Polish ‘Pawns’ between nationalism and neoliberalism in British newspaper coverage of post-European Union enlargement polish immigration

Abstract

The United Kingdom was one of four countries to open its labor market to Polish workers post-European Union enlargement in 2004. In this study, we analyze the articulation of discourses of neoliberalism and nationalism through examination of mediated representations of Polish immigrants in four British newspapers. We argue that within the coverage analyzed, across format and political orientation, neoliberal values were promoted and the seeming tension between the two ideologies was articulated in ways that could be discursively mobilized to further particular political, economic, and media objectives. Polish immigrants were constituted as discursive pawns employed by various political and media entities toward these contrasting agendas.

Keywords

Discourse immigration nationalism neoliberalism Poles

Introduction

In 2004, the European Union (EU) underwent the largest single enlargement in its history to date. The enlargement saw the EU expand eastward to include 10 Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. The United Kingdom was one of four countries to open its labor market to the new entrants and swiftly became a major destination for migrants seeking employment under EU free movement of labor laws, approximately 65 percent of whom came from Poland (Drinkwater et al., 2009).

The EU represents the intersection of contradictory and seemingly irreconcilable impulses. Its adherence to neoliberal economic doctrine, characterized by ‘the flexibilization of labor markets, and the erosion of employment security’ (Hermann, 2007: 85), creates demand for openness and unfettered movement of goods, technology, and labor. A ‘neoliberal paradox’ (Varsanyi, 2008: 879) develops within EU nation-states that are deeply invested in border enforcement and the regulation of citizenship, yet simultaneously promote economic liberalization. Neoliberalism’s doctrine of open borders and unrestricted movement of goods and people is a counterforce to restrictive nationalism, which fixes each person within one nation. These two ideologies – nationalism and neoliberalism – appear to be in a state of tension, with the former stressing closure, fixity, and rigid definitions of self and nation, and the latter emphasizing openness, flexibility, and ambiguous borders that bind nations.

In the following section, we will examine extant research that has problematized this conceptualization. We will then turn to an analysis of a cross-section of mainstream British newspapers, and their representations of Polish migrants, to deconstruct media’s articulations of nationalism and neoliberalism. The EU principle of free movement has produced unique (trans)national political economies, with Polish immigration to the United Kingdom being the largest movement of labor resulting from enlargement. Polish migration is thus an apt cipher for the articulation of nationalism and neoliberalism given its prominence, for it is ‘difficult to think of another migrant group which has established itself so quickly, and so widely, in British history’ (Burrell, 2009: 7). The conventional logic may be that Poles simultaneously threaten nationalism’s fixed borders and reinforce neoliberalism’s emphasis on flexibility. This logic, however, necessitates scholarly investigation. Our analysis will argue that Poles are constituted as discursive pawns employed by various political and media entities toward contrasting agendas. Stripped of their agency and granted a functional mobility predicated on economic necessity, Poles become pawns in a mediated game over which they have no control.

Discourses of neoliberalism and nationalism

Neoliberalism has ‘become hegemonic as a mode of discourse’ (Harvey, 2005: 3), its dominance reflected by the fact that it is often conflated with globalization generally (Harmes, 2012). During the last quarter of the 20th century, neoliberalism became ‘incorporated into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world’ (Harvey, 2005: 3), including how we perceive immigration. Neoliberalism stresses the importance of markets in shaping economic and social policies, the deregulation of labor and financial markets, the weakening of organized labor, and the privatization of state industries (Harvey, 2005). Recognizing neoliberalism’s emphasis on flexibility, it follows that the ideal neoliberal subject is an adaptable worker ready, willing, and able to adjust to the needs of the market, working variable hours for whatever pay the circumstances dictate.

Concurrently, the nation-state as a political and economic entity is undermined by global capital and supra-national organizations, such as the EU, that transcend and sometimes supersede domestic politics. The EU principle of free movement suggests a weakening of member states’ capacities to regulate immigration and maintain their borders. Drawing upon nationalist discourses, the EU subsequently becomes a site of contestation in British news discourse. Newspapers perform discursive work that assumes, stabilizes, and reconfigures notions of nationhood (De Cillia et al., 1999). The press may also present multiple, competing narratives of the nation, particularly in relation to changing global structures, and thus feed nationalist anxieties (Housel, 2007), borne out of, in part, a ‘partial denationalizing of national territory and a partial shift of some components of state sovereignty to other institutions’ like the EU (Sassen, 1996: xii).

Extant communication scholarship has illuminated exclusionary nationalist discourses’ perpetuation of immigrant stereotypes, prominent in British newspapers (Charteris-Black, 2006; KhosraviNik, 2010; Spiegelman, 2013). Representations of immigrants are central to negotiation of who does and does not belong, positioning media discourse as a site of struggle ‘between inclusion and exclusion both within member states and at the borders of the EU itself’ (Schlesinger, 2006: 424). Media framing of immigrants vacillates between need and rejection (Goldberg, 2006), mirroring the EU’s push toward diversity and unification, on the one hand, and preservation of national identities, on the other. Fueled by apprehension to preserve national identity, immigration discourses rely on Othering strategies to frame immigrants as outsiders who do not belong (Echchaibi, 2001). Immigration is constructed as a threat to the majority/minority balance and racial purity of the nation (Flores, 2003). Counter to superficial attempts at multiculturalism, immigrants are framed in terms of their ‘foreignness’, which translates into the literal and discursive ghettoization of the immigrant experience (Echchaibi, 2001). Immigrants are represented as the cause of socioeconomic problems like unemployment, housing shortages, crime, and juvenile delinquency (Shore and Black, 1994). Yet marginalizing discursive strategies have become subtler and include the delicate avoidance of attributing unfavorable characteristics to immigrants (Charteris-Black, 2006; Van der Valk, 2003; Van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999). This framing functions to justify restrictive political measures antithetical to neoliberal flexibility. While newspapers may serve specific nation-states, more research has been needed examining the role of media in solidifying neoliberalism’s dominance in addition to the exclusionary representations outlined by extant research.

