Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/233528 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2022
Citation: 
[Journal:] Politics [ISSN:] 1467-9256 [Volume:] 42 [Issue:] 4 [Publisher:] Sage [Place:] Thousand Oaks, CA [Year:] 2022 [Pages:] 492-504
Publisher: 
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
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.
Subjects: 
Cas Mudde
discourse
Ernesto Laclau
ideology
populism
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.