DESIRE Seminar 8
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
20.9.19
20.9.19
10-11: Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger - The Antinomies of Ernesto Laclau: A Reassessment
Abstract: This paper provides an internal assessment of Ernesto Laclau’s theory of populism. While critiques of Laclau have been made from a variety of traditions, few scholars have sought to work through the contradictions of his thought on internal terms. This paper identifies some key antinomies in Laclau’s oeuvre and hints at redemptive strategies. It starts with a short summary of Laclau’s conception of populism in contextual and conceptual fashion. Subsequently, four possible deficits of Laclau’s theory are examined, ranging from a tension between verticality and horizontality, an ahistorical dimension, a descriptive and normative hyperformalism, and the lack of a reflexive approach to the term ‘populism’ itself. The paper finishes with a fresh research agenda for ‘post-Laclauian’ theories of populism.
11-12: Benjamin De Cleen (paper with Jason Glynos) – Beyond Populism Studies: Thinking with Discourse Theory Against the Reification of Populism
In the last years ‘populism’ has become an ever more ubiquitous label and an ever more dominant framework in political analysis and commentary, to the extent that ‘populism studies’ appears on course to establishing itself as a field of research in its own right. This article argues against such a development as it would exacerbate an increasingly widespread fatigue, impatience, and frustration with some strands of research on populist phenomena and especially with the prominence of the concept of populism itself in such analyses. More importantly – and paradoxically perhaps - establishing an autonomous field of ‘populism studies’ might risk distracting us from the normative, ideological, and political significance of populist phenomena themselves.
Starting from a discourse theoretical approach to populism - but also critically engaging with this tradition, including its own contribution to the hype about populism - we suggest that the study of populist phenomena should at most be understood as a ‘vanishing mediator’ that reveals to us that the relevant issues are not mainly what or where we think they are (namely in populism as such), but elsewhere. We suggest that establishing such a thing as ‘populism studies’ would only serve to reify populism in a way that would actually prevent us from understanding that which really matters about populist politics, for example: the substantive political projects of particular populisms; the broader conditions of possibility within which populist politics thrive and to which they contribute (polarization, institutional distrust, the decline of the mass party system, frustration with political and socio-economic systems, etc.); and the specific (and limited) role of populism in particular populist politics. Ours is not a call for abandoning the concept of populism altogether, but a call for de-centering the use we make of the concept of populism, turning it into a ‘normal’ analytical tool in the toolbox of the social sciences and humanities. A call, that is, to move beyond populism studies.
Lunch
13-14: Arthur Borriello – discussion of ongoing research project - Populism in the wake of the European Great Recession. A comparative analysis of the National Front, Podemos and the Five Star Movement (2010-2018)
Abstract: This project focuses on the following research question: to what extent does the strengthening of populist parties in several EU Member States reflect a deeper reconfiguration of political conflicts? It aims to make an important contribution to the analysis of the rise of populism in the wake of the economic recession in Europe. On the theoretical level, the project is original with regard to two aspects. On one hand, it breaks with the main definitions of populism and defines it as a mode of (discursive) construction of political identities through the radical dichotomisation of the social field. On the other hand, it situates the recent emergence/reinforcement of populist parties in the broader context of the coming of a new structure of political conflicts articulated around the technocracy versus populism dichotomy, which intersects with the classic left/right cleavage and thus makes the political field more complex. The research design consists of the comparison of three populist parties (National Front, Five Star Movement and Podemos) and aims at testing several hypotheses through a two-step methodology that combines discourse analysis (lexicography and narrative analysis) and the analysis of interviews conducted with the members of these political parties.
14-15: Alvaro Oleart (paper with Ben Crum, & Patrick Overeem) Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - 'Renewing or Undermining Democratic Pluralism? The conditioning of populist parties across EU member states'
Paper in progress as part of ongoing project http://reconnect-europe.eu/
Abstract: This paper provides an internal assessment of Ernesto Laclau’s theory of populism. While critiques of Laclau have been made from a variety of traditions, few scholars have sought to work through the contradictions of his thought on internal terms. This paper identifies some key antinomies in Laclau’s oeuvre and hints at redemptive strategies. It starts with a short summary of Laclau’s conception of populism in contextual and conceptual fashion. Subsequently, four possible deficits of Laclau’s theory are examined, ranging from a tension between verticality and horizontality, an ahistorical dimension, a descriptive and normative hyperformalism, and the lack of a reflexive approach to the term ‘populism’ itself. The paper finishes with a fresh research agenda for ‘post-Laclauian’ theories of populism.
11-12: Benjamin De Cleen (paper with Jason Glynos) – Beyond Populism Studies: Thinking with Discourse Theory Against the Reification of Populism
In the last years ‘populism’ has become an ever more ubiquitous label and an ever more dominant framework in political analysis and commentary, to the extent that ‘populism studies’ appears on course to establishing itself as a field of research in its own right. This article argues against such a development as it would exacerbate an increasingly widespread fatigue, impatience, and frustration with some strands of research on populist phenomena and especially with the prominence of the concept of populism itself in such analyses. More importantly – and paradoxically perhaps - establishing an autonomous field of ‘populism studies’ might risk distracting us from the normative, ideological, and political significance of populist phenomena themselves.
Starting from a discourse theoretical approach to populism - but also critically engaging with this tradition, including its own contribution to the hype about populism - we suggest that the study of populist phenomena should at most be understood as a ‘vanishing mediator’ that reveals to us that the relevant issues are not mainly what or where we think they are (namely in populism as such), but elsewhere. We suggest that establishing such a thing as ‘populism studies’ would only serve to reify populism in a way that would actually prevent us from understanding that which really matters about populist politics, for example: the substantive political projects of particular populisms; the broader conditions of possibility within which populist politics thrive and to which they contribute (polarization, institutional distrust, the decline of the mass party system, frustration with political and socio-economic systems, etc.); and the specific (and limited) role of populism in particular populist politics. Ours is not a call for abandoning the concept of populism altogether, but a call for de-centering the use we make of the concept of populism, turning it into a ‘normal’ analytical tool in the toolbox of the social sciences and humanities. A call, that is, to move beyond populism studies.
Lunch
13-14: Arthur Borriello – discussion of ongoing research project - Populism in the wake of the European Great Recession. A comparative analysis of the National Front, Podemos and the Five Star Movement (2010-2018)
Abstract: This project focuses on the following research question: to what extent does the strengthening of populist parties in several EU Member States reflect a deeper reconfiguration of political conflicts? It aims to make an important contribution to the analysis of the rise of populism in the wake of the economic recession in Europe. On the theoretical level, the project is original with regard to two aspects. On one hand, it breaks with the main definitions of populism and defines it as a mode of (discursive) construction of political identities through the radical dichotomisation of the social field. On the other hand, it situates the recent emergence/reinforcement of populist parties in the broader context of the coming of a new structure of political conflicts articulated around the technocracy versus populism dichotomy, which intersects with the classic left/right cleavage and thus makes the political field more complex. The research design consists of the comparison of three populist parties (National Front, Five Star Movement and Podemos) and aims at testing several hypotheses through a two-step methodology that combines discourse analysis (lexicography and narrative analysis) and the analysis of interviews conducted with the members of these political parties.
14-15: Alvaro Oleart (paper with Ben Crum, & Patrick Overeem) Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam - 'Renewing or Undermining Democratic Pluralism? The conditioning of populist parties across EU member states'
Paper in progress as part of ongoing project http://reconnect-europe.eu/