The descriptions of nationalism and neoliberalism suggest these are diametrically opposed discourses, constituting ‘a mutually exclusive set of terrains’ (Sassen, 1996: 6). However, as many scholars (Harmes, 2012; Helleiner, 2002, 2005; Pickel, 2005; Sparke, 2006) have argued, the relationships between these mediated ideologies are much more complex than simple opposition. While the logic of neoliberalism suggests a minimal role for the state, it is riddled with a ‘mass of contradictions’ (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2000: 315). The globalized economy that presents itself as naturally occurring is actually the product of intense maneuvering among and across governments to create conditions favorable for markets and elite interests (Garland and Harper, 2012; Hermann, 2007; Munck, 2005). In other words, states are constantly tinkering with the economy to maintain favorable conditions for neoliberalism while simultaneously stressing the importance of noninterventionist strategies.

Thus, nationalism and neoliberalism are not inherently incompatible. Neoliberal policies are forwarded to achieve nationalist objectives. For example, Lithuanian (Abdelal, 2005) and Ukranian (Shulman, 2000) politicians sought to foster nationalist separation from Russia through the espousal of neoliberal ideals, which simultaneously connected these nations to western and central Europe. Kawai (2009) and O’Toole (2003) found similar relationships between the two ideologies in their examinations of Japan and Mexico respectively. Concomitantly, nationalist discourses are invoked to promote neoliberal policies. For example, Margaret Thatcher campaigned against European integration in order to win re-election and further promote neoliberal reforms (Harvey, 2005). While examples like Thatcher may illustrate political expedience rather than value compatibility (Harmes, 2012), it is clear that the relationship between neoliberalism and nationalism is messier than simple duality.

Nation-states function as geopolitical homes for economic globalization institutions, which are both constrained and enabled by domestic jurisprudential, administrative, and technological capacities (Sassen, 1996, 2006). Neoconservative values, such as national identity and autonomy, engender particular neoliberal policies (Shulman, 2000). Furthermore, with the geographic dispersal that comes with globalization comes the need for a strong centralized top-down system (Sassen, 1996). Neoliberalism and nationalism work in conjunction in reifying class division; while neoliberalism may disrupt national unity, nationalism is ‘deployed to “glue” the nation as a whole without solving the socioeconomic divide’ (Kawai, 2009: 20) and resist supra-national intervention that may perform international economic regulation (Harmes, 2012; Hooghe and Marks, 1999). Neoliberalism is promoted strategically by the state, such as to protect property rights, but not re-distribute wealth (Harmes, 2012), preserving the free movement of capitol, but not people (Sassen, 1996).

To further examine the intersections between neoliberalism and nationalism, we turn specifically to British newspapers’ coverage of Polish immigration, an ideal case for such an examination. For one, the representation of White Poles may be distinct from other migrant groups given that racial or ethnic framing, which dominates the representation of other groups (KhosraviNik, 2010), such as Muslims, is not available to newspapers. While groups like asylum seekers operate outside the mainstream, Poles are supposedly woven into the fabric of the British economy (Burrell, 2009). Therefore, the standard ‘Othering’ strategies afforded an exclusionary press are generally irrelevant, forcing newspapers to find new ways to frame these migrants. Second, ambivalence has marked both nation-states’ positions within Europe and their attitudes toward the EU, albeit in different ways. The United Kingdom has vacillated between being both inside and outside of Europe (Miles and Doherty, 2005) while Poland has been represented as marginal, ‘treated, at best, with condescension and, at worst, with an attitude of “civilizational” dismissal’ (Böröcz, 2006: 155). While Poland and other CEE countries have accommodated themselves to neoliberal economics, they have nonetheless been represented as Europe’s internal Others, inferior to Western Europe (Böröcz, 2006). We seek to expand upon this research on representations of Poles by analyzing how the discourses of neoliberalism and nationalism were articulated together in British newspaper representations of Polish (im)migrants following EU enlargement.

The British press

News media discourse is an arena where anxieties regarding the nation-state are vented (Flores, 2003; Housel, 2007) and neoliberalism is normalized (Phelan, 2007). As the EU continues to restructure capitalism, its effects on notions of belonging and identity are only beginning to be felt. Hence, it is critical to map out how newspaper discourses are holding onto national imaginations as they also reproduce neoliberal ideology. However, these impacts are complicated by the fact that commercial newspapers, which do not share political orientations, seek to reach different segments of the market.

The British newspaper system has been described as ‘the strongest example’ of market segmentation that distinguishes between a ‘sensationalist mass press’ and ‘quality papers addressed to an elite readership’ (Hallin and Mancini, 2004: 25). This is to say that British newspaper readers are stratified along socioeconomic lines, whereby particular newspapers construct particular topics for particular audiences, with broadsheets serving a readership that ‘tend[s] to occupy the higher socioeconomic and intellectual area of society’ and the tabloids catering to a broadly working-class audience (Cole and Harcup, 2010: 31).

Since the tabloids target the broadest group, the working and lower middle class, they ‘cannot simply reproduce the capitalists’ own view of the world’ but must present that view ‘in a form that will be palatable to people whose entire life is spent in conditions of exploitation and oppression that are the direct result of capitalism’ (Sparks, 2006: 116). In order to accomplish this, the tabloids must reconcile the fears of their working-class audiences grasping for stability in a globalized economy with the interests of capital. Broadsheet newspapers, however, target a more affluent and economically secure readership less prone to the turbulences of the free market and who benefit from the disposable labor that neoliberal migration patterns engender.

RQ1.

Considering previous research that has examined governing bodies’ neoliberal and nationalist policies, as well as media representations that scapegoat immigrants for threatening the nation-state, do British newspapers, across format and political orientation, also promote neoliberal values in its coverage of Polish immigration?

