The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism 1St Edition Michael Oswald full chapter pdf docx

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism
1st Edition Michael Oswald

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-populism-1st-edition-micha
el-oswald/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Palgrave Handbook Of National Security 1st Edition

Michael Clarke
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-national-
security-1st-edition-michael-clarke/
The Palgrave Handbook of Disability and Communication

Michael S. Jeffress
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
disability-and-communication-michael-s-jeffress/
The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism 1st Edition Carl

Levy
anarchism-1st-edition-carl-levy/
The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies

1st Edition Nora Räthzel (Editor)
environmental-labour-studies-1st-edition-nora-rathzel-editor/
The Forms of Michael Field Palgrave
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-forms-of-michael-field-
palgrave/
The Palgrave Handbook of Technological Finance 1st

Edition Raghavendra Rau
technological-finance-1st-edition-raghavendra-rau/
The Palgrave Handbook of Social Harm 1st Edition Pamela

Davies
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-social-
harm-1st-edition-pamela-davies/
The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites 1st Edition

Heinrich Best
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-political-
elites-1st-edition-heinrich-best/
The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies 1st Edition

Ian Brittain
paralympic-studies-1st-edition-ian-brittain/
The Palgrave Handbook
of Populism
Edited by
Michael Oswald
The Palgrave Handbook of Populism
Michael Oswald
Editor
The Palgrave
Handbook of Populism
Editor
Michael Oswald
Political Science
University of Passau
Passau, Bayern, Germany
ISBN 978-3-030-80802-0 ISBN 978-3-030-80803-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80803-7
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher
nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Agata Gładykowska/Alamy Stock Photo
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
Handbooks are intended to give a systematic overview of a subject and its

most important sub-areas. This volume is not intended to compete with other
handbooks dealing with populism already on the market—there are excellent
handbooks. And, although this handbook is a stand-alone publication, its value
lies in how far it extends the discussions on important topics that are either
not covered in other volumes or not adequately represented. Of particular
note here are the highly important topics such as ‘Populism & Gender’ or
‘The Psychology of Populism’. This handbook offers insight into some of the
most potent and relevant dimensions of populism’s expressions and thereby
extending our understanding and appreciation of the concept’s significance
within our contemporary political world.
Many thanks go out to not only the many authors of this volume who have
labored so diligently and tenaciously to draw out the many aspects and implica-
tions of populism and have sought to enlighten us about the less than obvious
hues and tomes of one of social science’s most compelling and demanding
subjects, but to those research assistants as well who have so generously and
selflessly devoted their time and dedication to this project’s progress and
completion, without whom this volume would not have been possible. First
and foremost, among those are Elena Broda and Mario Schäfer who assisted
with editing and the essential task of careful and diligent communication with
the volume’s authors. I could not have done it without you! Also, many thanks
to my wife Valentina, and above all to my children, Ava and Levi.
Passau, Germany Dr. Michael Oswald

March 2021
v
Contents
Part I Populism–Introduction to & Some Reflections on the

Concept
1 The New Age of Populism: Reapproaching a Diffuse
Concept 3
Michael Oswald, Mario Schäfer, and Elena Broda
Part II Theoretical Critique

2 The Past and Present of American Populism 31
Anton Jäger
3 Populism Is Hegemony Is Politics? Ernesto Laclau’s
Theory of Populism 49
Benjamin Arditi
4 “An Antipodean Populism? Winston Peters, New Zealand
First, and the Problems of Misclassification” 69
David B. MacDonald
5 A Critique of Left-Wing Populism: Critical Materialist
and Social-Psychological Perspectives 85
Helge Petersen and Hannah Hecker
Part III The Political Psychology of Populism & its Affective

Underpinnings
6 The Psychology of Populism 103
Darren G. Lilleker and Nathalie Weidhase
7 Emotional Mobilization: The Affective Underpinnings
of Right-Wing Populist Party Support 115
Hans-Georg Betz and Michael Oswald
vii
viii CONTENTS
8 From Specific Worries to Generalized Anger: The

Emotional Dynamics of Right-Wing Political Populism 145
Christoph Giang Nguyen, Mikko Salmela,
and Christian von Scheve
Part IV Authoritarian Populism & Fascism

