Periodic Reporting for period 1 - Anti-pop (Anti-populist discourse in European politics and media)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2022-01-31 do 2024-01-30
The action ‘Anti-populist discourse in European politics and media’ (Anti-pop) critically examined the uses of ‘populism’ and ‘populist’ and the place they occupy in discussions of contemporary social and political developments in Europe.
This research is socially and politically important because ‘populism’ is often blamed for several negative trends today, including polarisation on issues like immigration and economic policy, the erosion of trust in institutions, established political parties and elites, and political instability. At the same time, political discussions have become more aggressive and blunt, affecting not just official politics but the wider public conversation. While there seems to be an implicit consensus that populism represents a threat to the liberal-democratic arrangement of the past several decades, the widening scope of the term’s uses raises questions about what exactly is captured by ‘populism’ and whether its uses are indeed always fruitful for framing problems – or framing developments as problems. It is clear that political debate needs to be less polarizing. However, the way political confrontation is handled often makes things worse, creating a divide between populists and the political mainstream (the liberal center) that also influences public opinion. While the agenda and rhetoric of populist politicians and parties have received extensive scrutiny in media and academic discourse, how traditional liberal centrist political and media forces counter populism—that is, ‘anti-populism’—has not been closely examined. By making 'populism' a central political issue, we may actually be increasing polarization by creating a new divide between populism and anti-populism.
The goal of Anti-pop is to shed light on this issue, outline its negative impacts, and use its findings to encourage reflection and revision of this framework in media, political, and institutional discourse. This aims to contribute to a more nuanced public debate.
The project had five key objectives. Objective 1 (empirical): Identify discursive patterns in the uses of ‘populism’ in European politics; analyse the rhetorical style and appeal of anti-populism and its place in communicative strategies in current political debates. Objective 2 (methodological): Combine methodologies and concepts from different disciplines in the humanities and social sciences (linguistics, rhetoric, and political theory) and test their synergies for the analysis of political discourse. Objective 3 (conceptual): Develop the concept of anti-populism; flesh out the logics of anti-populist discourse; operationalise and situate it in relation to debates in democratic political theory. Objective 4 (critical): Understand and assess the shifts in rhetorical culture and public debate as shaped by the conflict between populism and anti-populism; understand the ideological transformations liberal centrism is undergoing through anti-populism. Objective 5 (impact & outreach): Communicate the project’s results to non-academic audiences and the broader public; contribute to the activities of key beneficiaries through the results.
This research is socially and politically important because ‘populism’ is often blamed for several negative trends today, including polarisation on issues like immigration and economic policy, the erosion of trust in institutions, established political parties and elites, and political instability. At the same time, political discussions have become more aggressive and blunt, affecting not just official politics but the wider public conversation. While there seems to be an implicit consensus that populism represents a threat to the liberal-democratic arrangement of the past several decades, the widening scope of the term’s uses raises questions about what exactly is captured by ‘populism’ and whether its uses are indeed always fruitful for framing problems – or framing developments as problems. It is clear that political debate needs to be less polarizing. However, the way political confrontation is handled often makes things worse, creating a divide between populists and the political mainstream (the liberal center) that also influences public opinion. While the agenda and rhetoric of populist politicians and parties have received extensive scrutiny in media and academic discourse, how traditional liberal centrist political and media forces counter populism—that is, ‘anti-populism’—has not been closely examined. By making 'populism' a central political issue, we may actually be increasing polarization by creating a new divide between populism and anti-populism.
The goal of Anti-pop is to shed light on this issue, outline its negative impacts, and use its findings to encourage reflection and revision of this framework in media, political, and institutional discourse. This aims to contribute to a more nuanced public debate.
The project had five key objectives. Objective 1 (empirical): Identify discursive patterns in the uses of ‘populism’ in European politics; analyse the rhetorical style and appeal of anti-populism and its place in communicative strategies in current political debates. Objective 2 (methodological): Combine methodologies and concepts from different disciplines in the humanities and social sciences (linguistics, rhetoric, and political theory) and test their synergies for the analysis of political discourse. Objective 3 (conceptual): Develop the concept of anti-populism; flesh out the logics of anti-populist discourse; operationalise and situate it in relation to debates in democratic political theory. Objective 4 (critical): Understand and assess the shifts in rhetorical culture and public debate as shaped by the conflict between populism and anti-populism; understand the ideological transformations liberal centrism is undergoing through anti-populism. Objective 5 (impact & outreach): Communicate the project’s results to non-academic audiences and the broader public; contribute to the activities of key beneficiaries through the results.
The project was organised in five work packages combining management, training, research, dissemination and outreach.
Anti-pop made a contribution to the growth of the study of anti-populism, which has been a blind spot in populism research until recently. It helped develop, operationalize, and refine anti-populism as an analytical and critical concept. This is both a theoretical and an empirical achievement, and it calls attention to the need to exercise more care and reflexivity in how we talk about populism.
Anti-pop focused on four key written outputs: a chapter written for a major international research handbook on populism edited by leading figures in the field (published); two papers written for publication to peer-reviewed journals (in progress); a chapter for the first collected volume on the topic of anti-populism (in progress).