RQ2.

Whereas previous research has documented the presence of both nationalism and neoliberalism within immigration discourse, how are these two seemingly contradictory discourses reconciled within British newspaper coverage, across format and political orientation, of Polish immigration?

Method

In this study, we analyzed four British daily newspapers and their Sunday counterparts: two tabloids, the right-leaning Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and left-leaning Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror, and two broadsheets, the right-leaning Times and Sunday Times and left-leaning Guardian and Observer. At the time of data collection, the Mail, Mirror, Times, and Guardian were the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 10th most popular daily newspapers (in terms of circulation) in the United Kingdom, respectively (National daily newspaper circulation September 2010, 2010) while for the Sundays, the Mail, Mirror, and Observer held the same positions as their daily counterparts while the Times was 4th (National Sunday newspaper circulation September 2010, 2010). These newspapers were intentionally selected precisely because they represent a broad cross-section of press coverage in the United Kingdom in terms of format, circulation, and editorial outlook, and thus reaching different segments of the British population.

Using the LexisNexis search terms ‘Polish worker’, ‘Polish immigrant’, and ‘Poles’, we identified every article published in the selected newspapers from September 2003 to July 2008, starting at the point when the first articles on possible Polish immigration appeared some 8 months prior to Poland’s official entry into the EU in May 2004. While Polish settlements on the British Isles go back to the 16th century, with significant numbers of Poles arriving after the failed 1831 uprising against Russia and two World Wars (see Burrell, 2002; Holmes, 1988; Kay and Miles, 1998), Poland’s admission to the EU enabled the largest migration flow ever. Burgeoning research treats the post EU-accession Polish migration to the United Kingdom as distinct from previous flows because of its sheer size and the structural conditions of the freedom of movement. Polish EU migrants did not settle in established ethnic communities, but in many different locations across the United Kingdom. Furthermore, ongoing economic restructuring dismantled social security nets and pushed many Poles to migrate.

We charted the frequency of articles before selecting articles published between April 2006 and March 2007, as there was a significant spike in coverage. Because nonroutine news events goad news organizations to devote resources to their coverage (Berkowitz, 1992), such events trigger news waves that both reify and reshape established discourses (Wolfsfeld and Sheafer, 2006). As such, news waves are particularly apt periods of media coverage for analysis.

We included news and commentary in our analysis; while serving different functions, both genres contribute to newspaper discourse. The final data set comprised 190 articles (98 from the Mail, 28 from the Guardian, 51 from the Times, and 13 from the Mirror). This disparity in data is reflective of the different audiences these papers serve, as described in the previous section. We identified initial themes by examining a subset of the data. Next, we examined all articles to develop the themes. Our analysis was informed by discourse analysis, which deconstructs the semiotic chains of meaning in the construction of identities, social relations, and knowledge (Fairclough, 1995) and framing research (Entman, 1993). Although framing and discourse analysis are grounded in different paradigmatic approaches, they have been successfully combined in the study of media texts (Greenberg and Knight, 2004). Frames, as principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation, provide insight into what is conceived as common sense. Critical discourse analysis focuses on connections between language and the social, historical, and political contexts in which it occurs. We identified thematic frames by focusing on how Poles were represented, looking for similarities and differences between the selected newspapers, producing the thematic frames we discuss below. The insights of our multinational research team were critical to deconstructing the layers of representation of Polish immigrants in these newspapers. One researcher is US American, one researcher is Welsh-British, and one researcher is Polish-American.

Pawns between logics of nationalism and neoliberalism

We argue that the analyzed newspapers, across format and political orientation, constructed a flexible Polish subject, positioned within a neoliberal framework. While the tabloids oscillated between the predominant neoliberal Polish subject and a nationalistic articulation of the Pole as a threatening ‘Other’, the broadsheets explicitly dispelled the tabloids’ nationalistic xenophobia to constitute a similarly flexible Polish migrant worker. The tabloids did not simplistically pit these two discourses in opposition, however, partially reconciling the seeming contradiction through the manipulation of the Polish subject as a pawn to achieve particular political and economic objectives. Like a pawn in chess, which is often purposefully sacrificed, the Polish worker became a discursive vehicle manipulated to achieve ulterior agendas.

Poles as neoliberal pawns

Consistent with extant research (Charteris-Black, 2006; Conboy, 2006), our analysis also found that the tabloids Mail and Mirror, despite their divergent political allegiances, placed strong emphasis on the erosion of British identity as a result of Polish immigration. Reflecting (and constituting) the concerns of working-class Britons, such as the loss of jobs predominately held by their readership, these newspapers framed Poles as unwelcome outsiders. Poles were described in news articles as ‘flooding every corner of Britain’ (Dobbie, 2006) and turning Britain into a ‘social dumping ground’ (Bird, 2006). Their arrival was said to ‘spark fear for our way of life’ (Slack and Hickley, 2006), as ‘quintessentially English cities’ (Reid, 2006) would change ‘beyond all recognition’ (Madeley, 2006). In similar fashion, a Mirror columnist ruminated on how ‘the city I love no longer feels as if it belongs to the indigenous population’ (Carroll, 2006). The anachronistic usage of the term ‘indigenous’ suggests it is the majority population that suffers as a result of the influx of Polish migrant workers. This discourse constitutes Poles as a threat to the national integrity of Great Britain, a nationalist threat posed by neoliberal realities.

