The continued rise of socio-economic inequality over the past
decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit
vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a
matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. One
significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise
popularity of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the twenty-first Century.
The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described
as a ‘media sensation’, with Piketty himself as a ‘rock star
economist’. This paper, drawing from a major international and
cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in
four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in
Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we
specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these
proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used
against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal
of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic
examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources
normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of
economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views
of social relations and class as common sense and therewith
upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities.