Teaching insertion policies in Mexico: Cognitive tools and ideological vindication

Abstract

This study analyzes the argumentative rhetoric of the national and supranational regulatory bodies that intervened in the deliberation of novice teachers’ insertion policies in Mexico between 2005 and 2020, with the purpose of identifying the cognitive tools and the ethical and political stances displayed to generate effects of consensus on the risks and expectations they are based on. Post-foundational policy analysis is used, articulated by categories of F. Fischer's post-positivism, Perelman's argumentative turn and E. Laclau's political discourse analysis, to analyze the discursive corpus of the aforementioned bodies, as well as the narrative of the novice teachers’ mentors, which were used to triangulate the proposals of the sources. It was found that, within the argumentative rhetoric of the government agencies, an empirical and rational perspective prevails, which is centered in the immediacy, externality, and comparability, and this activates the circulation of referents and legitimizes the hegemony of specific cultures of the professional practice.