Laclau's Theory of Populism

Number2018

For a long time, the notion of populism has been un-rigorously applied to a wide range of political movements and ideologies. Most models of political rationality tend to view populism through a lens of vagueness, reducing it to the simplistic articulation of a plurality of social agendas, ideological emptiness, anti-intellectualism, and transience. These models fail to address the inherent logic of populist phenomena and their broader societal impact. Ernesto Laclau offers a more comprehensive conceptual framework for understanding populism and its recurring resurgence. According to Laclau, collective political identities are forged through particular discursive articulation. Under normal conditions, social demands take the form of rational, contextually situated requests, implicitly assuming the legitimacy of governing institutions and their capacity to address them. However, when a plurality of isolated demands goes unmet, they can coalesce into a unified opposition to power, rejecting its authority. In this process, one of the social demands takes on an excessive yet vague meaning, assuming a role as a universal symbol of representation. This demand becomes an "empty signifier," which generates a precarious, totalizing effect, giving rise to a populist identity. As a result, the 'social logic' of institutional rule gives way to the 'political logic' of indeterminacy and radical change. "Any process of social change takes place through the variable articulation of equivalence and difference so that the equivalent moment presupposes the constitution of a global political subject bringing together a plurality of social demands. It also involves the construction of internal frontiers and the identification of institutionalized 'other'". (Laclau, 'On Populist Reason,' pg. 117) Forming a chain of equivalency involves a struggle to occupy the central signifying position. An empty signifier temporarily takes on the function of representing the entire social community, maintaining a sense of unity. This process marks a discontinuity and contingency, signalling the shift from the institutionalized order to the political sphere. "There is no logical, dialectical or semiotic transition from one level to the other; something qualitatively new has to intervene" ('On Populist Reason' pg. 110). Laclau argues that the logic behind the formation of the populist political subject, the "people," aligns with key structural moments in the contemporary political process. "The conditions of possibility of the political and the conditions of possibility of populism are the same… The end of populism coincides with the end of politics." (Laclau, 'Populism and mirror of democracy,' p. 48) Laclau’s extraordinary project seeks to facilitate "the return of the 'people' as a political category and the ways of rethinking the forms of political engagement in the era of globalized capitalism." The most recent U.S. elections can provide relevant context for his vision. There was an apparent competition between the two strategies for constructing collective identity in these elections. Both campaigns employed affective or emotional appeals to foster a sense of unity. However, unlike identity politics, the slogan MAGA does not primarily function to maintain a "them versus us" narrative. Also, it neither conveys a thoroughly conservative or nostalgic sentiment nor presents a clear vision for the future. Instead, MAGA operates as the empty signifier. For a time, it manifested a link between the dimensions of negation and equivalence and various specific social demands, as well as the emergence of a solidaristic community and the construction of the political.

Pantagruel

Ok. What is the underlying "rationally and contextually situated request" of which MAGA has become the empty signifier? At least ostensibly, populism seems to be defined in terms of concrete problems, which is reasonable. But MAGA seems to never have been anything but an empty and meaningless abstraction.

Nicely constructed synopsis.

frank

↪Number2018

The original Populists were late 19th century Southern politicians who responded to the widespread plea from small farmers for price fixing to stabilize their positions. Some of the Populist politicians let it be known they had no intention of asking Washington for that. They were just using the unrest to secure their power. Events like this fed a sense of hopelessness which led to race baiting and the infamous Southern demagogues.

I think populism is a two edged sword. It's just democracy in action in some ways. It's people letting their voices be heard. The problem is there are no solutions available for whatever reason. That's really the situation. The slow brewing sense if instability eventually spills over into racial and religious intolerance. Yes, the politicians who thrive in this environment are villains, but the real issue is a lack of solutions.

frank

What is the underlying "rationally and contextually situated request" — Pantagruel

Mostly reliable employment I think.

Pantagruel

↪frank

So the underlying concrete problem is addressed by a coalition of billionaires who don't like to pay their workers. Does this make populism a corruption of reason? Or is Maga not a genuine form of populism?

frank

So the underlying concrete problem is addressed by a coalition of billionaires who don't like to pay their workers. Does this make populism a corruption of reason? Or is Maga not a genuine form of populism? — Pantagruel

My point was that populism is what happens when there are no solutions and the unrest is just spinning it's wheels.