9 Fascism and Populism 163
Carlos de la Torre
10 Populism and Authoritarianism 177
Gabriella Gricius
11 Authoritarian Populism and Collective Memory
Manipulation 195
Rafał Riedel
12 The (Almost) Forgotten Elitist Sources of Right-Wing
Populism Kaltenbrunner, Höcke and the Distaste
for the Masses 213
Phillip Becher
Part V Economic Populism, Inequality & Crises

13 Populism and the Economics of Antitrust 227
Aurelien Portuese
14 The Red Herring of Economic Populism 245
Paris Aslanidis
15 Populist Mobilization in the United States: Adding
Political Economy to Cultural Explanations 263
Christian Lammert and Boris Vormann
Part VI Populism & Gender

16 Right-Wing Populism and Gender 277
Gabriele Dietze
17 ‘The Gendered Politics of Right-Wing Populism
and Instersectional Feminist Contestations’ 291
Julia Roth
18 Popular Sovereignty and (Non)recognition in Venezuela:
On the Coming into Political Being of ‘el Pueblo’ 303
Sara C. Motta and Ybiskay Gonzalez Torres
CONTENTS ix
Part VII New Populisms and Cleavages

19 Environmental Populism 321
Aron Buzogány and Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach
20 Medical Populism 341
Gideon Lasco
21 Global Populism 351
Daniel F. Wajner
22 Populism and the Cosmopolitan–Communitarian Divide 369
Frank Decker
23 Populism and the Recasting of the Ideological Landscape
of Liberal Democracies 379
Albena Azmanova
Part VIII Populism Discourses

24 Meaning Matters: The Political Language of Islamic
Populism 389
Inaya Rakhmani and Vedi Hadiz
25 Populism, Anti-populism and Post-truth 407
Antonis Galanopoulos and Yannis Stavrakakis
26 Experience Narratives and Populist Rhetoric in U.S.
House Primaries 421
Mike Cowburn
27 The Framing of Right-Wing Populism: Intricacies
of ‘Populist’ Narratives, Emotions, and Resonance 437
Julia Leser and Rebecca Pates
28 Populism and Collective Memory 451
Luca Manucci
Part IX Populists in Office

29 Populism in Southeast Asia 471
Paul D. Kenny
30 Populism in Africa and the Anti-Corruption Trope
in Nigeria’s Politics 485
Sylvester Odion Akhaine
31 Populism in Southern Africa Under Liberation Movements
as Governments: The Cases of Namibia, South Africa
and Zimbabwe 497
Henning Melber
x CONTENTS
32 Venezuela: The Institutionalization of Authoritarian

Populism 511
Thomas Kestler and Miguel Latouche
33 Populist Neo-Imperialism: A New Take on Populist
Foreign Policy 527
Ole Frahm and Dirk Lehmkuhl
Part X Strategic Populism & Societal Support

34 Populism as an Implementation of National Biopolitics:
The Case of Poland 545
Szymon Wróbel
35 Understanding the Support of Right-Wing Populist
Positions Within Unsuspected Groups: The Case
of Professional Social Workers in Italy 563
Luca Fazzi and Urban Nothdurfter
36 Clarifying Our Populist Moment(s): Right-Wing
and Left-Wing Populism in the 2016 Presidential Election 579
Edward G. Carmines, Eric R. Schmidt,
and Matthew R. Fowler
Part XI Consequences of Populism & Anti-Populist

Discourse
37 New Parties, Populism, and Parliamentary Polarization:
Evidence from Plenary Debates in the German Bundestag 611
Marcel Lewandowsky, Julia Schwanholz,
Christoph Leonhardt, and Andreas Blätte
38 The Enemy in My House: How Right-Wing Populism
Radicalized the Debate About Citizenship in France 629
Elena Dück and Sebastian Glassner
39 Can Right-Wing Populist Parties Solve the “Democratic
Dilemma”? 649
Martin Althoff
40 Searching for the Philosopher’s Stone: Counterstrategies
Against Populism 665
Mario Schäfer and Florian Hartleb
Index 687
Notes on Contributors
Sylvester Odion Akhaine is a Professor of Political Science at the Depart-

