Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism

Abstract

Sociology has long shied away from the problem of populism. This may be due to suspicion about the concept or uncertainty about how to fit populist cases into broader comparative matrices. Such caution is warranted: the existing interdisciplinary literature has been plagued by conceptual confusion and disagreement. But given the recent resurgence of populist politics in Latin America and elsewhere, sociology can no longer afford to sidestep such analytical challenges. This article moves toward a political sociology of populism by identifying past theoretical deficiencies and proposing a new, practice-based approach that is not beholden to pejorative common sense understandings. This approach conceptualizes populism as a mode of political practice-as populist mobilization. Its utility is demonstrated through an application to mid-twentieth-century Latin American politics. The article concludes by sketching an agenda for future research on populist mobilization in Latin America and beyond.Although the demarcation of [objects of study] is not an end in itself . . . , it is of prime importance. Before we can pose questions of explanation, we must be aware of the character of the phenomena we wish to explain. (Smelser 1963:5) The resurgence of so-called neopopulism across Latin America has breathed new life into an old analytical problem. Over the past two decades, politicians like Peru's Alberto Fujimori, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and Bolivia's Evo Morales have generated legitimacy and support by mobilizing marginalized social sectors into publicly visible and contentious political action, while articulating an anti-elite, nationalist rhetoric that valorizes ordinary people. For both scholars and political commentators, the intuitive point of comparison has been with an earlier generation of populist leaders-such as Peru's Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, Brazil's Getúlio Vargas, and Argentina's Juan Domingo Perón-whose charismatic styles have come to define a romantic stereotype of Latin American political culture. Given the significance and prevalence of populist politics, it is remarkable that the phenomenon has received almost no attention from sociology. To remedy this deficiency, this article presents a new theoretical approach that treats populism as a mode of political practice. This

Una Teoría Socio-Morfológica Del Populismo: El Caso Del Uribismo, 2002-2010

“…El propósito principal de este artículo es desarrollar una teoría del populismo que combina el análisis morfológico de las ideologías de Michael Freeden (1996) y el análisis sociológico del populismo como proyecto político desarrollado por Jansen (2011). Desde la perspectiva morfológica el populismo se puede definir como una ideología estrecha que sostiene un número limitado de conceptos esenciales que se combinan con otros conceptos adyacentes y periféricos.…”

Understanding the Bolivarian Revolution from Below

“…As Jansen (2011) states, even academic discussions about the concept rely on folk theories (Jansen 2011:76). Indeed, "every usage of the term is overly general, applying to any person, movement, or regime that makes claims by appealing to ordinary (i.e., non-elite) people" (Jansen 2011:76).…”

Populist Discourse on Political Representation: A Case Study of Anti-Establishment Organizations in Lithuania

“…Populism not only acquires different shapes in different contexts, but definitions of the very concept of populism vary. Populism has been defined as a style (Canovan, 1999;Moffitt and Tormey, 2014), as a strategy (Weyland, 2001;Jansen, 2011), and as a thin-centred ideology (Canovan, 2002;Mudde, 2004). In this article, populism is understood according to Cas Mudde's definition of populism as a set of ideas "that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the pure people' versus 'the corrupt elite,' and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people" (2004, p. 543).…”