Pantagruel

↪frank

Sure. So populism is essentially a symptom of the deficiencies of the existing system of governance.

frank

Sure. So populism is essentially a symptom of the deficiencies of the existing system of governance. — Pantagruel

Is the problem systemic? Or is it just a particular set of circumstances? I lean toward blaming neoliberalism and its built in neglect of the well being of Main St. I feel like that's probably simplistic though.

ssu

However, unlike identity politics, the slogan MAGA does not primarily function to maintain a "them versus us" narrative. — Number2018

Yet Trump's agenda, starting with going after the "deepstate" that "robbed him from an election victory" seems to me quite strong "them versus us" narrative. What will come of it is another question.

Populism is at least for me a lousy word for this kind of politics. "Anti-elitism" would be far more proper term for this, because in fact many political ideas and ideologies that would be popular among the people don't strive for polarization and the "us the people against the evil elites" narrative that populism goes for. Populism and popular are quite different.

ssu

Is the problem systemic? Or is it just a particular set of circumstances? — frank

If mainstream political parties react to the wishes of the population, populism doesn't take over. Yet the reaction has to be swift and decisive, not just empty promises. I meek response will give the populists ammunition to portray themselves as the only solution to the political problems.

Just look at how for example Nordic countries, where democracy still works quite well, have changed their stance towards immigration very radically (Sweden, Finland) and have been quite strict from the start (Denmark). Yet in Sweden the populists have never been in power and for example in Finland only as a coalition partner, just as now.

There isn't actually any reason why mainstream parties could respond to the what people who vote for populists ask. Curb corruption, have some prominent politicians, bankers and "respected elite members" go to jail if they have broken the law. Be tough on immigration, you can close borders if you need to do that.

It is actually the populist themselves that paint the picture of the mainstream parties as ineffective lackeys of the richest billionaires and their lobbyists. (And as we can see from Trump having the richest person in his cabinet, the ideology isn't so important.)

Number2018

↪frank

↪ssu

Laclau’s project is an attempt to rethink contemporary spontaneous political movements and collective action. It is likely impossible to directly link his theory to any specific historical political movement labeled as ‘populist.’ However, it could be interesting to apply it to the most recent U.S. elections. Can this be done without resorting to partisan clichés and stereotypes? Rather than asking what the slogan 'MAGA' means to Trump’s voters, it might be more insightful to explore how the slogan 'MAGA' functions. What do you think?

Pantagruel

Is the problem systemic? — frank

If you place any credence in critical theory, then all problems are systemic. I do, inasmuch as we are more than just accidentally responsible for the state of affairs within which we exist. There's no limit to what can be solved as long as the legislative power enacting the solution is respected. Which is the entire purpose of having a government, in nuce.

Engels argues as much, when he talks about the ability to completely optimize economic realities, if only we can produce with consciousness as human beings "not as dispersed atoms without consciousness of your species." Whereby you transcend the problems of all "artificial and untenable antitheses." (from his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy)

Number2018

If mainstream political parties react to the wishes of the population, populism doesn't take over. Yet the reaction has to be swift and decisive, not just empty promises. — ssu

Could you provide an example from recent Western history where mainstream political parties responded to the wishes of the population? Could the most recent U.S. elections serve as such an example?

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Pantagruel

But MAGA seems to never have been anything but an empty and meaningless abstraction.

I don't think this is entirely true. While the movement has been quite inchoate, it has had a steady position of immigration: "we want less of it." This is notable because this is the common thread across far-right populist movements across the West.

The other stable characteristic is a general reaction against "PC" or "Wokeness" in the abstract, and particularly against race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. specific efforts at redistributive justice.

You can see this coming to a head in the current Twitter civil war in MAGA. The old guard GOP and the "tech bro" coalition tend support high rates of immigration as a means to allow employers to access a larger talent pool (and arguably to avoid investment in workers). The MAGA core is pretty much entirely against high rates of immigration. Not any immigration per se mind you, just "high rates."

I think this is worth pointing out because, as I said, it's the main thread across a diffuse set of populist movements and it is also notably absent from those advanced economies that have not allowed high levels of immigration (e.g. Japan). Israel is an interesting example here because it has not allowed high rates of immigration for non-Jews, and as such most immigrants share an important sort of identity.

Leontiskos

↪Number2018

- :up:

frank

Laclau’s project is an attempt to rethink contemporary spontaneous political movements and collective action. — Number2018

I think what he says does apply to what happened in the Southeast in the late 1890s. Collective dissatisfaction in the South finally gave way to Jim Crow laws, which were supposed to reestablish some lost glory from the past.

I don't know how to assess MAGA. I feel like I'm too close to it. It's easier to construct a narrative when it's something that happened in the past.

