a
determinate meaning to the concept of welfare and ignoring the fact that rules of
entitlement and the definition of needs are defined through social interaction, a shared
view about welfare becomes naturalised and self evident. This is accomplished through
the absence of other voices in the text, through control of the dialogue by the government.
Following Cooper (1989) who proposed that meaning revolves around this division, the
meaning of welfare is understood here through the evaluation of human needs (those that
are crucial and should be provided by the state or not) and through the categorisation of
society’s members according to their entitlement to benefits or not. This division is the
outcome of social struggles and conflict between different social groups (rather than a
objective process) and is sustained and reproduced through power and social
mechanisms (Foucault 1979). Therefore, the division between those entitled and those
not entitled is socially constructed. For example, through the recent welfare reform the
rules of entitlement have been re-examined and redrawn and the people who are actually
in need have been redefined.
Moreover, for Foucault, welfare society is the realm where individuals are simultaneously
citizens with rights and responsibilities and where the individual is subject to juridical
power as well as to normalising, or disciplinary power (Ashenden 1999). This campaign
displays elements of both juridical and normalising power as it refers explicitly to legal
punishment, while at the same time constructs and supports values and norms, about
what is fair on not, what is right or wrong and what is socially acceptable or not. This set
of oppositions is related to the discourse of citizenship which, as discussed earlier entails
notions of fairness, soc ial solidarity as well as social participation. The discourse of
citizenship, as an ideological discourse, establishes the basis for distinction between
citizens and non-citizens, or, in this case, citizens that fail to fulfil their obligations to
society. It is also the origin of common-shared values and norms that help sustain this
division between ingroup and outgroups and create and sustain power relations between
12
the different social groups. The text operates through shaping such social values, by
defining what a good citizen is and what this membership means in terms of behaviour. In
this way, individuals are hierarchised in relation to one another, disqualified or
marginalised, as in the case of valid benefit claimants.
Limitations of the analysis
Discourse analysis is a method of analysis that does not claim to achieve and describe an
objective representation of facts (Kilduff and Mehra 1997). It is accepted that it is not a
value-free analysis (Potter et al 1990) and subject to my own cultural predispositions and
understandings when selecting, organising and interpreting discourses. Also, the move
from the specific text to more general discourses involves making generalisations and
categorisations which can reduce or ignore difference in the text.
References
Alvesson, M., Karreman, D. 2000. ‘Varieties Of Discourse: On the Study of
Organizations through Discourse Analysis’, Human Relations. Vol. 53 (9): 11251149
Andreasen A. (ed.), 2001. Ethics In Social Marketing. Washington: Georgetown
University Press
Ashenden, S. and Owen D. (ed).1999. Foucault Contra Habermas. London;
Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage Publications
Barr, N. and Coulter, F., (1990). ‘Social Security: solution or problem?’ in Hills, J.
(ed.) The State of Welfare, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Barr, N. and Coulter, F., (1990). ‘Social Security: solution or problem?’ in Hills, J.
(ed.) The State of Welfare, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Barry, N., 1999. Welfare, 2nd ed., Buckingham: Open University Press
Bulpett, C. 2002. ‘Regimes of Exclusion’ European Urban and Regional Studies v.9,
i.2, pp. 137-150
Burman, E., Parker, I. (eds). 1993 Discourse Analytic Research-Repertoires and
Readings of Texts in Action. London, New York: Routledge
Buurma, H. 2001. ‘Public Policy Marketing; Marketing Exchange in the Public
Sector’. European Journal of Marketing. v.35. n.11/12. pp.1287-1302
Carter J. (ed.) 1998 Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare. London; New
York: Routledge
Chouliaraki, L., Fairclough, N. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Cochrane, A. 1998. ‘What Sort of Safety Net’ in Hughes, G., Lewis, G. (eds).