While the tendency for the tabloids to ‘contain’ Britain and protect it from external, invading agents is consistent with extant research, our analysis also found that the newspapers’ coverage concomitantly promoted neoliberal values. In the United Kingdom, as well as more broadly Europe, immigration discourse is often tempered by the need for immigrants to maintain economic growth and fill much-needed positions in the workforce (Bailey, 2005). We argue that the discourse goes even further in promoting neoliberal values through such means as the pervasive praising of the Polish work ethic. Poles are not just tolerated, but desired. In contrast to Austrian newspapers that represent immigrants as lazy and a burden on the economy (Van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999), tabloid news articles represented Polish immigrants as hardworking and committed. In the words of one landlord, they would ‘work hard, take any job, and get on with things’ (Barton, 2006). For one Mirror columnist, ‘The Polish people are among the most likeable in Europe – a friendly, hard-working, freedom-loving bunch of grafters’ (Parsons, 2006). In the construction industry in particular, their productivity was praised as they were said to ‘pitch up first thing in the morning. Never any hassle. Never a problem. They work hard, probably twice as hard as anybody else’ (Barrow, 2006). As lumbering ‘grafters’, Poles were depicted as beasts of burden: passive, subservient, hardworking, and unquestioning stimulators of the national economy. Their role is not to ‘hassle’ but to do as they are told, work hard, and accept employment options that require little thought or ingenuity, only a willingness to labor.

Their hegemonic exploitation normalized, Polish immigrants become the perfect, likeable, flexible subjects of neoliberalism, victors in the race to the bottom for low wages and poor employment protections. Dislocated by the liberalization of the economy in Poland, they readily pick up and move to the United Kingdom to outperform others in low-paid jobs. According to one Mail news article, they ‘do not argue or question what they are asked to do. They do not have hang-ups about doing jobs that are beneath them’ (Barton, 2006). This representation narrows the avenues for employment to positions of low-paid, manual labor, without interrogating why it is necessary for Polish workers to accept positions that are ‘beneath them’.

Polish workers, like immigrants in other European nations (Van Dijk, 1988), were simultaneously depicted as taking advantage of national public services. Mail news articles informed readers that public services were buckling ‘under the weight of the staggering level of immigration’ (Slack, 2006). Another article called for ‘restrictions on grants of citizenship to prevent those newly arrived and with no knowledge of Britain from enjoying the benefits of British nationality’ (Slack and Camber, 2006). When a third Mail news article raised concerns about Polish immigrants being ‘forced into aggressive begging, or becom[ing] addicted to alcohol or drugs … [placing] even greater pressure on public services struggling to cope with the new arrivals’ (Slack, 2006), the alarm bells that sounded were not born of altruistic concern for the welfare of migrants but because of the perceived drain on public services that would result.

Amidst this representation, neoliberal deregulation, flexibility, and job precariousness are shielded from blame; the economic forces that push (im)migrants into jobs for which they are overqualified and poorly paid are not mentioned by a discourse that reinforces the distance between the upstanding British taxpaying citizen and the Polish marauder willing to plunge into destitution in order to beg, steal, and borrow from the British purse. This is, of course, contrary to EU legislation entitling EU citizens to the social provisions of any EU country. It also obfuscates the fact that the flow of workers, as well as (im)migrants’ possible need of assistance, has been precipitated by the reach of free-market economics into Eastern Europe, which dramatically increased economic inequalities among EU member states (Harvey, 2005).

In addition to designating Poles as unqualified to receive social program assistance, the nationalist threat posed by EU freedom of movement was also neutralized through an emphasis of Poles’ temporariness. For example, Mail news articles quote the president of the Polish Economics and Business Association, ‘They come to the UK to get experience and are more likely to eventually go back home’ (Roberts, 2006), and a recruitment agency owner, ‘They are not guaranteed to get a job. More than 50 per cent of the people … go back to Poland very quickly’ (Barton, 2006). The emphasis of Poles’ temporariness thus afforded the newspapers one discursive resource for reconciling the seeming contradiction between neoliberalism and nationalism, reifying migrant workers’ one-way benefit to the nation-state.

Reframing the contradiction between these competing discourses, the newspapers thus portrayed Poles as solely economic actors, latter-day serfs who are to suffer the toils of a market economy through the burdens placed on their time, energy, and dedication without partaking in the spoils of their labor, including magnified capital and social services eligibility entitled under EU and UK law, preserving these benefits for Brits and constituting Poles as external to the British nationalist container. Sparke (2006) notes that while neoliberalization produces transnational liberal practices, it simultaneously has resulted in various ‘states of exception’, in which civil rights are denied to specific actors. Concomitantly, this nationalist emphasis obscures the neoliberal mechanisms deregulating labor across the EU. ‘Neoliberalism depends on nationalism to sustain a nation torn between haves and have-nots due to neoliberal policies, which often trigger neoconservative reactions such as attacking, excluding, and/or assimilating foreigners … who are often viewed as anomalies to national unity’ (Kawai, 2009: 17). This specific articulation of neoliberalism and nationalism mutes the exigency to address the socioeconomic divide.

The broadsheet newspapers, however, eschewed an overtly nationalist vocabulary, foregrounding Poles as neoliberal flexible subjects. For example, according to a Times commentary, ‘The influx from Eastern Europe has been almost wholly beneficial to the economy … Polish workers especially have shown a dedication, flexibility, and professionalism that has made a crucial difference to sectors of the economy’ (‘Figure it out, 2006’). This excerpt articulates Polish migrant workers’ boon to both the economy and the nation-state. Further from the Times,

The mass influx of Polish building workers since their country joined the European Union in May 2004 means British homeowners are spoilt for choice when it comes to hiring someone. With a reputation for working long hours at a fraction of the price, the new arrivals have forced their British rivals to up the ante, and many are carving out a successful new life for themselves – along with a healthy list of client referrals. (Dobson, 2006)

Raising the bid of the tabloids’ coverage, the Polish worker is not only an exemplary hard worker, but he or she tacitly goads British workers to join them as flexible subjects of neoliberalism and ‘up the ante’ of their efforts, even if this entails longer hours for lower wages. Rather than question why Poles are asked to work ‘long hours at a fraction of the price’, the implicit course of action is for British workers to do the same, casting aside their wage security in the name of flexibility. Reflecting a distinctive segment of the market, the broadsheets testified to the success of neoliberalism by tying Polish workers to builders’ growing businesses. Polish workers are cheap, supporting both business and homeowner interests by driving down the cost of British labor, and ‘helping fuel Britain’s currently buoyant economy’, according to a Guardian news article (Keating, 2006). While British nationals were seemingly spoilt for choice when it came to hiring construction workers, absent from this narrative was discussion of the qualifications or motivations of Polish workers, who are depicted as simply willing to take any job regardless of the conditions or pay.