There isn't actually any reason why mainstream parties could respond to the what people who vote for populists ask — ssu

Trump promised a return to the 1960s when there was job security. The US has since deindustrialized, so there's no way to go back.

frank

If you place any credence in critical theory, then all problems are systemic — Pantagruel

Does that mean the only solution to any problem is revolution?

Engels argues as much, when he talks about the ability to completely optimize economic realities, if only we can produce with consciousness as human beings "not as dispersed atoms without consciousness of your species." Whereby you transcend the problems of all "artificial and untenable antitheses." (from his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy) — Pantagruel

Napoleon said organize by function if you want to kick ass. Competing priorities?

Pantagruel

Does that mean the only solution to any problem is revolution? — frank

I don't think that revolution is the only or most logical means to address systemic problems; you don't have to replace a system to address a systemic problem, merely address it at a systemic level. Which is the sense in which I understand legislation to operate, defining governing norms.

I would say that "kicking ass" is indeed a different priority. lol.

frank

↪Pantagruel

Oh. When I asked if the problem driving contemporary populism was systemic, I was asking if it's actually a problem with democracy.

Number2018

@Leontiskos @Count Timothy von Icarus
The concept of the ‘empty signifier’ carries a clear paradoxical implication. It stems from Laclau’s ontological position in formulating his political theory. He argues that any social or political identity can only be defined within the relational framework of a given social or political system. Identities are temporarily constituted and articulated; they have no inherent essence or transcendental model. A subject’s identity can only be defined in relation to what it is not. Therefore, the ontological question of constitutive difference must be addressed. For Laclau, this is a matter of ceaseless practice and articulation. “From the beginning of modern times, the reproduction of the different social areas takes place in permanently changing conditions, and they are constantly requiring the construction of a new system of differences. Hence the area of articulatory practises is immensely broadened”. (Laclau, ‘Antagonism and hegemony,’ pg. 126) Like the ‘empty signifier,’ the process of ‘constructing a new system of differences’ is a paradoxical but not self-refuting notion. To construct such a system, one must be able to operate within a conceivable form of universalism, which is necessarily in tension with the presupposed plurality and particularity of social forces and actors. Also, one must entertain a principle of universally valid rationality, at the same time tacitly acknowledging something irrational. This situation requires moving beyond classical two-valued logic, as, for example, George Spencer-Brown did.

Pantagruel

Oh. When I asked if the problem driving contemporary populism was systemic, I was asking if it's actually a problem with democracy. — frank

And I think that it is a problem with the mechanisms of democracy for sure.

ssu

Rather than asking what the slogan 'MAGA' means to Trump’s voters, it might be more insightful to explore how the slogan 'MAGA' functions. What do you think? — Number2018

Trump has no political ideology. It's telling that Trump himself didn't last time think that "drain the swamp" rhetoric would go anywhere, but he can read his audience and notice how it sank to his base. Otherwise when looking at it objectively, the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess. Isolationism and then wanting Greenland and the Panama Canal? How do those to fit together ideologically? Even more logical would be "KAG", hence "Keep America Great" as the US hasn't yet lost it's Superpower status.

Could you provide an example from recent Western history where mainstream political parties responded to the wishes of the population? — Number2018

I tried to make that example with the Nordic countries. Sweden has a) changed it's immigration policy dramatically. The populist "Sweden Democrats" haven't been in any administration. Naturally when parties like the social democrats stiffen the immigration policies, it also does make populist parties less "fringe". The "Sweden Democrats" have persistently tried to change themselves to be mainstream. For example the True Finns -party has been now twice in a coalition administration and the first time it was so hard for the populist party that the party itself broke into two. Denmark is also an example with a long tradition of not having so open borders.

This from the Swedish government webpage: https://www.government.se/government-policy/swedens-new-migration-policy/

Sweden’s new migration policy

Sweden’s migration policy is undergoing a paradigm shift. The Government is intensifying its efforts to reduce, in full compliance with Sweden’s international commitments, the number of migrants coming irregularly to Sweden. Labour immigration fraud and abuses must be stopped and the ‘shadow society’ combated. Sweden will continue to have dignified reception standards, and those who have no grounds for protection or other legal right to stay in Sweden must be expelled.

There isn't a "populist" administration running Sweden, the prime minister Ulf Kristersson comes from the Moderate Party in a coalition of his party, Christian democrats and liberals. The populist "Sweden Democrats" isn't either the largest opposition party as the Social Democrats are still larger. And it's noteworthy to point out that the change happened during the Social Democrats were in power. This is something that is totally silenced in the populist narrative where Sweden is just given as a country "that has been lost". Or to the "Europe is lost if not for populists" argument. Every other party than populist parties are painted to be the "establishment".

