Aufsatz
Taking stock of the field of populism research: Are ideational approaches ‘moralistic’ and postfoundational discursive approaches ‘normative’?
Abstract
This article sets out to examine two claims that have increasingly come to define the dividing lines between the ideational and the post-foundational discursive approaches to populism: namely, that the former is moralistic and the latter is normative in orientation. The article considers the conceptual merits of both critiques while using them to further examine some of the implicit assumptions and pitfalls within Cas Mudde’s and Ernesto Laclau’s paradigmatic conceptualizations of populism. It is argued that ideational scholars’ attribution of a moralistic particularity to populism runs the risk of pathologizing the latter for characteristics that are arguably constitutive of all politics, while the danger of a certain crypto-normativity can be seen in Laclau’s tendency to equate populism with the political and simultaneously emphasize its emancipatory effects. The key difference between the two approaches ultimately consists in the location that they assign to populism within the wider topography of politics itself.
Sponsorship
Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEALCitation
@article{doi:10.17170/kobra-202210116967,
author={Kim, Seongcheol},
title={Taking stock of the field of populism research: Are ideational approaches ‘moralistic’ and postfoundational discursive approaches ‘normative’?},
journal={Politics},
year={2021}
}
0500 Oax
0501 Text $btxt$2rdacontent
0502 Computermedien $bc$2rdacarrier
1100 2021$n2021
1500 1/eng
2050 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/14182
3000 Kim, Seongcheol
4000 Taking stock of the field of populism research: Are ideational approaches ‘moralistic’ and postfoundational discursive approaches ‘normative’? / Kim, Seongcheol
4030
4060 Online-Ressource
4085 ##0##=u http://nbn-resolving.de/http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/14182=x R
4204 \$dAufsatz
4170
5550 {{Mudde, Cas}}
5550 {{Laclau, Ernesto}}
5550 {{Diskurs}}
5550 {{Populismus}}
5550 {{Ideologie}}
7136 ##0##http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/14182
<resource xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-2.2 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-2.2/metadata.xsd"> 2022-10-11T14:08:57Z 2022-10-11T14:08:57Z 2021-04-23 doi:10.17170/kobra-202210116967 http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/14182 Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEAL eng Namensnennung 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cas Mudde discourse Ernesto Laclau ideology populism 320 Taking stock of the field of populism research: Are ideational approaches ‘moralistic’ and postfoundational discursive approaches ‘normative’? Aufsatz This article sets out to examine two claims that have increasingly come to define the dividing lines between the ideational and the post-foundational discursive approaches to populism: namely, that the former is moralistic and the latter is normative in orientation. The article considers the conceptual merits of both critiques while using them to further examine some of the implicit assumptions and pitfalls within Cas Mudde’s and Ernesto Laclau’s paradigmatic conceptualizations of populism. It is argued that ideational scholars’ attribution of a moralistic particularity to populism runs the risk of pathologizing the latter for characteristics that are arguably constitutive of all politics, while the danger of a certain crypto-normativity can be seen in Laclau’s tendency to equate populism with the political and simultaneously emphasize its emancipatory effects. The key difference between the two approaches ultimately consists in the location that they assign to populism within the wider topography of politics itself. open access Kim, Seongcheol doi:10.1177/02633957211007053 Mudde, Cas Laclau, Ernesto Diskurs Populismus Ideologie publishedVersion eissn:1467-9256 Issue 4 Politics 492-504 Volume 42 false </resource>
The following license files are associated with this item:
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Namensnennung 4.0 International