Antinomies of formalism: Laclau's theory of populism and the lessons from religious populism in Greece

Abstract

This paper will first follow the trajectory of Ernesto Laclau's theorizations of populism from his early work in the 1970s up until his current views. While Laclau's formal approach to populist discourse constitutes a substantial advance in the theorization of this elusive concept, it will be argued that his recent reflections on populism may be construed as indicative of the limits of a ‘formalist’ approach. These antinomies of ‘formalism’ will be illuminated through the encounter with a recent neo‐populist mobilization, the articulation of a populist politicized discourse by the Church of Greece.

Notes

The differences are usually due either to the differing disciplinary lens—leading to ideological, comparative, historical, etc. approaches—or to the differing theoretical frameworks used—leading to functionalist, Marxist, post‐Marxist, etc. approaches.

M. Canovan, Populism (London: Junction Books, 1981), p. 3.

Canovan, ibid., p. 5.

E. Laclau, ‘Towards a theory of populism’, in E. Laclau (Ed.), Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory (London: New Left Books, 1977), p. 143.

P. Taggart, Populism (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000), p. 2.

Canovan, op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 3.

Canovan, ibid., p. 7.

Canovan, ibid., p. 301.

This is not as simple as it sounds. Notice for example the difficulties Taggart seems to encounter when discussing the role of signifiers and signification in politics and especially in populism. At first he considers the reference to ‘the people’ as of little importance since the signifier ‘the people’ can have different meanings in different populisms, thus choosing to highlight the level of the signified and almost disregard that of the signifier (Taggart, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 3). Then he seems unable to distinguish those who take seriously the location of the signifier ‘the people’ from those who take populists at their own word. Referring to Westlind's analysis he claims that ‘Some commentators have taken populists at their own word and define populism as a movement that represents “the people” ’ (Taggart, ibid., p. 92). Here Taggart seems to subscribe to the curious idea that it is not possible to define a discourse with reference to a central claim without accepting that claim as true. Besides, even if the claim is false, a mere rhetorical strategy, its location still has to be important, not least because it is bound to produce effects beyond the intentionality of its source.

Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 4.

E. Laclau, ‘Populist rupture and discourse’, Screen Education, 34 (1980), pp. 87–93.

Almost half of his 1977 text is devoted to the issue of class politics and its relation to populism in an attempt to avoid Marxist reductionism and stress the articulatory character of links between class and popular interpellations.

Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 165.

Laclau, ibid., p. 173, my emphasis.

Laclau, ibid., pp. 172–173; emphasis in the original.

For a, more or less, balanced critique see P. Westlind, The Politics of Popular Identity (Lund: Lund University Press, 1996), p. 88–90.

See E. Laclau and C. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985).

Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 11.

C. Lyrintzis, ‘The power of populism: the Greek case’, European Journal of Political Research, 15 (1987), p. 685.

Westlind, op. cit., Ref. 16, p. 80.

This is the case, for example, with Donald MacRae's contribution in which ideology is understood as pertaining to an ideational, almost philosophical, level. D. MacRae, ‘Populism as an ideology’, in G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (Eds), Populism: Its Meanings and National Characteristics (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969), pp. 153–165.

N. Mouzelis, ‘On the concept of populism: populist and clientelist modes of incorporation in semiperipheral politics’, Politics and Society, 14 (1985), p. 330; N. Mouzelis, ‘Populism: a new mode of incorporation of the masses into political processes?’ in N. Mouzelis, Th. Lipowatz and M. Spourdalakis, Populism and Politics (Athens: Gnosi, 1989), p. 24.*

Mouzelis, ibid., 1985, p. 330; Mouzelis, ibid., 1989, p. 24.

Laclau and Mouffe, op. cit., Ref. 17.

C. Lyrintzis, ‘Populism: the concept and the practices’, in C. Lyrintzis and E. Nιkolakopoulos (Eds), Elections and Parties in the '80s (Athens: Themelio, 1990), p. 51.*

To go back to the question of economism, Laclau argues here that ‘Economic practice itself should thus be considered as discourse’ (Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 86). On this issue also see G. Daly, ‘The discursive construction of economic space’, Economy and Society, 20 (1991), pp. 79–102.

In his reading the same themes are also stressed by Canovan (Mouzelis, op. cit., Ref. 22, p. 330). This is mostly based on Canovan's statement that ‘all forms of populism without exception involve some kind of exaltation of and appeal to “the people” and all are in one sense or another anti‐elitist’ (Canovan, op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 294). In reality, this serves to show that Canovan essentially accepts Laclau's central criteria—phrased in her own way—although in her work they are not given any theoretical grounding or operational sophistication. The result is that for her they remain ‘vague and ambiguous’ and thus not very helpful in developing a coherent account of populism (Canovan, ibid., pp. 294–295 and 298). It is thus somewhat misleading to group the early work of Laclau and Canovan together in terms of their acceptance of the two criteria in question; their attitude towards them is very different. In fact only in Laclau are they acknowledged as forming the kernel of a theoretical account of populism with important analytical consequences.

Mouzelis, op. cit., Ref. 22, p. 341.

S. Sofos, ‘Popular identity and political culture in post‐dictatorial Greece: towards a cultural approach of the phenomenon of populism’, in N. Demertzis (Ed.), Greek Political Culture Today (Athens: Odysseas, 1994), pp. 140–141.*

Westlind almost compromises this insight when he attempts to link organizational patterns with the level of ideology and not discourse (Westlind, op. cit., Ref. 16, pp. 56 and 91).