Could the most recent U.S. elections serve as such an example? — Number2018

Obviously the GOP has been taken over by populism. I view this as something that has saved the trust in the obscure "primaries"-system of the US and firmed the belief that Americans have in their two-party system. Americans believe that they can influence the two ruling parties working from the inside. In other countries people would simply form new parties and vote for the new parties. Not so in the US.

ssu

Trump promised a return to the 1960s when there was job security. The US has since deindustrialized, so there's no way to go back. — frank

This is just an example of how people will desperately cling to the politician promising better times as they had before and turn away from the ones trying to make a realist effort on how to something when the change is permanent.

frank

This is just an example of how people will desperately cling to the politician promising better times as they had before and turn away from the ones trying to make a realist effort on how to something when the change is permanent. — ssu

True.

Number2018

↪ssu

Trump has no political ideology. It's telling that Trump himself didn't last time think that "drain the swamp" rhetoric would go anywhere, but he can read his audience and notice how it sank to his base. Otherwise when looking at it objectively, the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess. Isolationism and then wanting Greenland and the Panama Canal? How do those to fit together ideologically? Even more logical would be "KAG", hence "Keep America Great" as the US hasn't yet lost it's Superpower status. — ssu

This is just an example of how people will desperately cling to the politician promising better times as they had before and turn away from the ones trying to make a realist effort on how to something when the change is permanent. — ssu

Do you think that 'the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess,'? If you think so, does your second quote explain why Trump won the popular vote and became the second Republican to do so since 1988?

ssu

Do you think that 'the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess,' — Number2018

Trump administration will look like a mess, just as the Clinton administration looked like.

If you were too young to remember, the Clinton administration looked to go from scandal to scandal, had even an impeachment, and had dedicated Clinton-haters in the GOP (just as people in the dems really don't like Trump). Only on a broader perspective what the actions, policies and achievements of the Clinton administration can be seen, apart from sperm on Monica's dress.

Trump will continue things like wanting to buy Greenland from Denmark and other crazy tweets. Hence it's really hard then to see "long term policies" when the media focus is on what Trump has said and wanted today.

If you think so, does your second quote explain why Trump won the popular vote and became the second Republican to do so since 1988? — Number2018

Because Joe Biden isn't fit for being President, and especially not for another four years.

And because then the party leadership just put Kamala as the new candidate annoyed the voters. Remember that Americans do believe in the strange theater called "Primaries" and don't like the party leadership just selecting the candidate. In a multiparty system this isn't a problem as people just select between parties and don't care shit about the internal selection of the party candidates. But in a system where there are only two parties (or so Americans believe), it's very important.

Leontiskos

According to Laclau, collective political identities are forged through particular discursive articulation. Under normal conditions, social demands take the form of rational, contextually situated requests, implicitly assuming the legitimacy of governing institutions and their capacity to address them. However, when a plurality of isolated demands goes unmet, they can coalesce into a unified opposition to power, rejecting its authority. — Number2018

I appreciate this because I've never been able to figure out what the elusive term "populism" is supposed to mean. Usually it is functioning as little more than a pejorative. I think this is a reasonable account.

For Aristotle populism is probably just democracy, or more precisely, the shift from oligarchy to democracy. For Aristotle Western nations are controlled by the wealthy, not the demos, and are therefore oligarchies.

Before 2016 you had oligarchy on both sides of the U.S. aisle. In 2016 we had democracy/populism rising up from both left and right (Sanders and Trump). Trump toppled the oligarchic GOP primaries; Sanders was not able to do so, although he came close in 2020. Biden was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Sanders, for the DNC used its oligarchic resources to dramatically reshape the race after Sanders began winning in 2020. Harris was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Biden's poor debate performance. Harris' candidacy was expressly oligarchic rather than democratic, as she was an unelected candidate.

There are lots of things Trump voters were voting against, but I think much of it was tied up with the unabashed oligarchy of the DNC (which is now also bound up with progressive theories which are out of step with the demos). It sounds like Laclau sees populism as a quasi-revolutionary movement borne out of frustration with the status quo. That makes sense and I think it is reflected in the 2024 U.S. elections (as well as recent elections in Germany, Canada, France, and elsewhere).

(But with that said, it isn't necessarily revolutionary to elect the elected candidate over the unelected candidate in a democracy. Populism and democracy seem to very much go hand in hand in this case.)