ment of Political Science, Lagos State University, Nigeria.
Martin Althoff Dipl.-Soz.-Wiss. Martin Althoff studied political science at
the University of Duisburg-Essen from 2005 to 2012. After graduation, he
worked from 2013 to 2017 as a research assistant at the Institute for Polit-
ical Science at the University of Münster. Since 2017 he has been working as
a Lecturer and research assistant at the NSI-University of Applied Sciences
in Hannover. He is currently working on his Ph.D. thesis, researches and
publishes on the subject of political participation and works primarily with
quantitative methods.
Benjamin Arditi is a Professor of Politics at UNAM, the National Univer-
sity of Mexico. He is the author of Politics on the edges of liberalism: differ-
ence, populism, revolution, emancipation (Edinburgh University Press, 2007,
2008; Spanish translation in Gedisa 2010, 2014, 2017). He co-edits the book
series Taking on the Political published by Edinburgh University Press. His
research focuses on networked political insurgencies, populism and illiberal and
postliberal politics.
Paris Aslanidis is a Lecturer of Political Science at Yale University, Depart-
ment of Political Science and Hellenic Studies Program, MacMillan Center
for International and Area Studies. His work focuses on populism from the
perspectives of party politics, social mobilization and intellectual history. He
has published with Political Studies, Democratization, Sociological Forum,
Mobilization, Quality & Quantity, among other journals, and his chapter on
‘Populism and Social Movements’ appears in the Oxford Handbook of Populism.
Albena Azmanova is an Associate Professor of Political Theory at the Univer-
sity of Kent’s Brussels School of International Studies. Her research spans
justice and judgment, democratic theory and social transformation and critique
xi
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
of contemporary capitalism. She is the author, most recently, of Capitalism on

Edge: How Fighting Precarity Can Achieve Radical Change Without Crisis Or
Utopia (Columbia University Press, 2020). She holds a Ph.D. from the New
School for Social Research (New York) and has held teaching or research posi-
tions at Sciences Po. (Paris), the New School (New York), the Max-Planck-
Institute for the Study of Societies (Cologne), Harvard University, and UC
Berkeley.
Phillip Becher (b. 1987) is a social scientist and currently working at the
University of Siegen. He has recently published his Ph.D. thesis on the work
of American fascism scholar A. James Gregor as a monograph. His research
interests include political theory, the history of political ideas, political parties
and social movements. Becher’s publications, papers and presentations deal
inter alia with Italian neo-fascism, contemporary German right-wing populism
and the intellectual new right.
Hans-Georg Betz is a leading expert on populism and the radical right in
affluent liberal democracies. He has written several seminal books and arti-
cles on radical right-wing populism, nativism and Islamophobia. He currently
serves as an adjunct professor in the institute of political science at the Univer-
sity of Zürich where he teaches advanced courses on populism and globaliza-
tion. Before coming to Switzerland, he taught at York University in Toronto,
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Wash-
ington, DC, and the Loyola University Rome Center in Italy. He also held
a joint visiting chair at Columbia University/New York University in New
York City. He currently lives near Lausanne in the French part of Switzerland.
Hans-Georg Betz has written extensively on populism, the radical right, and
nativism, both past and contemporary.
Andreas Blätte is a Professor of Public Policy and Regional Politics at
the University of Duisburg-Essen. He received his doctoral degree from
the University of Erfurt and studied Political Science, European Law and
Economics at the LMU Munich and the University of Aberystwyth, Wales. His
research combines a focus on policies and politics in immigrant societies with
the use of large-scale corpora and computational social science approaches. His
published work includes several R packages and corpora that were developed
in the context of the PolMine Project that he has established.
Elena Broda is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Journalism, Media
and Communication at the University of Gothenburg. She studied Polit-
ical Science at the University of Hamburg and the University of Passau.
Her research focuses on political communication in transforming informa-
tion environments, and she writes her dissertation on the role of misinforma-
tion regarding the development of misperceptions and knowledge resistance
in online issue publics.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xiii
Aron Buzogány works at the University of Natural Resources and Life

