Emotions, Protest, Democracy

Eklundh, Emmy

doi:10.4324/9781351205719

Cited by 20 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several of these theories conceptualize affect and reason in binary, oppositional terms. The affective turn arguably reproduces distinctions between affect/emotion and rationality/reason (Eklundh 2019). While reason is attached to the mind and thought, affect and emotion are attached to the bodily and the biological.…”

Section: The Affective Turn: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 90%

‘Which side are you on – Mr. Westerberg?’ Reason, affect, and division in public debate

Sunnercrantz

2021

Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies affect and reason in practices of persuasion through a rhetorical-performative framework. Focusing on the Swedish economic crisis 1988-1993, this piece argues that the successful rise and installation of neoliberal discourse at the elite policy-making levelparticularly regarding privatizationcan be explained by the prominent role passion played in the presentation of its case outside mainstream media channels. In describing and explaining this shift in discourse away from a previously hegemonic social-democratic regime, the author draws on post-foundational discourse theory and rhetorical political analysis, as well as corpora from a range of fora during this period. Affect and reason are operationalized as the rhetorical concepts pathos and logos. The analysis reveals how they operate in entangled ways as combinations and constellations of etho-pathetic and logo-pathetic argumentation. A significant conclusion is that the eschewing of passion by conventional, mainstream media and hegemonic actors, made it possible for advocates of neoliberal policies to establish inroads into the Swedish political and economic establishment. The article contributes by anchoring the rhetorical-performative theory in empirical research to produce new insights into the role of affect and reason in discursive change and continuity.

show abstract

Section: The Affective Turn: a Brief Overviewmentioning

confidence: 90%

‘Which side are you on – Mr. Westerberg?’ Reason, affect, and division in public debate

Sunnercrantz

2021

Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If we are to actively engage in such pursuits, we must necessarily reflect on the discourses to which we ourselves are contributing. Important work on the populist hype (Dean and Maiguashca 2020;Eklundh 2020;Glynos and Mondon 2019) has underscored the role of academia in reinforcing and lending credence to harmful false equivalences and power structures. As such, we must be mindful of the lasting effects of our work when we add our voice to debates.…”

Section: Phase 4: Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New opportunities for discourse studies

Brown

2024

JLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a methodological framework that integrates poststructuralist Discourse Theory (DT), Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and Corpus Linguistics (CL). While previous research has discussed potential compatibility between combinations of these approaches, there have been few attempts to bring them all together into a cohesive research programme. Fostering dialogue between diverse methodological perspectives can facilitate multi-level analysis to capture the complex dynamics of sociopolitical issues. In this vein, the article presents the methodological tree, an analogy used to illustrate how these traditions may come together to complement one another. This foundation lays the groundwork for practical application in discursive analysis, with a flexible analytical structure proposed and examples provided to illustrate its implementation. It is hoped that the article can stimulate further discussion around how DT, CDS and CL can be brought together to harness their strengths.

show abstract

“…For instance, Palonen (2020) has made the case for the empty form of populism, expressing it in a formula; Panizza and Stavrakakis (2021, p. 24) have claimed that ‘Laclauian discourse theory performs a significant displacement of emphasis from content to form ’; while Ostiguy and Moffitt (2021) claim to go beyond Laclau's discursive ontology and into the performative dimension of discourse. Both Casullo (2020, p. 25) and Eklundh and Knott (2020, p. 1) have recognised that ‘populism is a form rather than a content’. In a key contribution to the Laclaudian discussions of populism, ‘The populist manifesto’, Knott (2020, p. 11) has pointed out that populism has no ideological core, but can be characterised as ‘a style, logic or discourse of doing politics’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationalism, populism or peopleism? Clarifying the distinction through a two‐dimensional lens

Vulovic

Palonen

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prompted by recent scholarly debates on the distinction between populism and nationalism, we elaborate on the Laclaudian understanding of populism as an antagonistic form of us-building/community-making that relies on the extension of equivalential chains between demands. From this heuristic perspective, populism can be understood as an empty form to be filled with different contents, such as nationalism. Our radically anti-essentialist stance combines Laclau's formalist conceptualisation of populism and Brubaker's work on nationalism. We highlight the ontological dimension of populism, as a form of us-building, and the ontic dimension, as an array of discursive repertoires that fill the form, such as 'the people' for peopleism. We explore the ontological-ontic distinction through the case of Narodism in Serbia. Conceptualising populism two-dimensionally contributes both to debates on the 'core' of populism and to cases where articulations of 'the people' coincide with expressions of nationhood, civilisationalism and culturalism, rather than being entirely the same.

show abstract

Emotions, Protest, Democracy

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

‘Which side are you on – Mr. Westerberg?’ Reason, affect, and division in public debate

‘Which side are you on – Mr. Westerberg?’ Reason, affect, and division in public debate

New opportunities for discourse studies

Nationalism, populism or peopleism? Clarifying the distinction through a two‐dimensional lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About