Sociology, social theory, and the populist phenomenon

Attention to the phenomenon of populism has increased drastically, both in the public sphere and in academic analysis. In the latter, however, sociology and social theory tend to be less upfront, as populism studies appear largely dominated by political science and political theory (cf. Jones, 2019). Most discussions concentrate on questions posed by political scientists, drawing attention to party systems, electoral dynamics, populist party development, and dimensions of party behavior (strategy, communication) as well as political positioning (ideology). There tends to be much less attention for typical social-theoretical and sociological concerns, in relation to for instance the role of civil society and social movements, forms of mobilization and identity-building, but also in terms of structural transformations of society and the public sphere, in relation to understandings of the collectivity and the development of political cultures in the midst of processes of hyper-individualization and the loss of possibilities for collective politics (cf. Gauchet, 2022). While it seems hence evident that sociological and social-theoretical approaches are currently relatively marginalized, it is equally clear that evermore significant contributions are challenging the predominance of political science, in the case of sociology offering novel insights or elaborating important intuitions that build on the social-theoretical canon (cf. Alexander et al., 2021; Arato & Cohen, 2021; Gauchet, 2022; Jones, 2020; Rosanvallon, 2021). In fact, an important impetus for original populism research came from sociology (cf. Ionescu & Gellner, 1969; Jones, 2020).

This issue will showcase a variety of articles that contribute to sociologically inspired discussions of populism and, in different ways, deal with the interrelated issues of right-wing radicalism, populism, national identity and solidarity, and forms of societal protest. While debates on populism have dominated discussions in the social sciences for quite a number of years now, the relevance of the populist phenomenon seems not waning, as also attested by the recent victories of radical right and post-fascist parties in Sweden and Italy. Major questions remain to be explored in social-scientific research. On one hand, we might be assisting to a process of ‘normalization’ of what used to be movements of the utterly salonunfähige kind, that is, embodying all that which the post-war democracies were abhorring. As a matter of fact, many post-war democracies’ institutional architecture was designed to obstruct anti-democratic forces to re-emerge (it may hence be seen as highly worrisome that someone like Giorgia Meloni is to become the first post-fascist Prime Minister in Italy). On the other hand, the persistence of the populist phenomenon seems to increasingly provide evidence of the fragility of anti-totalitarian, liberal democracy, and reminds us of democracy’s status as a ‘tragic regime’, that is, democracy’s own modus operandi might lead to self-cancellation (Karagiannis & Wagner, 2012).

A key question for sociology is hence: how does populism contribute to the demise of democracy? One way of perceiving populism is as an expression of the widespread displacement and alienation of people as a result of neoliberal governance, processes of global competition, and the anxiety resulting from war, the dislocation of people, the pandemic, and pending environmental disaster. While populism should in fact be understood as a reactive force, that is, as an articulation of disenchantment and resentment (and hence a response ought to try to undo the causes of societal anxiety), it should equally be taken as a political project in its own right, which claims to advance an alternative to liberal democracy, in the form of a paradoxically authoritarian form of democracy or what Pierre Rosanvallon calls ‘democratorship’ (Rosanvallon, 2021).

The contributions in this issue all investigate populism or relate more broadly speaking to protest movements. In this, they invariably show the necessity and great relevance of sociological approaches to democratic politics and societal forms of engagement, going beyond relatively narrow foci on political party systems and electoral politics, as well as rather sterile discussions of a definitional kind, and drawing attention to processes of societal mobilization, the usage of social and digital media, individual engagement with populism, the construction of identity and solidarity, and the role of symbolism, rituals, and emotions.

A predominant part of research on right-wing populism looks at parties and party systems. Bhakti Dheodar’s article ‘Unpacking “Action Repertoire” of Right-Wing Political Parties: Findings from Germany’ contributes to this literature, but takes a relatively less followed route, using an ethnographic approach to analyse the local presence of the German party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Dheodar uses the concept of ‘action repertoire’ to analyse the AfD’s mobilization strategy on the ground and shows that AfD successfully follows an existing repertoire in establishing its position on the local level, more specifically in the East-German Land Saxony. Dheodar focuses on participation in local self-governing bodies, the politicization of local issues and party conferences. A core dimension to action repertoires is the fact that they are embedded in particular historical and geographical contexts, making the choice of strategies for new-coming parties limited. In fact, Dheodar argues that by means of tapping into existing repertoires, AfD has become a more acceptable political player.