Sciences (BOKU) in Vienna, Austria. He holds a Ph.D. in political science
from Freie Universität Berlin and has held academic or visiting positions at Yale
University, the German Public Administration Research Institute in Speyer,
the University of Munich, Freie Universität Berlin and Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity SAIS in Washington, D.C. His work is within comparative politics and
touches on different aspects of environmental, energy and climate policy in
the European Union, including its contestation by political parties and social
movements.
Edward G. Carmines is a Distinguished Professor, Warner O. Chapman
Professor of Political Science, and Rudy Professor at Indiana University. At
IU, he serves as Director for the Center on American Politics and Director of
Research for the Center on Representative Government. He is the co-author of
six books, including Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of Amer-
ican Politics (with James A. Stimson; Princeton University Press, 1989) and
Reaching Beyond Race (with Paul M. Sniderman; Harvard University Press
1997)—both of which won the American Political Science Association’s Gladys
M. Kammerer Award for the best book in the field of U.S. national policy.
Mike Cowburn is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the Graduate
School of North American Studies of the Freie Universität Berlin. His research
interests include Congress, political parties, elections, intra-party factions,
polarization, and candidate nomination systems. His Ph.D. project examines
congressional primary competitions in the twenty-first century, considering
their role in nominating experienced candidates and whether contests have
contributed to partisan polarization in Congress.
Carlos de la Torre is Director of the UF Center for Latin American Studies.
He has a Ph.D. from the New School for Social Research. He was a fellow
at the Simon Guggenheim Foundation, and the Woodrow Wilson Center
for Scholars. His most recent books are The Routledge Handbook of Global
Populism, (Routlege, 2019); Populisms a Quick Immersion, (Tibidabo Editions,
2019), De Velasco a Correa: Insurreciones, populismo y elecciones en Ecuador,
(Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, 2015), The Promise and Perils of Populism,
(The University Press of Kentucky, 2015), Latin American Populism of the
Twenty-First Century, co-edited with Cynthia Arnson, (The Johns Hopkins
University Press and the Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2013), and Populist
Seduction in Latin America, (Ohio University Press, second edition 2010).
Frank Decker is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Bonn. He
has published widely on problems of institutional reform in Western democra-
cies (including the EU), party systems and right-wing populism. Recent books
include Die Zukunft der Demokratie, co-edited with Thomas Hartmann and
Jochen Dahm (Bonn 2019), Ausstieg, Souveränität, Isolation, co-edited with
Ursula Bitzegeio and Philipp Adorf (Bonn 2019), Die USA—eine scheiternde
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Demokratie?, co-edited with Patrick Horst and Philipp Adorf (Frankfurt a.M.
2018), Parteiendemokratie imWandel, 2nd. ed. (Baden-Baden 2018).
Gabriele Dietze (P.D., Dr.) conducts research from a cultural and media
studies perspective on racism, sexism, migration and right-wing populism.
She is a member of the Center for Transdisciplinary Gender Studies at
Humboldt University Berlin (ZtG). Among other positions, she is currently
Harris Professor for gender studies at Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) and
was visiting fellow at the DuBois Institute at Harvard University (Cambridge,
MA). Some of her recent publications include Sexualpolitik. Verflechtungen von
Race und Gender (Campus 2017) and Sexueller Exzeptionalismus. Überlegen-
heitsnarrative in Migrationsabwehr und Rechtspopulismus (transcript 2019)
and together with Julia Roth (Eds.) Right-Wing Populism and Gender in
Europe and Beyond (transcript 2020).
Elena Dück is a Mercator-IPC research fellow at the Istanbul Policy Center at
Sabancı University. She holds a Master’s degree in ‘International Cultural and
Business Studies’ and a Ph.D. in ‘International Relations’ from the Univer-
sity of Passau. Her research focuses on social-constructivist approaches to
foreign policy analysis and security discourses. She has published articles on
French security discourses and on Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. Her
current project explores the role of international educational cooperation in
German–Turkish relations.
Luca Fazzi is a full Professor of Sociology and Social Work at the University
of Trento (Italy) where he is head of the degree program in Social Work. His
teaching and research interest focus on third sector organizations, participa-
tion and engagement in social work practice. He has published extensively in
international journals and international handbooks. Current projects include
identifying strategies of local development and the political role of social work.
Matthew R. Fowler is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Chicago’s
Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture and GenForward Project.
His research involves group consciousness and intergroup attitudes—applied
to white identity and racial attitudes, affective political polarization, and public
opinion in American politics. His work has been published in P.S: Political
Science & Politics, American Review of Politics, and the Indiana Journal of
Global & Legal Studies.
Ole Frahm is visiting scholar at Freie Universität Berlin and Lecturer at the
University of St Gallenwherehe researched Turkey’s relations with the post-
Soviet space as part of the Horizon 2020 project EU-STRAT. He has studied
politics, philosophy, economics and European studies at the universities of
Oxford, Bath, Paris (Sciences Po) and Berlin where he completed his Ph.D.
on state building and nation building in Sub-Saharan Africa at the Humboldt
Universität. Frahm has teaching experience in Germany, Algeria and Turkey,
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xv
has published and presented his research widely and worked at think tanks and
in political consultancy.
Antonis Galanopoulos is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Political
Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. He holds a Bachelor
degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Political Theory and Philos-
ophy. His doctoral research is financially supported by the General Secre-
tariat for Research and Technology (GRST) and the Hellenic Foundation for
Research and Innovation (HFRI) (Scholarship Code: 2552).
Sebastian Glassner is a research associate and Lecturer at the Professorship
of International Politics at the University of Passau. He holds a Master’s degree
in ‘Governance and Public Policy’ from the University of Passau. Further-
more, Mr. Glassner studied at the Sciences Po Toulouse. His research interests
include foreign policy analysis, as well as discourse theory and populism. He
focuses in particular on France, Italy and the UK.
Gabriella Gricius is a Ph.D. student and Graduate Teaching Assistant at
Colorado State University and Graduate Fellow at the North American and
Arctic Defense and Security Network (NAADSN). She received her Master’s
degree in International Security from the University of Groningen.
Her interests are focused on the Arctic region, particularly as it concerns
Russian policy and the risk of securitizing the region. She is also a free-
lance journalist and has published in Foreign Policy, Bear Market Brief, CSIS,
Responsible Statecraft, Global Security Review, and Riddle Russia as well as
the academic journals including the Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, Sicherheit
und Frieden, the Kyiv-Mohyla Law & Politics Journal, and the Canadian Naval
Review.
Vedi Hadiz is a Professor of Asian Studies and Director of the Asia Institute
at the University of Melbourne. He is a recent Australian Research Council
Future Fellow and an elected Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in
Australia. He is the author of Islamic Populism in Indonesia and the Middle
East (Cambridge University Press, 2016), among other books.
Florian Hartleb (born 1979 in Passau/Germany) is a political scientist and
Managing Director at Hanse Advice in Tallinn, Estonia. He conducts research
with a global focus on right-wing and left-wing extremism and terrorism,
as well as on digitalization. In 2004, his thesis subject was left- and right-
wing populism. In the past, he worked for the German Parliament, the
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Estonian Office for equality. He is currently
lecturing at Catholic University Eichstätt and University for Police Saxony-
Anhalt and author of various books. In addition, he is a research associate at the
Brussels-based Wilfried-Martens-Centre for European Studies. Recent Publi-
cations: Lone Wolves. The New Terrorism of Right-Wing Actors, Springer
Nature, Cham/Schweiz u.a., 2020; e-Estonia. Europe´s Silicon Valley or a
new 1984? in: Denise Feldner (ed.): Redesigning Institutions: Consequences
xvi NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
of and Concepts for the Digital Transformation, Springer Nature: Heidelberg