Consistent with previous research on media representations’ silencing of immigrant voices (Bailey, 2005), this framework suggests that it matters not whether Poles are in the United Kingdom by necessity or luxury; all that matters is that they be of service to the needs of the domestic population. In both the tabloids and broadsheets, Polish immigrants occupied a contingent role in the British economy; they are not in the United Kingdom to stay and they do not belong; they are transient, unquestioning grafters, happy to work more hours for less money to keep the machinery of capitalism functioning. In this way, the newspapers articulated neoliberalism and nationalism together in its representation of Polish workers.

Poles as political and media pawns

As illustrated in the previous section, neoliberalism and nationalism intersect in ways that are much more complex than the reductionist equation of the tabloids with nationalism and the broadsheets with neoliberalism. Consequently, all four papers incorporated this ideological ambivalence in framing the Polish (im)migrant as a pawn being manipulated by right- and left-wing factions, whether through the connection of immigration to some other issue or the emphasis on Poles as an electoral bloc. The centrality of immigration in British political discourse, and the role of media in shaping this discourse, was summarized by one Observer political correspondent: ‘The recent media focus on the impact of Polish immigration to Britain … had prompted the [Conservative] party to re-enter the immigration debate’ (Temko, 2006). What was emphasized in this news article was not the increasing immigration per se, but rather how the Conservative Party seized upon immigration as an election issue due to increased media attention (also see Charteris-Black, 2006). Meanwhile, the Times and Mail positioned the Labour Party as hedging its electoral fortunes by seeking (im)migrant votes to combat the opposition on a variety of policies (Goodwin, 2006; Livingstone, 2006), while also reaching out to constituents swayed by the anti-immigration agenda of the far-right (Slack and Camber, 2006).

The topoi of immigration was subsequently transformed by various factions within the United Kingdom to further their own political and economic agendas rather than as a singular threat to the nation. The subordinate standing to which Polish (im)migrants have been positioned due to their role as cheap, powerless labor nullifies their threat to the British nation. When immigration is solely depicted as a threat, as extant literature has argued, this generally leads to the implementation of strict immigration quotas (Van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999). However, ambivalence in British newspaper coverage contributes to the underpinnings of a racial underclass. Depriving Poles of agency, their presence becomes an issue for others’ debate, in which they serve as pawns for others to reach their goals.

The manipulation of Polish immigration, according to Mail and Times news articles, includes co-optation by ‘suspect’ and ‘illegitimate’ groups, such as nationalist Scots (Livingstone, 2006) and unions who have ‘courted’ Poles (Buckley, 2007):

The union propaganda machine has to twist itself into an awkward position … On the one hand, they want to present the East Europeans as a wily danger, as far-too-cute workers who get in everywhere and take all the good jobs. Subtext: foreigners operate like vermin. On the other hand, they want to present the East Europeans as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘exploited’ so the unions can claim the foreign workers need to be signed up for a trade union for their own protection … [According to the editor of Business and Finance magazine,] ‘the culprit here is not the Polish plumber, it is the unionized structure of employment’. (Synon, 2006)

Ironically, in the excerpt above, the Mail critiqued the unions for the same xenophobic line that it adopted in much of its coverage, depicting the Polish migrant as a threat to Britons. Polish (im)migrants were positioned both at odds with unions in competition over limited jobs and as resources from which to build union strength. From this perspective, the unions reconciled the dissonant threat, posed by Poles, as a necessary and controllable evil, in order to increase their membership and strengthen their clout. Yet, the Mail constituted the disingenuousness of trade unions’ protection of Poles’ rights by such means as quotation marks around the words ‘vulnerable’ and ‘exploited’ to suggest inauthenticity, and the use of the word ‘claim’ to undermine the credibility of assertions that Polish migrants may actually need or desire the protection afforded through union membership. Furthermore, that the Mail should cite the editor of Business and Finance magazine, which reports on issues targeting senior management, on the problem posed by the unions is meaningful. According to the quoted editor, it is not the flexible Polish subject who is at fault (or who gets to speak) – rather, it is the inflexible system of unionization as a roadblock to economic fluidity, the interests of workers thus subsumed by the interests of transnational capital.

In addition to political pawnship, the newspapers discursively used the Polish worker to lambast their competitors. While diversified press coverage allows for multiple interpretations of Poles’ work ethic (i.e. working hard vs taking jobs away from Brits; Fomina and Frelak, 2008), we found that this ambivalence was employed by the newspapers to criticize their competitors. The broadsheets distinguished their coverage by critiquing the xenophobia of the tabloids. For example, a Guardian news article asserted, ‘The latest estimates … of the likely flow of new migrants explode claims by some tabloid newspapers’ (Travis, 2006), which illustrates the paper’s efforts to poke holes in the tabloids’ credibility. While one might question the necessity of the Guardian’s actions here, recognizing well-known differences between tabloid and broadsheet, the paper was speaking to its target audience. Appealing to a more affluent readership, the Guardian also challenged tabloid storylines that might have threatened a neoliberal agenda. For example, according to a Guardian commentary,

EU member states can temporarily restrict employment but, as Germany shows, all that happens is that you replace employees with the self-employed. And their wage levels are likely to be even lower than the super-exploited Polish agency workers who are the stuff of rightwing tabloid scare stories. (Barber, 2006)

Shielding neoliberalism, the author not only critiques tabloid xenophobia, but excuses existing exploitation as preferable to the alternative (i.e. self-employed Brits). Collectively, this rhetoric positions Poles as pawns not only in a material battle for (apparently) scarce resources but in a discursive battle between different newspapers, who appealed to the political proclivities of their respective readerships. Ultimately, media pawnship further disempowers Poles, constructing them as subjects in a war of journalistic attrition rather than agents empowered to shape their own destinies.