Unsettling Welfare: The reconstruction of Social Policy, London; New York:
Routledge
Cooper R.L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press
Crompton, J. L., Lamb, C.H., 1986. Marketing Government and Social Services.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Derrida, Jacques, 1976. Of grammatology. Baltimore; London : Johns Hopkins
University Press
Du Gay, P., Salaman, G., 1992. ‘The Culture of The Consumer’, Journal of
Management Studies, 29:5, September
13
Elliot, A. 2001 ‘The Reinvention of Citizenship’ in Stevenson, N. (ed.) Culture and
Citizenship. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage
Elliot, R. 1996. ‘Discourse Analysis: Exploring Action, Function and Conflict in
Social Texts’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning. v. 14, n. 6, pp. 65-68
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longmann
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press
Fairclough, N. 2000. ‘Discourse, Social Theory And Social Research: The
Discourse Of Welfare Reform’ Journal Of Sociolinguistics. May, v.4, i.2, p.163196
Fairclough, N. 2001. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., Yates,
S.J. Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London, California, New Delhi:
Open University Press
Faulks, K. 2000. Citizenship. London; New York: Routledge
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaelogy of Knowledge. London: Tavistock
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish. I: An Introduction. Harmondsworth:
Penguin
Gabriel, Y. 1995. The unmanageable consumer : contemporary consumption and its
fragmentation London : Sage
George, V., Wilding P., 1994. Welfare and Ideology. New York; London; Toronto;
Sydney; Tokyo; Singapore : Harvester Wheatsheaf
Hewitt, Martin, 1992. Welfare, ideology, and need: developing perspectives on the
welfare state. Hemel Hempstead : Harvester Wheatsheaf
Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., 1997. ‘Postmodernism and Organisational Research’
Academy of Management Review. v. 22, n.2, pp. 453-482
Klein, N. 2002. ‘Brand USA: America’s Attempt to Market Itself Abroad Using
Advertising Principles Destined to Fail’ LATimes. March 10.
Kotler P., Levy S. 1969. ‘Broadening the Concept of Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, v. 33 (January), pp. 10-15
Kotler P., Roberto G.L., (1989), Social Marketing. Strategies for changing public
behaviour, New York: The Free Press
Kotler, P., Roberto, N., Lee, N. 2002. Social Marketing: Improving the Quality of Life.
London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage
Lavidge Robert, 1970, ‘The Growing Responsibilities of Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34 (January), pp. 25-28
Lister, R. 2001. ‘Towards a Citizen’s Welfare State: The 3+2 ‘R’s of Welfare Reform’.
Theory, Culture and Society. V.18, i.2, p.91-112
Lupton, D. 1999. ‘Crime Control, Citizenship and the State: Lay Understandings of
Crime, its Causes and Solutions. Journal of Sociology.v.35, i.3
McFadyen, L., Stead, M., Hastings, G. 2003. ‘Social Marketing’ in Baker, M.J. (ed.).
The Marketing Book. (5th ed.) Oxford; Amsterdam; Boston; London; New
York…: Butterworth, Heinemmann
Novak, T. 1997. ‘Hounding Delinquents. The Introduction of the Jobseekers
allowance’ Critical Social Policy, vol. 17, no 50, pp. 99-109
Novatorov, E.V., Crompton, J.L., 2001. ‘A Revised Conceptualization of Marketing
in the Context of Public Leisure Services’. Journal of Leisure Research v.33, i.2,
pp. 169-186
Parker, I., and the Bolton Discourse Network (eds).1999. Critical Textwork. An
Introduction to Varieties of Discourse and Analysis. Buckingham, Philadelphia:
Open University Press
Pinch, S. 1997. Worlds of Welfare. London; New York: Routledge
Potter, J. Wetherell, M., Gill, R. Edwards, D. 1990. ‘Discourse: Noun, Verb or Social
Practice?’ Philosophical Psychology, v. 3, n. 2, 205-217
14
Potter, J., Edwards, D., Wetherell, M. 1993. ‘Amodel of Discourse in Action’
American Behavioural Scientist. (Jan/ Feb). v.36, n.3. pp.383-402
Rodger, J.J. 2000. From a Welfare State to a Welfare Society. Houndmills;
Basingstoke; Hampshire: MacMillan Press
Shotter J. 1993. ‘Psychology and Citizenship’ in Turner, B.S. (ed.) Citizenship and
Social Theory. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage
Spiker, P., 1995. Social Policy: Themes and Approach., London, New York,
Sydney, Toronto: Prentice Hall-Harvester Wheatsheaf
Sugden, R. 1981. The political economy of public choice: an introduction to welfare
economics. Oxford : Robertson
Titmuss, R. M., 1969 Essays on 'The Welfare State ‘. 2nd ed. London : Unwin
University Books
Turner, B.S. 1993a. ‘Contemporary Problems in the Theory of Citizenship’ in Turner,
B.S. (ed.) Citizenship and Social Theory. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi:
Sage
Turner, B.S. 1993b. ‘Outline of a Theory of Human Rights’. Sociology. Aug. v.27,
n.3, pp. 489-523
Van Dijk, T. A. 1993. ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis’. Discourse and
Society. 4, 249-83
Van Dijk, T.A. 1995. ‘Discourse Semantics and Ideology’. Discourse and Society .
