In Finland a public debate took place from 2018 to 2021 regarding the government’s goal of extending compulsory education until the age of 18. This article examines the rhetoric of enforced uniformity (tasapäistäminen) in this debate in Finland’s ten largest daily newspapers. Material consists of news articles as well as other texts published in journalistic media and is analyzed using rhetorical analysis and Kenneth Burke’s definitions of tropes, rhetorical figures of speech. The findings indicate that enforced uniformity functions as a rhetorical device in educational policy discourse. Based on theoretical framework and my findings, enforced uniformity has possibly transformed—or is in the process of transforming—into an ironic rhetorical figure. Due to difficulties to find adequate translation for the term, it rises a question if similar or related ironic rhetorical figures of education can be found in European context.

The term, enforced uniformity, is invoked when speakers feel their position is challenged, often framing equality as a restrictive force that limits diversity, meritocracy, or institutional autonomy. In the Finnish context, enforced uniformity is particularly associated with concerns that expanding equal access may suppress individual choice or reduce excellence. This rhetoric was prominent in discussions about Finland’s 2021 reform, which extended compulsory education to age 18. While the reform aimed to reduce inequality, critics argued that it imposed a rigid system that disregarded alternative learning paths.

A key finding is that enforced uniformity appears primarily in informal press sections, such as opinion pieces and columns, rather than in news reporting. This suggests it is a rhetorical tool used by commentators rather than a neutral descriptive term. Moreover, its usage has expanded beyond education into broader policy debates on labor markets, taxation, and welfare, where it is employed to critique policies seen as narrowing socioeconomic disparities.

The evolution of enforced uniformity as a rhetorical figure reflects shifting terms in Finnish policy debates. Rather than directly opposing equality, critics use this concept to argue that when taken too far, equality can produce unintended consequences. This framing allows opponents of egalitarian reforms to challenge policies without rejecting equality outright, instead positioning themselves as defenders of diversity, excellence, or individual choice.

The rhetoric of enforced uniformity plays a central role in Finnish educational discourse, particularly in debates on expanding equal access. It functions as a persuasive tool to frame educational equality as potentially restrictive, emphasizing concerns about diminished differentiation, reduced excellence, and loss of choice. While similar arguments exist in other European countries, the specific use of enforced uniformity as an ironic rhetorical figure is most pronounced in Finland due to its strong commitment to egalitarian education.

As enforced uniformity continues to evolve as a rhetorical device, it is likely to remain a key feature in Finnish policy discussions, reflecting broader tensions between equality and excellence in education and beyond.

Kenneth Burke (1969) categorizes linguistic figurativeness into four fundamental tropes: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. According to Burke, these four tropes form the foundation of all language use (Burke, 1969; Tilli, 2023). Among them, metonymy and synecdoche can be seen as complementary opposites (Burke, 1969): metonymy simplifies a complex or abstract concept by replacing it with a more tangible and easily understood element, while synecdoche functions in the opposite direction, allowing a concrete part to represent a broader whole—or vice versa (Tilli, 2023). Metaphor and irony, the remaining two fundamental tropes, operate at a higher level of abstraction. Metaphor condenses complex realities into analogies (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971; Perelman, 2007), making difficult concepts more accessible: for example, a person is likened to an animal based on shared attributes, or life is framed as a journey. A metaphor asserts that concept A is concept B, assuming the audience will accept this analogy as common knowledge. Irony, in contrast, subverts all previous tropes. It ridicules and challenges established representations by presenting a subject through negation (Booth, 1974). Something exists precisely because its opposite also exists: thus, any action or phenomenon can be contested (Burke, 1969; Tilli, 2023). The transition from trope to rhetorical figure is not straightforward. Jouni Tilli (2023), drawing on Chaïm Perelman and Lucille Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971), argues that when a figurative expression is applied beyond its original context, it may, over time, develop into a rhetorical figure (cf. Hakala, 2009). I argue that enforced uniformity (tasapäistäminen) has become an established ironic trope in Finnish educational policy discourse, specifically as a critique of equality measures. Moreover, it appears to be undergoing a transformation into a rhetorical figure, as its usage has expanded beyond its original context. This evolution aligns with Burke’s and Tilli’s theoretical frameworks, suggesting that enforced uniformity no longer merely describes a policy phenomenon but functions as a persuasive and ideologically charged linguistic device in public debate.

Burke's theory on rhetorical tropes suggests that a trope can become a rhetorical figure if its use expands beyond its original debate. The term enforced uniformity has made this shift over the decades, especially from 1990s onwards, from educational policy debate to other policy debates as well as to common speech. Journalistic texts from 2018 to 2021 concearning the extension of compulsory education serve as case study on how the term is used as an ironic figurative way of speech and the evolution towards rhetorical figure.

Ahonen, S. (2003). Yhteinen koulu: tasa-arvoa vai tasapäisyyttä? Koulutuksellinen tasa-arvo Suomessa Snellmanista tähän päivään. Vastapaino. Aristoteles. (2000). Retoriikka Runousoppi. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Bacchi, C. (2012). Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 1-8. Booth, W. C. (1974). A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press. Hakala, S. 2009. Symbolisen johtajuuden kriisi: koulusurmat ravisuttavat verkostoyhteiskuntaa. Media & viestintä, 32(2). Hatunpää, F., Puustinen, M., Säntti, J., & Kalske, K. (2024). Maailman paras ja romahduksen partaalla? Retorinen analyysi koulushoppailu- ja eriytymiskeskustelusta Helsingin Sanomissa keväällä 2023. Politiikka, 66(2). Kansallinen Mediatutkimus. (2021). Kmt 2021 lehtien lukijamäärät. mediaauditfinland.fi https://mediaauditfinland.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/KMT-2021-lukijamaarat-liite.pdf (luettu 16.11.2024) Kauppi, E. (1976). Puheenvuoro eduskunnassa. parlamenttisampo.fi. http://ldf.fi/semparl/speeches/s1975_2_064_003 (luettu 16.11.2024) Pekkarinen, T., Uusitalo, R. ja Kerr, S. (2009). School tracking and intergenerational income mobility: Evidence from the Finnish comprehensive school reform. Journal of Public Economics 93:7–8, 965–973. Perelman, C. ja Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Perelman, C. (2007). Retoriikan valtakunta. Tampere: Vastapaino. Puro, J.-P. (2006). Retoriikan historia. Helsinki: WSOY. Tervasmäki, T. ja Tomperi, T. (2018). Koulutuspolitiikan arvovalinnat ja suunta satavuotiaassa Suomessa. Niin & Näin (2)2018. 164–200. Tilli, J. A. (2023). Torjuntavoitto retorisena figuurina. Politiikka, 65(2). Vieno, A., Lavikainen, E. ja Saari, J. (2014). Koulutusvalinnat, tasa-arvo ja elämänmahdollisuudet. Teoksessa Sari Pulkkinen ja Johanna Roihuvuo (toim.), Erkanevat koulutuspolut – Koulutuksen tasa-arvon tila 2010-luvulla. Helsinki: Suomen ylioppilaskuntien liitto, 22–50.