Danny Kaplan’s contribution to this issue – ‘Imagining Social Solidarity: Strangers-Turned-Friends-Turned-Brothers’ – addresses the enduring debate, once again of great relevance due to not least the political phenomena of populism and sovereignism, of national solidarity and national imagination. Kaplan focusses less on the exclusionary dimensions of group identity and is more concerned with the question of how solidarity emerges between strangers in the national community. The focus is on the cultural dimensions of nationhood as a moral community, not least drawing on Jeffrey Alexander’s strong program in cultural sociology, and exploring the national imagination through narratives of solidarity. In Kaplan’s view, national imagination manages to weave together primordial ethnic identity and civic redemption.

Anniina Hyttinen provides another example of utilizing ethnographic methods for studying radical right populism in ‘Deradicalisation of Jobbik and its consequences – a visual ethnographic analysis of the symbolic and ritual change of a Hungarian radical right party’. Her study provides an interesting case of a populist party changing profile in order to broaden electoral appeal. As in other cases, such as the Italian Five Star Movement, such a move is often not without implications. In the case of Jobbik, the attempt to appeal to a broader, more moderate voter base resulted in the emergence of a new radical right party, appropriating the original nationalist and revisionist symbols and ideas. Hyttinen’s analysis shows the importance of symbols and rituals for the populist identity, which cannot easily be replaced by a narrative based on rational arguments.

If populism is often an articulation of protest, despair, and resentment, it is not the only form of relevant and incisive public expression of discontent today. The variegated forms of manifestations of environmental protest attest to extensive forms of mobilization and protest action, calling for a radical change in the relation between humans and human activities and the natural environment. Such environmental protest is in itself sometimes categorized as ‘green populism’ (see, e.g. Davies, 2020), indicating the bottom-up, popular nature, but also the anti-establishment component, not infrequently expressed in forms of civil disobedience. In Elgen Sauerborn’s contribution to this issue, Extinction Rebellion is discussed less for its forms of civil disobedience and action, but rather in relation to the use of narratives and practices of mindfulness, promoted for reasons of the well-being of singular individuals as well as the idea of sustainable coexistence. Mindfulness is hence not reducible to an individualist practice, but can be used in political and collective terms.

In the final article of this issue, it is the European Parliament that provides the context for the analysis of populist politics. In Felipe Santos and Dorit Geva’s ‘Populist Tactics in the European Parliament’, they discuss ultra-conservative protest against the 2013 Estrela Report, a report on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Santos and Geva show how conservative forces actively use procedural tactics to undermine deliberation in Parliament, which is an instance of more general action of ultra-conservative forces, in which they use existing procedures, rights, and (legal) strategies such as litigation and amicus curiae to promote anti-gender, anti-abortion, and anti-LGBTQI+ rights. Santos and Geva convincingly show how populism is not only a ‘thin ideology’, but also a distinctive form of political tactics, in which populists utilize existing norms, channels, and procedures to advance objectives that are in many ways to be understood as threatening liberal-democratic ideas of pluralism, tolerance, and open public debate. In fact, Santos and Geva point to the changed dynamics within the Parliament due to populist tactics, and the risk that such tactics transform parliamentary democracy from within.

The book reviews in this issue discuss two edited volumes and one monograph, which all three explore the link between the phenomena of right-wing populism and authoritarianism, on the one hand, and different social domains and cultural processes, on the other hand: collective memory, higher education, and Europeanisation. In her review of European Memory in Populism (De Cesari & Kaya, 2020), Polina Zavershinskaia describes how most contributions to the edited volume outline how populist narratives paint a picture of ‘European civilization’ threatened by ‘Muslim invaders’. Despite its politicization by right-wing populists, she argues that the book provides a compelling argument for collective memory as an ‘independent variable’. In contrast, Neo-Nationalism and Universities (Douglass, 2021) takes a ‘politically deterministic’ stance, investigating the impact of populist, illiberal and authoritarian movements and governments on systems of higher education. However, as reviewer Marcelo Marques points out, some contributing chapters suggest that universities can also play a more active role in shaping public opinion and their own perception. Finally, Raphael Schlembach discusses the Europeanisation of the Contemporary Far Right (Nissen, 2022), whose author conceives of transnational far-right activism in ‘primarily instrumental’ terms, while the reviewer invites us to consider the emergence of a – seemingly paradoxical – ‘pan-European Nationalism’.