Introduction

The social policy strategies pursued by the national governments in Europe are inspired, to a considerable extent, by proposals issued by the supranational institutions of the European Union (EU). Analyses of the employment strategy drawn up by the European institutions have been presented in various studies (Goetschy, 1999, 2003; de la Porte and Pochet, 2003; Foden and Magnusson, 2003; Mósesdóttir, 2003; Barbier, 2004; Crespo Suárez and Serrano Pascual, 2004). The purpose of this chapter is to examine certain structural features of the European social policy discourse and, more specifically, the discursive production of individualised subjects in its use of the concept of activation. Our study is conducted on the basis of a theoretical stance that regards the production of discourse as a political and social practice that generates significant forms of action and social effects.

One of the features of discursive practices with regard to social policies consists of the political construction of the targeted subject of intervention (citizen, customer, patient). This construction of the subject implies a justification and legitimation of a series of intervention practices which can, in some cases, be understood as a redistribution policy aimed at redressing what is considered unfair, or else as policies adjusted to redress ‘personality deficits’ (change of behaviour and attitudes). This is the case with activation policies. Intervention policies focused on activation are based on and, at the same time, produce two opposite models of the subject – active and active-able subject – which foster two very different social policies. In the first case, with the active subject, the provision of an institutional framework is required which enables the capacity of agency as citizen. In the second case, with the active-able subject, practices are based on the concept of the ‘patient's deficit’: therapeutic action on behalf of the ‘curing’ state is necessary. Therefore, activation policies, rather than individualising practices, should be regarded as practices of subjectivation or, in other words, policies aimed at producing subjects.

We see the EU social policy discourse as constituting something of a paradox. What we mean here by paradox is rather close to its meaning in classical rhetoric, namely, a statement purporting to be true yet which contains, or conceals, a contradiction.