Furthermore, broadsheet news articles countered perceptions of Polish immigrants as threats to British national identity, imploring readers to ignore the misinformation and fear-mongering of the ‘anti-immigrant lobby’ (White, 2006). Bridging these critiques to broader ideological differences, a Guardian commentary cited a member of the British Parliament who asserted that the immigration debate had been ‘hijacked’ (Woodward, 2006) by conservative agendas. As the second most-read daily newspaper in Britain, the Mail drew criticism from the other newspapers responding not only to their ideological stance but their market position, which affords their xenophobic discourse a reach the broadsheet newspapers do not enjoy. A Guardian news article, for example, countered the ‘flood’ metaphor offered by Mail coverage, arguing that the ‘exodus of Polish workers to the UK’ exaggerated in the Mail is ‘unlikely’ (Travis, 2006) and instead called for a more ‘balanced’ perspective to the immigration question in both opinion pieces and news articles (Barber, 2006; Sriskandarajah, 2006; Woodward, 2006). An op-ed published in the Guardian proclaimed the need to move beyond the parameters of the ‘tired debate’ served up by the tabloid and instead

work out ways to ensure that immigration helps build a more equal society. There is no inherent trade-off between the arrival of immigrants and getting British people into work … It is crucial that the left sifts out the real issues from all the hype. (Sriskandarajah, 2006)

In this passage, the Guardian asserts the neoliberal ideological assumption that ‘unrestricted’ movement of labor and capital potentially engenders democratic equality, and thus refutes the conservative claim that immigration has been terrible for British workers. While the Guardian dons the attire of a balanced perspective, this tactic nonetheless involves employing Polish (im)migrants for competitive business ‘one-upspawnship’, casting Polish migrants as pawns who on the one hand are attacked by conservative politicians and newspapers and on the other must depend on the beneficence of ‘the left’ – that is, once it has finished ‘sift[ing] out the real issues’.

While the left-leaning Guardian is much more vocal in its criticism, the conservative-leaning Times joined the chorus of attack against the tabloids: ‘There is no statistical evidence that unemployment among English workers had risen … In the absence of any hard evidence, the information remained anecdotal’ (Smith, 2007). While the Times does not cite the Mail specifically in this article, the following excerpt exemplifies the anecdotal information it is critiquing: ‘Last autumn it said there were just 95 Polish plumbers working in Britain. However, the Daily Mail gathered that number together in West London within 24 hours with one card in a newsagent’s window and three phone calls’ (Doughty, 2006). While prior research has argued that immigrants are scapegoated (Bailey, 2005; Demo, 2005), criminalized (Flores, 2003), and marginalized (Shome, 2003), our findings reveal that Poles are also positioned as pawns to be played by powerful actors: politicians, unions, and media.

Conclusion

Through the process of articulation, previously oppositional or antagonistic logics find concord for strategic purposes (Hall, 1986). Our research addressed the articulation of nationalism and neoliberalism in British newspapers by way of their representation of Polish (im)migrants. British newspapers, despite ideological and format differences, promoted neoliberal values and re-purposed the relationship between neoliberalism and nationalism in the forms of political, economic, and media pawnship; rather than solely focusing on the (im)migrant’s threat to the nation’s identity, the Pole functions as a vessel for the articulation of neoliberal ideology and as a pawn for others to achieve ulterior agendas. Newspapers lambasted one another, found common cause with their readers to scapegoat Poles, and used Poles as means of attacking political entities. This discursive struggle over the meanings of the Polish (im)migrant by factions within UK society denotes a conflict between ‘us’ and ‘us’, not just ‘us’ and ‘them’. The discursive practice of othering is reappropriated to structure both the newspapers’ identities and the boundaries of the British media landscape. Through such frames as (a) Poles as unquestioning stimulators of the national economy, (b) Poles as taking jobs beneath their education and experience, and (c) Poles as temporary and powerless, Polish migrants were constituted as disposable pawns, exemplary workers serving neoliberal interests without upsetting nationalistic interests.

By theorizing migrants as media and political pawns, we advance scholarship on how journalism responds to the challenges and pressures of globalization through articulating oppositional logics together. Future media research should include more of an emphasis on inter-paper disputes and market segmentation, dissecting similarities and differences in representation. While there were already a number of Polish communities within Britain prior to EU enlargement, what is distinct about this study is that it situates Polish immigration amid competing discourses of nationalism and neoliberalism within the framework of flexible European labor mobility. Whereas previous waves of Polish migrants tended toward clusters that could form the basis of communal solidarity, post-EU enlargement migration patterns have been characterized by dispersal and fragmentation (Drinkwater et al., 2010). Media representations are layered onto this political economic context, with pawnship connoting contingency rather than belonging. While previous waves of Polish immigrants may have become Poles of Britain, the present wave has been signified as Poles in Britain.

Of course, ‘pawn’ should not be understood as simply a flat metaphor but as an indicator of journalism’s active, ideological role in discursively disempowering members of society who are already materially disenfranchised. Consequently, future research should examine the convergences and divergences in the ever-evolving coverage of Polish immigrants, and how that coverage is distinctive from representations of other (im)migrant groups. We have argued that Poles were not represented in a reductive ‘good’ or ‘bad’ manner, but that they became functionaries for debates in which their future was at stake but in which they played no role. The deleterious effects of the free movement of labor were discursively muted by assertions of economic stimulation, omitting the fact that not all actors are able to enjoy the fruits of economic liberalization. Additional scholarship should examine how pawnship has manifested 10 years after EU enlargement.