et al. 2020, pp. 215–228.
Hannah Hecker studied social sciences at Goethe University Frankfurt. Her
main focus is on social-psychological perspectives on group-oriented misan-
thropy, antiziganism and anti-feminism. She works as a research secretary at the
Fritz Bauer Institute for the Study of the History and Impact of the Holocaust
based in Frankfurt am Main.
Anton Jäger is a Wiener-Anspach postdoctoral fellow at the Université libre
de Bruxelles and University of Cambridge. His writings have appeared in
outlets such as Jacobin, LSE Review of Books, Los Angeles Review of Books,
nonsite, The Guardian, De Groene Amsterdammer, London Review of Books,
among others. Together with Daniel Zamora (Université Libre de Bruxelles)
he is currently working on an intellectual history of basic income, under
contract with the University of Chicago Press.
Paul D. Kenny is a Professor of Political Science in the Institute for Human-
ities and Social Sciences at Australian Catholic University and a visiting
fellow at the Australian National University. Specializing in comparative polit-
ical economy, he is an award-winning author of two books on populism,
Populism and Patronage: Why Populist Win Elections in India, Asia, and
Beyond (Oxford, 2017) and Populism in Southeast Asia (Cambridge, 2019).
Thomas Kestler is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Political Science
and Sociology at the University of Würzburg. He earned his Ph.D. in 2008
from the Catholic University of Eichstätt with a dissertation on political parties
in Venezuela. His main research areas are political systems and institutions in
Latin America.
Christian Lammert is a political scientist and Professor at the John F.
Kennedy Institute (FU Berlin) with a special focus on political systems in
North America. His recent research interests include economic inequality and
redistribution, tax and transfer systems and crises phenomena of democracy
in the transatlantic region. Among his recent publications is (together with
Markus B. Siewert und Boris Vormann) the second edition of the ‘Hand-
buch Politik USA’ (Springer Verlag 2020) and (together with Boris Vormann)
‘Democracy in Crisis. The neoliberal roots of popular unrest’ (Pennsylvania
University Press 2020).
Gideon Lasco is a physician, medical anthropologist and writer. Based in
Manila, he is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Philippines Diliman
Department of Anthropology and research fellow at the Ateneo de Manila
University Development Studies Program. He obtained his medical (MD) and
Master’s degrees (M.Sc. in Medical Anthropology) from the UP College of
Medicine, and his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Amsterdam.
His researches focus on contemporary health-related crises, from the drug wars
in Asia to vaccine controversies around the world.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xvii
Miguel Latouche is a Venezuelan writer and an Associate Professor at the

