Wandering identities in energy transition discourses: Political leaders’ use of the “we” pronoun in Ontario, 2009–2019

Abstract

Analyzing discursive strategies helps demonstrate how power is exerted through politics. • Three ruling coalitions in Ontario strategically used universalizing language to promote very different energy policy regimes. • The "we" form in political discourse leaves room for ambiguous messages, implying benefits to all while obscuring differentiated impacts. This paper explores the use of universalizing language as a discursive strategy to promote shifts in energy policy. Building on scholarship that seeks to understand the political nature of energy transitions, including resistance to transitions, the role of the state, and implications for justice, we examine three phases of energy transition in Ontario in the period 2009-2019, focusing on the ways that three successive ruling coalitions used the first plural pronoun "we" to promote contrasting energy policy orientations. Our analysis of policy documents and government news releases confirms that all three coalitions used the "we" form as a strategic device to define priorities, prescribe courses of action, and broadcast achievements. However, they also used the ambiguity of the "we" form to obscure alternative perspectives, claim credit for rivals' accomplishments, and gloss over harmful and differentiated impacts of policy choices. The paper concludes by reflecting on broader questions about power and justice relevant to energy transition scholars.