In a globalized world, newspapers must not confine their coverage to the nation scale (Fairclough, 2006), limited to local perspectives (Benson, 2005), neither re-producing banal nationalism (Billig, 1995) nor subtly promoting neoliberal ideology, without investigating the impacts of freedom of movement policies on all parties and not just those deemed ‘citizens’. Moving past the Hallin and Mancini (2004) nation-state model, journalists thus must expand their focus to examine transnational structural entities in making sense of news events, as sovereignty is not rigid, ‘but contingent and adaptable in a rapidly changing world’ (O’Toole, 2003: 283). In particular, scholars ought to address the role of media institutions through which migrant groups communicate with one another, for such outlets necessarily span linguistic and nationalistic boundaries but concurrently address spatially fragmented populations.

The collective perceptions of immigration are always contested, yet asserted to serve specific interests, normalized through the intersections of neoliberalism and nationalism. Whether it be fixing the plumbing needs of the ‘indigenous population’, filling gaps in the British economy, scaring working-class readers, serving as a device for inter-media attacks, or being solicited by political rivals for their votes, the figure of the Polish plumber performs an array of functions in post-EU enlargement British media coverage, as Poles were caught within the tension between neoliberalism and nationalism.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Joshua F Hoops is Assistant Professor at William Jewell College. His main research focuses on intersections of race and space, identity, and discourses of whiteness.

Ryan J Thomas is Assistant Professor at Missouri School of Journalism. His main research interests include the relationship between journalism and democracy at a time of uncertainty in the journalistic field.

Jolanta A Drzewiecka is Associate Professor at Washington State University. Her main research interests include the construction of cultural, racial, and national differences and identities in discourse.

References

Abdelal

(2005) Nationalism and international political economy in Eurasia. In: Helleiner

Pickel

(eds) Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University, pp. 21–43.

Bailey

(2005) Journalism and the politics of naming the ‘other’. Paper presented at the meeting of the international communication association. New York, 26–30 May.

Barber

(2006) Stop blaming migrants – Exploitation is the problem. The Guardian, 12 September, p. 32.

Barrow

(2006) Migrant job threat to British workers. Daily Mail, 25 July, p. 17.

Barton

(2006) The new Britons. Daily Mail, 17 May, p. 30.

Benson

(2005) American journalism and the politics of diversity. Media, Culture & Society 27(1): 5–20.

Berkowitz

(1992) Non-routine news and newswork: Exploring a what-a-story. Journal of Communication 42(1): 82–94.

Billig

(1995) Banal Nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bird

(2006) We are importing misery and despair. Mail on Sunday, 27 August, p. 27.

10.

Böröcz

(2006) East European entrants to the EU: Diffidently yours. In: Mauro

(ed.) The European’s Burden: Global Imperialism in EU Expansion. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 153–164.

11.

Buckley

(2007) GMB targets Polish migrant workers in spirit of solidarity. Times, 15 January, p. 41.

12.

Burrell

(2002) Migrant memories, migrant lives: Polish national identity in Leicester since 1945. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 76: 59–77.

13.

Burrell

(2009) Migration to the UK from Poland. Continuity and change in East-West European mobility. In: Burrell

(ed.) Polish Migration to the UK in the ‘New’ European Union after 2004. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–22.

14.

Carroll

(2006) Britain’s open door is letting in a crisis. Daily Mirror, 6 December, p. 17.

15.

Charteris-Black

(2006) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society 17(5): 563–581.

16.

Cole

Harcup

(2010) Newspaper Journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Comaroff

(2000) Millennial capitalism: First thoughts on a second coming. Public Culture 12(2): 291–343.

18.

Conboy

(2006) Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language. London: Taylor & Francis.

19.

De Cillia

Reisigl

Wodak

(1999) The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society 10(2): 149–173.

20.

Demo

(2005) Sovereignty discourse and contemporary immigration politics. Quarterly Journal of Speech 91(3): 291–311.

21.

Dobbie

(2006) Punch-up in a northern chippie that gives lie to the liberal supper chat. Mail on Sunday, 20 August, p. 24.

22.

Dobson

(2006) Pork from scratch. Times, 10 September, p. 8.

23.

Doughty

(2006) UK lets in more Poles than there are in Warsaw. Daily Mail, 25 April, p. 8.

24.

Drinkwater

Eade

Garapich

(2009) Poles apart? EU enlargement and the labor market outcomes of immigrants in the UK. International Migration 47(1): 161–190.

25.

Drinkwater

Eade

Garapich

(2010) What’s behind the figures? An investigation into recent Polish migration to the UK. In: Black

Engbersen

Okólski

(eds) A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 73–88.

26.

Echchaibi

(2001) We are French too, but different. International Communication Gazette 63(4): 295–310.

27.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

28.

Fairclough

(1995) Media Discourse. New York: Edward Arnold.

29.

Fairclough

(2006) Language and Globalization. New York: Routledge.

30.

Figure it out (2006) Times, 3 November, p. 23.

31.

Flores

(2003) Constructing rhetorical borders: Peons, illegal aliens, and competing narratives of immigration. Critical Studies in Media Communication 20(4): 362–387.

32.

Fomina

Frelak

(2008) Next Stopski London: Public Perceptions of Labour Migration within the EU. Warsaw: Institute of Public Affairs.

33.

Garland

Harper

(2012) Did somebody say neoliberalism? Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 10: 413–424.

34.

Goldberg

(2006) Racial Europeanization. Ethnic & Racial Studies 29(2): 331–364.

35.

Goodwin

(2006) SNP targets Polish voters. Sunday Times, 29 October, p. 2.

36.

Greenberg

Knight

(2004) Framing sweatshops: Nike, global production, and the American news media. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 1: 151–175.

37.

Hall

(1986) On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10(2): 45–60.