Central University of Venezuela (UCV). He did his Master’s studies at Syra-
cuse University as a recipient of the Fulbright Program and received his Ph.D.
in Political Science from the UCV. From 2009 to 2017 he was director of the
UCV School of Social Communication. In 2018 and 2019 he did postdoc-
toral studies at the University of Bamberg and the Goethe University Frankfurt
(Germany). Currently, he is a Guest Professor and Philipp Schwartz fellow at
the University of Rostock (Germany). He is also a columnist for The Wynwood
Times.
Dirk Lehmkuhl is a Professor for European Politics at the University of St.
Gallen. He studied at the University of Konstanz, was a Ph.D. candidate at
the University of Bielefeld and completed his Ph.D. at the European University
Institute in Fiesole. Thereafter he was a postdoc at the Max-Planck Institute for
Common Goods and completed his Habilitation at the University of Zurich.
His research includes studies at the interface between international relations
and international law, various topics of European public policy, external gover-
nance of the EU. Over the past years he was involved in two EU-sponsored
research projects as coordinator and investigator on the Eastern partnership
(EU FP7 project ISSICEU; www.issiceu.eu; EU H2020 project EU-STRAT;
www.eu-strat-eu).
Christoph Leonhardt studied Political Science in Leipzig and works as
a research associate at the Institute of Political Science of the University
of Duisburg-Essen. His current research interests include the relationship
between political discourse and institutional change, in particular combining
perspectives of Political Science and Computational Social Science.
Julia Leser is a political anthropologist and a postdoctoral researcher at
Humboldt University Berlin, where she is currently working on the research
project ‘Challenging Populist Truth-Making in Europe (CHAPTER)’. She
is co-author of the book The Wolves are Coming Back: The Politics of Fear
in Eastern Germany (with Rebecca Pates, 2021) and official speaker of
the German Political Science Association (GPSA) working group ‘Political
Ethnography’. Her fields of interest include political anthropology, political
ethnography and affect studies, and further include national security and
migration control, nationalism, populism and political theory.
Marcel Lewandowsky is a political scientist and currently a DAAD visiting
Assistant Professor at the Center for European Studies, University of Florida.
He received his doctoral degree with a study on German regional election
campaigns from the University of Bonn, Germany, where he had studied Polit-
ical Science, Public Law and Modern History. His current research focuses on
comparative politics with special regard to the stability of democratic regimes,
parties and party systems as well as populism in Europe.
xviii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Darren G. Lilleker is Head of the Centre for Comparative Politics and