Vol. 6(2): 243-289. London; Thousand Oaks; California; New Delhi : Sage
Wiseman, J. 1992. ‘The Welfare State: A public choice perspective’ in Wislon, T.
and Wilson D., The State and Social Welfare. Essex : Longman Group
Wislon, T. and Wilson, D., 1992. The State and Social Welfare. Essex: Longman
Group
Wolfreys, J. 1998. Deconstruction, Derrida. New York : St. Martin's Press
Yeatman, A. 2000. ‘Who us the Subject of Human Rights?’ American Behavioural
Scientist. V.43.i9.pp.1498-1508
15
APPENDIX
The Benefit Fraud Website: www.targetingfraud.gov.uk
Text
1. Welcome to the Department for Work and Pensions Targeting Fraud Website
2. Every year, it is estimated that benefit cheats cost £2 billion in stolen benefits they
are
stealing
money
from
people
who
need
it.
3. We have already put a number of tough new measures in place to make it much
harder for people to commit benefit fraud, but we need to do more.
4. The recent Targeting Fraud advertising campaign aimed to raise public awareness
of benefit fraud and reinforce the message that benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and
will not be tolerated. The campaign was part of a long term government plan to
reduce
fraud.
5. We also need your help. Through this site, you can email us directly. If you think
someone is getting benefits they are not entitled to, use the following link to Report
a benefit cheat. Alternatively you can call the National Benefit Fraud Hotline on
0800 854 440 between 7am and 11pm, 7 days a week.
6. The service is strictly confidential and you do not have to give your name.
7. Benefit cheats are stealing money from every household in Great Britain. We
aim to put a stop to it.
8. We're
on
to
you.
That is the message to benefit cheats in the latest phase of the Department for
Work and Pensions' Targeting Fraud advertising campaign which was launched
nationally
on
9
September
2001.
9. You will probably have seen the earlier Targeting Fraud campaign on TV, radio
and in the press. We have now moved the campaign on, to keep the messages
fresh and to respond to feedback on the campaign so far. The latest phase of the
campaign ran in four bursts. The final burst took place in March 2002.
10. Why
a
campaign
on
Targeting
Fraud?
We know from research that most people do not realise the level of benefit fraud.
Many people see it as a victimless crime. It is not. We estimate that £2 billion a
year could be lost through people claiming money they are not entitled to. This is
the equivalent of over £80 for every household in Britain. We want people to
realise that fraud is everyone's problem, and that the Government is determined to
deal
with
it.
11. As part of this, we need to change the way people look at benefit fraud. One way
of doing this is through advertising. An independent report (the Grabiner Report)
recommended testing the use of paid advertising to change attitudes to benefit
fraud. Publicity has been used successfully by Government in the past to change
16
public attitudes over time, for example to tackle drink-driving and TV licence
evasion.
13. Previous
Targeting
Fraud
advertising
The Targeting Fraud campaign ran as a pilot in the North West to test the
effectiveness of publicity in changing people's attitudes. The original campaign
used TV, radio, newspaper and poster advertising to deliver messages, both to the
general public and benefit cheats. The aim was to make people less tolerant of
benefit fraud and to show that it is socially unacceptable.
14. Research and evaluation from the pilot showed that it had achieved a small but
positive shift in attitudes towards benefit fraud. Building on this, we ran the
campaign nationally in March 2001, using TV commercials, plus national press
and
radio.
The campaign is now tougher, harder hitting and will target benefit cheats more
directly to deter fraud and to show that benefit cheats do get caught.
15. September
2001
-
March
2002
Targeting
Fraud
campaign
For the most recent campaign we have developed the advertisements to show
that cheats get caught and punished. The characters from the TV advertisements
also now feature in national press and posters. We have also developed the radio
adverts to reflect new prosecution data.
16. To support the message, there were also regional newspaper advertisements
featuring real headlines showing that benefit cheats are regularly caught and
punished through the courts.
17. What
are
the
campaign
objectives?
The objectives are to:
• encourage honesty
• reduce tolerance of benefit fraud
• to show that it is socially unacceptable.
18. The messages:
• Fraud
will
be
punished
Fraud is a crime, and benefit cheats do get caught. And new penalties and support for
prosecutions means that the punishments for fraud can be very serious.
• The Department for Work and Pensions is cracking down on fraud
Through new measures for prevention and more efficient detection, fraud will become
increasingly more difficult to commit and to conceal - cheats do get caught.
• Fraud
has
victims
Benefit fraud is at everyone's expense. Benefit cheats are stealing money from people
who need it. And they are stealing money from every taxpayer. Fraud is not a
victimless crime and it adds up.
• Benefit fraud - We aim to put a stop to it.
• Benefit fraud - We're on to you.
19.