Lyrintzis, op. cit., Ref. 25, pp. 47–48. In an earlier text Lyrintzis puts it in the following way: ‘It is not specific ideas or a specific set of policies that characterize populism, but its internal logic, its way of representing and organizing the social and political space’ (Lyrintzis, op. cit., Ref. 19, p. 669).

For an analysis of a concrete ideological discourse using such a perspective, see Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Green ideology: a discursive reading’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 2 (1997), pp. 259–279.

Laclau and Mouffe, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 112

Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 91.

See Laclau and Mouffe, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 130; Y. Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political (London: Routledge, 1999).

Lyrintzis, op. cit., Ref. 25, p. 49.

The distinction between difference and equivalence, its theoretical grounding and political applicability, is further elaborated with reference to a variety of empirical examples in Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 35, pp. 57–59 and 76–78. Also, Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 92.

M. Canovan, ‘Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy’, Political Studies, 47 (1999), p. 3.

See, in this respect, S. Barros and G. Castagnola, ‘The political frontiers of the social: Argentine politics after Peronist populism (1955–1973)’, in D. Howarth, A. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (Eds), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000); Lyrintzis, op. cit., Ref. 19; Lyrintzis, op. cit., Ref. 25; F. Panizza, ‘Neopopulism and its limits in Collor's Brazil’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 19 (2000), pp. 177–192; Sofos, op. cit., Ref. 29; and Westlind, op. cit., Ref. 16, just to name a few.

Archbishop Christodoulos, ‘Speech of his Beautitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Christodoulos in the rally of Athens—21 June 2000’, in Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, The Church and Identity Cards (Athens: Publications Branch of the Communication and Educational Service of the Church of Greece, 2000), p. 321.*

Archbishop Christodoulos, ‘Forward to the second edition’ (Address to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, 11 October, 2000), in Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, Ibid., p. 66; Archbishop Christodoulos, Interview to Th. Lalas, Vimagasino, To Vima, 11 February 2001, p. 17.*

See S. Agouridis, ‘The Church as an agent of power’, in Karagiorgas Foundation, Structures and Relations of Power in Contemporary Greece, Vol. 7 (Athens: Karagiorgas Foundation, 2000), p. 360.*

It is not the first time that the politicization of religious discourse has been described as ‘populist’. Liberation theology in Latin America has been given this characterization by certain analysts. See, for example, M. Lowy, The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America (London: Verso, 1996), pp. 77–78. Others have noted the ‘semitheological’ language of classical American populism and its relationship with religion. The Greek case seems, however, almost unique in its clear‐cut picture, historical context and socio‐political significance.

A detailed analysis of the identity cards episode, its historical context, and of the discourse of the Archbishop and the Church hierarchy can be found in Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Religious populism and political culture: the Greek case’, South European Society and Politics, 7 (2003), pp. 29–52 and Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Religion and politics: on the ‘politicization’ of Greek Church discourse’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 21 (2003), pp. 153–181.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 40, p. 309.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 41, p. 72.

Christodoulos, ibid., p. 52–3.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 40, p. 311.

Christodoulos, ibid., p. 322.

Christodoulos, ibid., p. 327.

Canovan, op. cit., Ref. 38, p. 10.

D. Tsatsos, ‘From the Church to the Agora’, Ta Nea, 26 June 2000.*

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 41, p. 35.

Archbishop Christodoulos, ‘Speech of his Beautitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Christodoulos in the rally of Thessaloniki—14 June 2000’, in Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, op. cit., Ref. 40, p. 299.

Archbishop Christodoulos, Interview with G. Papathanasopoulos, Identity, 16 March 2001, p. 8.*

Eleftherotypia, 26 June 2000.

Eleftherotypia, 8 October 2001.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 53, p. 296.

Christodoulos, ibid., p. 298.

Christodoulos, ibid., p. 291.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 41, p. 59.

Christodoulos, op. cit., Ref. 53, p. 308.

E. Laclau, ‘Populism: What's in a Name?’, in F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, forthcoming, 2005).

Laclau, ibid., p. 10.

Laclau, ibid., p. 5.

Laclau, ibid., p. 11.

Laclau, ibid., p. 12.

Laclau, ibid., p. 13.

Canovan, op. cit., Ref. 38, p. 16.

T. Harrison, Of Passionate Intensity: Right‐Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1995).

Canovan, op. cit., Ref. 38, p. 6.

Ch. Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000), p. 95.

Ch. Mouffe, ‘Democracy—radical and plural’, interview in CSD Bulletin, 9, 1 (2001), p. 11.

E. Laclau, ‘Glimpsing the future: a reply’, in S. Critchley and O. Marchart (Eds), The Laclau Critical Reader (London: Routledge, forthcoming, 2004), p. 49.

Laclau, ibid., pp. 48–9

On the way psychoanalysis in the Freudian and Lacanian tradition joins discourse theory to illuminate the question of affect and its political implications, see J. Glynos and Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Encounters of the real kind: sussing out the limits of Laclau's embrace of Lacan’, Journal for Lacanian Studies, 1 (2003), pp. 110–128; and Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Passions of identification: discourse, enjoyment and European identity’, in D. Howarth and J. Torfing (Eds), Discourse Theory and European Politics (London: Palgrave, forthcoming, 2005).