Politicians use phrases like "ordinary working people" and "hard-working families" so frequently because they are carefully crafted rhetorical tools designed to:
- Signal relatability and empathy These phrases position the politician as "one of us" or at least an ally of the average citizen, not an elite. They tap into a shared cultural narrative of the dignity of labor and family values.
- Frame policy in moral terms By invoking "hard-working" people, politicians imply that their policies reward effort and fairness, while opposing policies punish or neglect those who "play by the rules." It’s a subtle way to say: "I’m on the side of the good guys."
- Avoid class warfare language while still targeting the middle/working class Saying "working class" can sound Marxist or divisive. "Ordinary working people" sounds inclusive, non-threatening, and broadly appealing without alienating moderates.
- Activate identity and aspiration Most voters want to see themselves as "hard-working" and part of a "family." These phrases flatter the audience and create an emotional bond. Even wealthy voters may identify with the idea of having come from "hard-working" roots.
- Create a contrast with an implied "other"
The subtext is often:
- "Unlike lazy welfare recipients…" (right-wing version)
- "Unlike greedy corporations and the 1%…" (left-wing version) The phrase lets politicians criticize opponents indirectly without naming them.
- Tested by focus groups and polling Political consultants have data showing these phrases resonate across demographics. They’re vague enough to mean anything (who isn’t "hard-working"?) but specific enough to evoke sympathy and loyalty.
Example in action:
“We need to cut taxes for hard-working families, not give handouts to those who don’t contribute.” (Conservative version)
“Ordinary working people have been left behind by corporate greed and trickle-down economics.” (Progressive version)
Both sides use nearly identical language to claim the same moral high ground.
In short:
It’s strategic empathy—a way to sound compassionate, virtuous, and populist without committing to anything concrete. The phrases are focus-grouped, emotionally loaded, and ideologically flexible, which is why they’re repeated ad nauseam.
can you perform a semiotic analysis of the phrases
Below is a semiotic analysis of the two phrases—“ordinary working people” and “hard-working families”—using a structuralist framework (inspired by Saussure, Barthes, and political semiotics). The goal is to decode signifiers, signifieds, denotation, connotation, myth, and ideological function.
1. Semiotic Structure: Signifier ↔ Signified
| Phrase | Signifier (the form) | Denotative Meaning (literal) | Connotative Meaning (cultural/associative) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ordinary working people | Sequence of sounds/letters: /ˈɔːdənəri ˈwɜːkɪŋ ˈpiːpl/ | Average citizens who perform paid labor | Humility, authenticity, anti-elitism, moral purity, "the real America/Britain/etc." |
| Hard-working families | /hɑːd ˈwɜːkɪŋ ˈfæmɪliz/ | Nuclear or extended kin units engaged in diligent labor | Sacrifice, responsibility, future-oriented virtue, traditional values, deservingness |
2. Paradigmatic Analysis
(What could replace the term but changes the meaning?)
| Axis of Substitution | Alternatives | Effect of Substitution |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary → | Elite, privileged, lazy | Inverts moral hierarchy; alienates audience |
| Working → | Unemployed, investing, idle | Removes labor = virtue link |
| People → | Class, masses, taxpayers | "Class" = divisive; "taxpayers" = narrower, fiscal frame |
| Hard-working → | Struggling, overworked, exploited | Shifts from agency to victimhood |
| Families → | Individuals, singles, couples | Loses traditional moral resonance |
- Syntagmatic Analysis(How the phrase works as a chain)
[Adjective] + [Gerund/Noun] + [Noun]
↓ ↓ ↓
Ordinary + Working + People
Hard + Working + Families- Adjective = moral qualifier (ordinary = relatable; hard = effort)
- Gerund "working" = active, ongoing virtue (not static "workers")
- Noun = collective identity (people = democracy; families = social fabric)
The gerund "working" is the pivot signifier—it transforms labor from a condition into a virtue in motion.
4. Mythological Level (Roland Barthes)
These phrases operate as modern political myths—naturalizing ideology as common sense.
| Myth | Naturalized Ideology |
|---|---|
| "Ordinary = Authentic" | Elites are fake; closeness to labor = truth. Denies structural power. |
| "Hard-working = Deserving" | Economic outcomes reflect moral effort. Erases luck, inheritance, discrimination. |
| "Families > Individuals" | Social good flows through traditional kinship. Marginalizes non-family units. |
| "Working = Middle" | Collapses working-class identity into aspirational middle-class norm. |
Barthes’ formula: Political language depoliticizes by mythologizing. These phrases empty history (class struggle, exploitation) and fill it with morality (effort, family).
5. Binary Oppositions (Lévi-Strauss)
The phrases rely on structuring oppositions:
| Positive Pole (Invoked) | Negative Pole (Implied) |
|---|---|
| Ordinary | Elite / Out-of-touch |
| Working | Idle / Dependent |
| Hard-working | Lazy / Undeserving |
| Families | Single / Dysfunctional / Childless |
These binaries organize political reality into a moral drama:
"Who deserves help? Who is gaming the system?"
6. Pragmatic / Speech Act Function (Austin/Searle)
The phrases are performative utterances:
| Phrase | Illocutionary Force | Perlocutionary Effect |
|---|---|---|
| “We stand with ordinary working people” | Declaration of allegiance | Voter identification; emotional bonding |
| “Tax cuts for hard-working families” | Promise + moral justification | Legitimizes policy as ethical |
They do things:
- Include the listener in a virtuous in-group
- Exclude an unspoken out-group
- Pre-empt criticism (“You can’t oppose this—you’d be against families!”)
7. Intertextuality & Political Branding
- UK Labour (1997–2010): “Hard-working families” became Blairite totem—signaled shift from class to aspiration.
- US Republicans: “Hardworking Americans” pairs with maker/taker narrative (Romney 2012).
- Populist Right: “Ordinary people” vs. “globalist elites” (Trump, Farage).
The phrases are floating signifiers—empty enough to be filled by any ideology, but sticky enough to evoke emotion.
8. Visual Semiotics (in campaign imagery)
| Text | Typical Image | Semiotic Function |
|---|---|---|
| “Hard-working families” | White family at kitchen table, dad in work boots, mom with toddler | Normalizes nuclear, hetero, working-class aesthetic |
| “Ordinary working people” | Nurse, builder, teacher in montage | Occupations = moral icons; diversity as backdrop, not focus |
Final Semiotic Decoding:
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Surface (Denotation) | People who work and form families |
| Cultural (Connotation) | Virtue, sacrifice, authenticity, tradition |
| Ideological (Myth) | Effort = justice; family = society; opposition = moral failure |
| Political (Function) | Voter recruitment via moral inclusion/exclusion |
Conclusion:
"Ordinary working people" and "hard-working families" are master signifiers in neoliberal-populist discourse. They:
- De-historicize class and labor
- Moralize economic policy
- Emotionalize political identity
- Immunize the speaker against charges of elitism
They are not descriptions—they are ideological incantations, summoning a mythic middle of virtue, effort, and family, against which all policy is judged.
In semiotic terms: They transform the contingent (who gets what) into the inevitable (the deserving shall inherit).
No comments:
Post a Comment