Questions
about
the
advertising
campaign
What
is
the
Targeting
Fraud
Campaign?
Targeting Fraud is a Department for Work and Pensions advertising campaign
which sets out to:
• raise public awareness of benefit fraud
17
•
•
show clearly that benefit fraud is wrong, unfair and will not be tolerated.
Read more about the advertising campaign.
20. How
will
you
know
if
the
campaign
has
worked?
A campaign like this is not part of a 'quick fix' attempt to tackle benefit fraud. But it
does help us make it clear that benefit fraud matters to all of us, and that it is not
acceptable.
21. Campaigns against drink-driving ran for many years, and eventually delivered a major
change in attitudes and behaviour. This campaign is part of a long term strategy to
help the public see that benefit fraud is wrong and unfair, that it will not be tolerated
and that benefit cheats do get caught.
22. We are evaluating shifts in public attitudes as well as how effective the advertising
has reached the people it is aimed at.
23. Paid advertising is just one part of a range of initiatives designed to tackle benefit
fraud. Those initiatives are clearly starting to bite.
24. We have set firm targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in Income
Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. We have already achieved an 18% reduction almost double the 10% target set for March 2002. We are aiming for a reduction of
25% by 2004 and 50% by 2006.
25. Might honest benefit claimants be worried that they are being made to look like
cheats?
We know that most claimants are honest. But we have a responsibility to tackle those
who are not, to prevent fraud from taking place and deal with it when it does.
26. Research shows that honest benefit claimants do not identify with the benefit cheats
shown in the advertising - they see dishonest claimants as a different kind of person.
27. Why
use
advertising?
An independent report known as the Grabiner Report, recommended testing paid
advertising as a way of changing attitudes to benefit fraud. The campaign helps
encourage honesty by showing that benefit cheats get caught and penalised.
28. The Government is committed to cracking down on benefit fraud. The use of paid
advertising is one tool amongst many in the fight against benefit cheats.
29. From April 2000 to March 2001 182,569 people had their rate of benefit put right as a
result of a fraud intervention, and 24,473 penalties were applied.
30.
The new powers the Fraud Act gives will allow better investigation of fraud and
provide more severe punishment for persistent offenders.
31. Will someone who reports a benefit cheat see immediate action?
Our investigations can take some time and it is not always easy to see what action
we are taking. The law says we have to keep information about people confidential,
so we cannot give progress reports to the person who reported the possible fraud.
18
32.
Questions about benefit fraud
33.
What
is
the
extent
of
benefit
fraud?
We estimate that £2 billion a year could be lost through people claiming money they
are not entitled to. This is the equivalent of over £80 for every household in Britain.
34.
What
happens
to
someone
caught
for
benefit
fraud?
The Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Police and the courts
all take benefit fraud very seriously. Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime - it affects
all of us. Around 10,000 people are prosecuted and convicted every year for benefit
fraud offences.
35.
And thousands of others are penalised on top of those prosecuted - at the end of
1998, we introduced a range of other punishments against benefit cheats and by
March 2001, a further 15,000 people had received benefit penalties or formal
cautions.
36.
What is being done apart from the Targeting Fraud campaign?
In addition to the work on interviewing, visiting and investigation that goes on every
day around the country, special initiatives to drive down fraud include the following:
• A National Intelligence Unit has been set up to manage the information that helps
us to find fraud more efficiently
• The Fraud Strategy Unit has been set up to research the risks of types of fraud to
help us prevent it, and to root it out when it does happen
• We have made the way people claim Income Support more secure. Customers
must now produce more evidence, for example, about their identity, or of how
much they have in savings, before Income Support is paid
• Rigorous standards have been set for local authorities to check Housing Benefit
and Council Tax Benefit claims
• We have introduced the Royal Mail 'do not redirect' scheme. This prevents benefit
cheats using false addresses for their bogus claims by using the Royal Mail's
postal redirection arrangements
• We have tightened up on the evidence needed to get a National Insurance number
and numbers are issued by specially trained staff, backed up by the National
Identity Fraud Unit
• Local authorities have direct access to the Department for Work and Pensions
information through Remote Access Terminals, and can guard against fraudulent
claims for Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit
• Data matching cross checks benefit and Inland Revenue records to find benefit
cheats.
37. How
can
I
tell
you
if
I
suspect
someone
of
fraud?
You can report suspicion of fraud, without giving your name, by using the electronic
reporting form on this website Report a benefit cheat, or you can ring the National
Benefit Fraud Hotline on 0800 854 440 between 7am and 11pm 7 days a week. It is
free and confidential.
38. If you prefer, you can contact any social security office or Jobcentre.
19