Media Research and Professor of Political Communication at Bournemouth
University. Dr Lilleker’s interests are in political communication, with partic-
ular focus on the use of digital environments and the impact upon citizen
cognition and engagement. He has published over 100 journal articles and
book chapters, his most relevant work on this topic being Political Communi-
cation and Cognition (Palgrave, 2014).
David B. MacDonald is a full Professor in the political science department
at the University of Guelph, Canada, and recently completed a three year
appointment as the Guelph Research Leadership Chair for the College of
Social and Applied Human Sciences. He has previously been on faculty
at the University of Otago, New Zealand, and the École Supérieure de
Commerce de Paris (ESCP-Europe). He has an SSHRC grant with co-
researcher Shery Lightfoot entitled ‘Complex Sovereignties: Theory and Prac-
tice of Indigenous-Self Determination in Settler States and the International
System’. His research focuses on Global Populisms, Comparative Indigenous
Politics in Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia and United States, and he
also works in the areas of International Relations, genocide studies, and critical
race theory. Recent publications are The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide,
Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation (University of
Toronto Press, 2019), and Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter and
Transnational Dimensions Co-Edited with D Nabers and F Stengel (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2019). He has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London
School of Economics. This chapter was supported by SSHRC Insight Grant
430413.
Luca Manucci is a post-doc researcher at the University of Lisbon. He
received a Ph.D. in comparative politics from the University of Zurich,
and his research focuses on populism, political parties and the media. He
currently works at a project on Iberian populism titled Populus: Rethinking
populism, financed by national funds from the FCT- Foundation for Science
and Technology, within the project PDTC/SOC-OC/28524/2017.
Henning Melber is an Extraordinary Professor at the Department of Polit-
ical Sciences/University of Pretoria and the Centre for Gender and Africa
Studies/University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, a senior research asso-
ciate with the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala and a senior research fellow
with the Centre for Commonwealth Studies/Centre for Advanced Study at the
University of London. He is the Director Emeritus of the Dag Hammarskjöld
Foundation in Uppsala and the current President of the European Association
of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI). As a political scien-
tist and sociologist in African and Development Studies his research includes a
regional focus on Southern Africa (in particular Namibia).
Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach works at the University of Würzburg,
where he has gained his Ph.D. He is currently a postdoc at the Institute
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xix
of Political Science and Sociology and the general coordinator of the DFG
Research Unit FOR2757 on ‘Local Self-Governance in the context of Weak
Statehood in Antiquity and the Modern Era (LoSAM)’. His work is within
comparative politics where he focuses on fields like democracy and democrati-
zation, political culture and social capital, weak statehood, political parties and
voting behavior.
Sara C. Motta is a mother, storyteller, poet, critical theorist and popular
educator and currently Associate Professor at the University of Newcastle,
Australia. Her scholarly practice transgresses borders-epistemological, social
and spatial-as a means to co-construct with communities in struggle a crit-
ical political science practice for and of the subaltern. She has published widely
in journals including Political Studies, Latin American Perspectives, Antipode,
Historical Materialism and produced a number of books including (co-edited
with Alf Nilsen) Social Movements in the Global South: Dispossession, Devel-
opment and Resistance (Palgrave Macmillan), (co-edited with Mike Cole)
Education and Social Change in Latin America (Palgrave Macmillan) and
Constructing 21st Century Socialism in Latin America: The Role of Radical
Education (Palgrave Macmillan). Her most recent book is Liminal Subjects:
Weaving (our) Liberations (Rowman & Littlefield International), winner of
the 2019 best Feminist Theory and Gender Studies Book Award, International
Studies
Christoph Giang Nguyen is a Lecturer at the Otto-Suhr Institute at the
Freie Universität Berlin. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from North-
western University. His work focuses on the way insecurity and disadvantage
shape political attitudes and the way that emotions such as anger, anxiety, and
disgust translate general grievances into specific political attitudes. He is also
interested in research methods and research design, with a focus on exper-
imental methods, large-N observational data, but also mixed-methods and
qualitative research designs.
Urban Nothdurfter is an Associate Professor in Social Work and Social
Policy at the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano (Italy) where he is head of
the degree program in Social Work. His research interests focus on the connec-
tions between social policy development and social work practice, the street-
level delivery of social policies and on issues of gender and sexuality in social
work. Recent projects deal with LGBT+ parenting and the political role of
social work.
Michael Oswald is an Assistant Professor of political science at the Univer-
sity of Passau, associate research fellow and lecturer at the John F. Kennedy
Institute of the Free University of Berlin and faculty member at International
Center for European Education. His main interest lies in Political Communi-
cation, Populism and Extremism research. He wrote his dissertation on the Tea
Party movement and has held visiting scholarships at Texas A&M and Harvard
University.
xx NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Rebecca Pates is a Professor of Political Theory at Leipzig University and