38.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Harmes

(2012) The rise of neoliberal nationalism. Review of International Political Economy 19(1): 59–86.

40.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

Helleiner

(2002) Economic nationalism as a challenge to economic liberalism? Lessons from the 19th Century. International Studies Quarterly 46: 307–329.

42.

Helleiner

(2005) The meaning and contemporary significance of economic nationalism. In: Helleiner

Pickel

(eds) Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University, pp. 220–234.

43.

Hermann

(2007) Neoliberalism in the European Union. Studies in Political Economy 79: 61–89.

44.

Holmes

(1988) John Bull’s Island: Immigration and British Society 1871–1971. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

45.

Hooghe

Marks

(1999) The making of a polity: The struggle over European integration. In: Kitschelt

Lange

Marks

al.

(eds) Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–97.

46.

Housel

(2007) Australian nationalism and globalization: Narratives of the nation in the 2000 Sydney Olympics’ opening ceremony. Critical Studies in Media Communication 24(5): 446–461.

47.

Kawai

(2009) Neoliberalism, nationalism, and intercultural communication: A critical analysis of a Japan’s neoliberal nationalism discourse under globalization. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 2(1): 16–43.

48.

Kay

Miles

(1998) Refugees or migrant workers? The case of the European Volunteer Workers in Britain (1946–1951). Journal of Refugee Studies 1(3–4): 214–236.

49.

Keating

(2006) Cream of the crop. The Guardian, 20 May, p. 5.

50.

KhosraviNik

(2010) The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language & Politics 9(1): 1–28.

51.

Livingstone

(2006) A devolution backlash for Labour. Daily Mail, 10 July, p. 2.

52.

Madeley

(2006) Full of eastern promise. Daily Mail, 26 August, p. 34.

53.

Miles

Doherty

(2005) The United Kingdom: A cautious Euro-outsider. Journal of European Integration 27(1): 89–109.

54.

Munck

(2005) Neoliberalism and politics, and the politics of neoliberalism. In: Saad-Filho

Johnston

(eds) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press, pp. 60–69.

55.

National daily newspaper circulation September 2010 (2010) The Guardian, 15 October. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2010/oct/15/abcs-national-newspapers

56.

National Sunday newspaper circulation September 2010 (2010) The Guardian, 15 October. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2010/oct/15/abcs-newspapers

57.

O’Toole

(2003) A new nationalism for a new era: The political ideology of Mexican neoliberalism. Bulletin of Latin American Research 22(3): 269–290.

58.

Parsons

(2006) Honesty’s the best immigration policy. Daily Mirror, 24 July. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/honestys-the-best-immigration-policy-634982

59.

Phelan

(2007) The discourses of neoliberal hegemony: The case of the Irish Republic. Critical Discourse Studies 4(1): 29–48.

60.

Pickel

(2005) False oppositions: Reconceptualizing economic nationalism in a globalizing world. In: Helleiner

Pickel

(eds) Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University, pp. 1–17.

61.

Reid

(2006) The town the Poles took over. Daily Mail, 24 August, p. 36.

62.

Roberts

(2006) Please, come back to Poland; A city’s appeal to the workers who left for Britain. Daily Mail, 2 August, p. 20.

63.

Sassen

(1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University.

64.

Sassen

(2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

65.

Schlesinger

(2006) Is there a crisis in British journalism? Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 299–307.

66.

Shome

(2003) Space matters: The power and practice of space. Communication Theory 13: 39–56.

67.

Shore

Black

(1994) Citizens’ Europe and the construction of European identity. In: Goddard

Llobera

Shore

(eds) The Anthropology of Europe. Oxford: Berg, pp. 145–169.

68.

Shulman

(2000) Nationalist sources of international economic integration. International Studies Quarterly 44: 365–390.

69.

Slack

(2006) Homeless migrants could cause chaos, Reid warns. Daily Mail, 12 August, p. 22.

70.

Slack

Camber

(2006) 400,000 arrive, but at least it’s to work. Daily Mail, 24 May, p. 13.

71.

Slack

Hickley

(2006) Migrants spark fear for our way of life, say ministers. Daily Mail, 8 March, p. 8.

72.

Smith

(2007) In search of a ticket home. Sunday Times, 25 February, p. 20.

73.

Sparke

(2006) A neoliberal nexus: Economy, security and the biopolitics of citizenship on the border. Political Geography 25: 151–180.

74.

Sparks

(2006) Contradictions in capitalist media practices. In: Artz

Macek

Cloud

(eds) Marxism and Communication Studies: The Point is to Change it. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 111–132.

75.

Spiegelman

(2013) The depiction of Polish migrants in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 33: 98–113.

76.

Sriskandarajah

(2006) Pulling up the drawbridge will damage our economy. The Guardian, 23 August, p. 28.

77.

Synon

(2006) Are foreigners taking our jobs? Daily Mail, 4 March, p. 16.

78.

Temko

(2006) Limit EU influx, say Tories. Observer, 20 August, p. 5.

79.

Travis

(2006) New in the UK. The Guardian, 23 August, p. 4.

80.

Van der Valk

(2003) Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society 14(3): 309–348.

81.

Van Dijk

(1988) Semantics of a press panic: The Tamil ‘invasion’. European Journal of Communication 3: 167–187.

82.

Van Leeuwen

Wodak

(1999) Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1(1): 83–118.

83.

Varsanyi

(2008) Rescaling the ‘alien’, rescaling personhood: Neoliberalism, immigration, and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98(4): 877–896.

84.

White

(2006) Romans, migrants, and damned estimates. The Guardian, 25 October, p. 4.

85.

Wolfsfeld

Sheafer

(2006) Competing actors and the construction of political news: The contest over waves in Israel. Political Communication 23: 333–354.

86.

Woodward

(2006) Immigration: MP speaks up for new EU members’ job rights. The Guardian, 19 August, p. 10.