Search

This paper examines Urbinati’s theory of populism, with the aim of bringing to the fore a lacuna in such theory. The lacuna concerns her appreciation of the role of rhetoric in populism and more generally in democracy. If Urbinati’s general understanding of politics recognizes an important role to rhetoric, such recognition is not accompanied by a systematic analysis of what rhetoric is and how it operates. The effects of such deficiency can be appreciated in her theory of populism. On the one hand, her critical account of populism seems to hinge significantly on the kind of rhetoric and more generally of style it adopts; on the other, the question of what precisely characterizes such rhetoric and style is left mostly unaddressed. The result is that Urbinati’s account of populism loses some explanatory power, with regards to both the nature of populism and the responses to it.

This paper deals with the normative dilemma raised by the constructivist turn in representation theory by focusing on a neglected aspect of such dilemma: under which conditions representation − taken in its existential and symbolic senses − can enhance democracy. By developing sustained readings of Laclau and Voegelin, it shows how stylistic/formal features such as a figurative and evocative language and a capacity to persuade both rationally and extra-rationally can be key elements for making representation democratic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The difficulty of defining populism is well-known. As populism lacks a fully articulated ideological foundation, it tends to assume different shapes according to context. Due to this ideological inarticulation, some scholars have rejected the so-called ideational approach to populism. They instead propose its conceptualization as a political style or discourse. This paper advances an alternative approach. We reject the opposition between stylistic and ideational approaches to populism and develop the idea that the form and the content of populism are intrinsically related. We argue that the forms populism adopts cannot be understood in merely strategic or stylistic terms: they presuppose and entail specific ideological contents. Only by tracing the relationship between populist form and content can we make sense of populism as a distinctive phenomenon and explain its ambiguous relationship with liberal democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]