Leontiskos

If you were too young to remember, the Clinton administration looked to go from scandal to scandal, had even an impeachment, and had dedicated Clinton-haters in the GOP (just as people in the dems really don't like Trump). Only on a broader perspective what the actions, policies and achievements of the Clinton administration can be seen, apart from sperm on Monica's dress. — ssu

This doesn't strike me as accurate. Just look at his approval ratings. They were generally high, and never higher than during the impeachment. In the U.S. Clinton is remembered as a good president who did his job, was well-spoken, balanced the budget, was willing to shift the historical Democrat line when necessary, and was guilty of sexual misconduct. The comparison to Trump is a stretch, although it is true that the American people have a tendency to ignore the tabloids and the superficial political machinations, as well as sexual misconduct of leaders. In both cases it was recognized by the people that the impeachment proceedings were political stunts against sitting presidents, which is not to deny that it was wrong for Clinton to have oral sex with his intern.

ssu

. In the U.S. Clinton is remembered as a good president who did his job, was well-spoken, balanced the budget, was willing to shift the historical Democrat line when necessary, and was guilty of sexual misconduct. — Leontiskos

But do you remember the actual politics of the time?

The polarization between the Republicans and the Democrats started in earnest back then with creating what we now call echo chambers. And note that the impeachment charge was of lying under oath, not being unfaithful in marriage. And the various scandal "-gates" were considerable when you look at the reporting. For example, when Clinton attacked Al Qaeda sites (and a medical factory in Sudan by mistake), he was accused of attempting a "Wag the Dog" maneuver to get the media off his own scandals.

While Clinton’s lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky might be the most memorable part of the impeachment, that was not where it all started. Clinton had been under investigation by an independent counsel almost from the moment he took office, when he appointed an independent counsel to conduct an inquiry into a land deal he and his wife conducted long before he took office.

Among the many Clinton scandals...

Clinton later reached an $850,000 out of court settlement with Jones a little more than a month before his impeachment and a month after Starr had published his report, which included 11 possible impeachable offenses, ranging from perjury and obstruction of justice to witness tampering and abuse of power.

After all of the above, Democrats went with Hillary Clinton, even if she had angered the Republicans for so long earlier. This is something that usually is forgotten about the 2016 elections.

Yet looking at the Clinton year historically, yes, the Clinton years look a lot different. And likely so will be with this era, depending on what comes after this period. If things are worse, this will be "the good times" and if things improve in the future, then these are the "bad times". This is crucial also when looking at the Trump era.

Leontiskos

↪ssu

- That's fair, I guess I didn't realize how much pressure the media was bringing to bear. But I remember that even amidst all the hubbub, the average Americans that I knew were not very concerned about it. Again, his approval rating tells that tale. It's possible I was in a Democrat echo chamber, but I think that even the simple fact that Clinton managed to balance the budget put him in the good graces of middle-class Americans.

And note that the impeachment charge was of lying under oath, not being unfaithful in marriage. — ssu

Right: lying about having sex with Lewinsky. With both Trump and Clinton, when the impeachment charge finally comes up and it turns out the opposition is playing for pennies, I think the average person loses interest along with faith in the system. Clinton's approval rating and Trump's reelection show that, for better or for worse, the electorate didn't take such proceedings seriously.

Number2018

↪ssu

And because then the party leadership just put Kamala as the new candidate annoyed the voters. Remember that Americans do believe in the strange theater called "Primaries" and don't like the party leadership just selecting the candidate. In a multiparty system this isn't a problem as people just select between parties and don't care shit about the internal selection of the party candidates. But in a system where there are only two parties (or so Americans believe), it's very important. — ssu

Trump administration will look like a mess, — ssu

Trump will continue things like wanting to buy Greenland from Denmark and other crazy tweets. Hence it's really hard then to see "long term policies" when the media focus is on what Trump has said and wanted today. — ssu

You make a good point. The media will undoubtedly portray Trump’s administration as a chaotic mess of incoherent policies. Nevertheless, I believe that before the elections Trump could clearly articulate his goals in three major policy areas: immigration, the economy, and culture. This focus on concrete policies resonated with large groups of voters and was at least as important as the absence of democratic primaries or Biden’s mental condition. Therefore, the fate of MAGA will not be determined by the media’s coverage. What matters to Trump’s base is neither the media’s framing nor Trump’s bombastic tweets. What matters is the tangible and consistent implementation of his key policies.

Laclau's Theory of Populism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions