Policy Discourse Analysis of English Education: Symbolic Power, Legitimacy, and Identity Politics

• In Event: Contested Educational Policies: Power, Segregation, and Equity in Comparative Perspective

Proposal

Abstract
This paper critically examines the historical evolution and ideological functions of English education policy in China, focusing on how policy discourses operate as instruments of symbolic power to shape language legitimacy, identity politics, and educational priorities. Using critical discourse analysis, the study traces the trajectory of policy discourses from the early reform era to the present, revealing how ideological shifts are embedded in official narratives. The analysis highlights how English education policies not only serve pragmatic goals of modernization and globalization but also reproduce social hierarchies and construct national identity. The findings contribute to broader debates in comparative and international education about the role of language policy in reinforcing or contesting symbolic domination.

1 Introduction
English education policy in China represents more than pedagogical reform; it constitutes a field of symbolic control where the state defines what counts as legitimate knowledge, cultural representation, and learner identity. Guided by Bourdieu’s concepts of symbolic power and linguistic capital, this paper examines how policy discourses shape educational priorities and social hierarchies. The analysis addresses three questions: (1) How has English policy historically evolved in China? (2) What ideological narratives underpin these policies? (3) How do they contribute to symbolic legitimacy and identity politics?

2 Methodology
This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis to examine major Chinese policy documents, including the English Syllabus for Full-time Secondary Schools (1986) and the National English Curriculum Standards (2001, 2011, 2017). Texts were coded thematically to trace shifts in discourse on language legitimacy, ideology, and learner identity.

3 Findings
3.1 Historical Trajectory
Policy development reveals four phases:
• Political Instrumentalism (1949–1977): English served as a tool for socialist diplomacy, subordinated to political loyalty.
• Economic Pragmatism (1978–1999): English became central to modernization, framed as linguistic capital for development .
• Global Integration (2000–2010): Policies emphasized communicative competence and intercultural awareness, aligning with global standards while positioning English as a marker of China’s rise.
• Cultural Reassertion (2010–present): Policies embed Core Socialist Values and cultural confidence, integrating Chinese traditions into English education.

3.2 Ideological Shifts
English policy discourses naturalize three dominant narratives:
• Modernization and Development – English as a tool for science, technology, and economy.
• Global Competitiveness – framing English as essential for China’s international influence.
• Patriotism and Cultural Confidence – aligning English learning with national identity and socialist values.
These narratives legitimize English expansion while concealing inequalities in access.

3.3 Power and Identity
Policy discourses enact symbolic power by constructing the “ideal learner” as globally competent yet nationally loyal. English is simultaneously framed as a means of upward mobility and as a marker of social distinction, reinforcing inequalities between urban/rural and elite/non-elite institutions. Policies thus contribute to both inclusion and stratification.

4 Discussion
The findings highlight English education policy as a discursive mechanism of governance. By embedding ideological orientations into curriculum standards, the state regulates not only what knowledge is taught but also how learners perceive themselves and the world. Yet dissonances persist: policies promoting communicative competence often clash with exam-driven realities and calls for intercultural awareness are undercut by cultural stereotyping. These contradictions expose the limits of symbolic power, revealing spaces for negotiation and resistance.
In comparative perspective, China illustrates a broader tension in international education: English as a global lingua franca simultaneously offers access and reinforces hierarchies.

5 Conclusion
This paper demonstrates that English education policy in China is deeply implicated in symbolic power, legitimacy, and identity politics. Policy discourses reframe English across historical phases, embedding ideological narratives that align language learning with modernization, global participation, and cultural sovereignty. For comparative and international education, the case underscores that language policy must be analyzed not only as a technical instrument but also as a site of symbolic domination and ideological struggle, with implications for critical pedagogy and equity in global English education.

Author

• Wenjun Shi, National Institute of Technology (KOSEN), Gifu College