The lifetime of the project included a variety of training objectives. The most important were in the form of hands-on ‘training through research’, but also in the form of two-way transfer of knowledge between the fellow and the research groups and individual researchers based at the host institution (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), as well as in new methodologies. Notable highlights comprised the involvement of the fellow in the organisation and running of a large two-day colloquium focused on discourse theory in Brussels (https://www.researchcenterdesire.eu/dtwf-2.html(odnośnik otworzy się w nowym oknie); also see attached flyer), and his participation—together with other colleagues from Vrije Universiteit Brussel—in a specialist panel on anti-populism, part of the Fourth Helsinki Conference on Emotions, Populism, and Polarised Politics.
Anti-pop made a contribution to the growth of the study of anti-populism, which has been a blind spot in populism research until recently. It helped develop, operationalize, and refine anti-populism as an analytical and critical concept. This is both a theoretical and an empirical achievement, and it calls attention to the need to exercise more care and reflexivity in how we talk about populism.
Anti-pop focused on four key written outputs: a chapter written for a major international research handbook on populism edited by leading figures in the field (published); two papers written for publication to peer-reviewed journals (in progress); a chapter for the first collected volume on the topic of anti-populism (in progress).
The lifetime of the project included a variety of training objectives. The most important were in the form of hands-on ‘training through research’, but also in the form of two-way transfer of knowledge between the fellow and the research groups and individual researchers based at the host institution (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), as well as in new methodologies. Notable highlights comprised the involvement of the fellow in the organisation and running of a large two-day colloquium focused on discourse theory in Brussels (https://www.researchcenterdesire.eu/dtwf-2.html(odnośnik otworzy się w nowym oknie); also see attached flyer), and his participation—together with other colleagues from Vrije Universiteit Brussel—in a specialist panel on anti-populism, part of the Fourth Helsinki Conference on Emotions, Populism, and Polarised Politics.
The advancements beyond the current state of the art can be summarized in three key points:
(1) The concept of anti-populism. Despite the considerable achievements in populism research over the last decade, anti-populism has been simply taken as the default position and remains notably under-studied. Anti-pop developed and operationalised the concept of anti-populism as an analytical category. It demonstrated that we need to study the interactions between populism and anti-populism side-by-side, as they are largely mutually constitutive.
(2) Democracy and public debate. The project’s results call for attention to the ways in which we talk about populism, in order to make better sense of current shifts in public debate and democracy in Europe. Since the talk about ‘populism’ is at the heart of public debate today—crucially, at the heart of debates about democracy—it is important to make sense of the ways in which it shapes and gives direction to these debates. More specifically, taking populism unconditionally as a threat to liberal democracy has been a commonplace—even a cliché—in populism studies. Anti-pop offered evidence and arguments against this entrenched conviction and showed how the overuse and demonisation of populism itself have negative repercussions.
(3) Polarisation from politics to society. The largest part of the study of populism, as well as the younger subfield of the study of anti-populism, take a top-down approach, focusing on political leaders, parties, and so on. Anti-pop showed that it is important to also examine popular, ‘lay’ perceptions of populism, and how they may interact with the discourse coming from ‘the top’. Indeed, the project found that, as the populism/anti-populism divide becomes intensified at the level of official discourse, so do divisions at the social and cultural level, regarding how citizens occupying different sides on contentious issues see each other.
Upon public dissemination of all research results, the project aims to raise awareness within the academic community, the broader public, and key stakeholders, about the effects of the populism/anti-populism divide on democracy, to encourage reflection on the effects of language on our perception of politics and to enrich the public debate on populism.
From a personal career standpoint, the fellowship was incredibly rewarding. It provided the fellow with the time, resources, and necessary environment to build a network, enhance his skills and to develop new insights. All of these promise to be essential in his future development and activity as a researcher.
(1) The concept of anti-populism. Despite the considerable achievements in populism research over the last decade, anti-populism has been simply taken as the default position and remains notably under-studied. Anti-pop developed and operationalised the concept of anti-populism as an analytical category. It demonstrated that we need to study the interactions between populism and anti-populism side-by-side, as they are largely mutually constitutive.
(2) Democracy and public debate. The project’s results call for attention to the ways in which we talk about populism, in order to make better sense of current shifts in public debate and democracy in Europe. Since the talk about ‘populism’ is at the heart of public debate today—crucially, at the heart of debates about democracy—it is important to make sense of the ways in which it shapes and gives direction to these debates. More specifically, taking populism unconditionally as a threat to liberal democracy has been a commonplace—even a cliché—in populism studies. Anti-pop offered evidence and arguments against this entrenched conviction and showed how the overuse and demonisation of populism itself have negative repercussions.
(3) Polarisation from politics to society. The largest part of the study of populism, as well as the younger subfield of the study of anti-populism, take a top-down approach, focusing on political leaders, parties, and so on. Anti-pop showed that it is important to also examine popular, ‘lay’ perceptions of populism, and how they may interact with the discourse coming from ‘the top’. Indeed, the project found that, as the populism/anti-populism divide becomes intensified at the level of official discourse, so do divisions at the social and cultural level, regarding how citizens occupying different sides on contentious issues see each other.
Upon public dissemination of all research results, the project aims to raise awareness within the academic community, the broader public, and key stakeholders, about the effects of the populism/anti-populism divide on democracy, to encourage reflection on the effects of language on our perception of politics and to enrich the public debate on populism.
From a personal career standpoint, the fellowship was incredibly rewarding. It provided the fellow with the time, resources, and necessary environment to build a network, enhance his skills and to develop new insights. All of these promise to be essential in his future development and activity as a researcher.