member of the Academia Europae, has managed a number of research grants
on the governmentality of sex work and on trafficking for sexual exploita-
tion, funded by the EU and the German Research Council. Her most recent
research is on the malleability of nationalism in the German context.
Helge Petersen is a Ph.D. student at the University of Glasgow, School of
Social and Political Sciences. His Ph.D. project examines the history of political
struggles over racist violence and state racism in the British post-war period.
His research interests include critical racism, nationalism and antisemitism
studies, critical state theory, historical and political sociology.
Aurelien Portuese is Director of Antitrust and Innovation Policy at the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the world’s top think
tank on science and technology. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at
the George Mason University and at the Catholic University of Paris. Aurelien
Portuese has 10 years of academic experience where he specialized in antitrust
law and innovation. He has published extensively and presented articles in
international conferences.
Inaya Rakhmani is an Assistant Professor and Head of the Asia Research
Centre, Universitas Indonesia, and the Deputy Director (Science and Educa-
tion working group) of the Indonesian Young Academy of Sciences (ALMI).
She has had 20 years experience in academic and applied research in higher
education and social science research reform, as well as the role of media
in democratic processes. Inaya’s academic interest that underlies her applied
research practices focuses on understanding how culture can hinder and
enable the redistribution of wealth and access to many. She is the author of
‘Mainstreaming Islam in Indonesia’ published by Palgrave MacMillan.
Rafał Riedel is Professor at the University in Opole (Poland), Ph.D. holder
in Political Science, Jean Monnet Professor, habilitated (in EU Studies) at
the University of Wrocław, graduated at the Silesian University and Economic
University in Katowice; Professor at the Political Science Institute of the Opole
University, earlier also: guest researcher at ARENA (Centre for European
Studies) at the University of Oslo, Gastdozent at TUC and Wissenschaft-
slische Mitarbeiter w ETH Zurich. Previously engaged in educational and
research programs, as a scholar, co-organizer or fellow at European University
Institute, Open Society Institute, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst,
Marie Curie Fellowship Programme, Max Planck Institute, European Values
Network, Fundacji Rozwoju Systemu Edukacji—EEA/Norway Grants.
Scientific interests: European integration process, democratic deficit,
populism, transitology, considology and other problematic in the field of
political science, European studies and economy.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxi
Julia Roth is a Professor of American Studies with a focus on Gender Studies

and InterAmerican Studies at Bielefeld University, Germany. Prior to this posi-
tion, she was a postdoctoral fellow at the research project ‘The Americas
as Space of Entanglements’ in Bielefeld and at the interdisciplinary network
‘desiguALdades.net- Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America’ at Freie
Universität Berlin as well as a Lecturer at Humboldt University Berlin, the
University of Potsdam and the Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico. Her
research focuses on postcolonial, decolonial and gender approaches, inter-
sectionality and global inequalities, anti-racist feminist knowledge from the
Caribbean and the Americas, citizenships and gender, right-wing populism
and gender. From 2020 to 2021, she was co-convenor of the ZiF research
group ‘Global Contestations of Women’s and Gender Rights’ at the Center
for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld.
Mikko Salmela is an Adjunct Professor of Practical Philosophy and a Member
of the Helsinki Hub on Emotions, Populism, and Polarisation (HEPP) at
the University of Helsinki. He is also Associate Professor at the Centre for
Subjectivity Research, University of Copenhagen. His main research interests
are in empirically informed philosophy of emotion, philosophical and political
psychology, and philosophy of sociality.
Mario Schäfer is a doctoral candidate in International Politics at the Univer-
sity of Passau. He studies European Studies and Governance and Public Policy
in Passau, Germany and Ljubljana, Slovenia. Prior to that he studies history
with minor subject Political Science in Mainz, Germany and Siena, Italy. He
conducts research on European Enlargement Policy, Conflict management and
Border Conflicts. His doctoral thesis concerns the EU’s approach to settle
border conflicts during accession processes with special focus on Cyprus and
Croatia/Slovenia. Additionally, he published two reviews—one of them about
Chantal Mouffe’s Für einen Linken Populismus/For a Left Populism (2019),
representing other research topics of his such as populism, collective memory
and identity politics.
Eric R. Schmidt is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Indiana Univer-
sity. His dissertation, Voting in Groups, Thinking Like Ideologues: The
Paradox of Partisan Conflict in the United States documents one of the most
insidious consequences of polarization: disconnect between the issue conflict
that helps citizens make sense of politics, and the intergroup conflict that
helps parties mobilize winning coalitions. His peer-reviewed work has been
published in Political Behavior, P.S.: Political Science & Politics, and the
Journal of Political Institutions & Political Economy.
Julia Schwanholz is a political scientist and Senior Lecturer at the Univer-
sity of Duisburg-Essen. Previously, she represented interim professorships for
democracy research as well as comparative politics and ethics in politics at
different German Universities. She received her Ph.D. at the University of
xxii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Göttingen. Her expertise lies in parliaments, democracy and public policy

research with an emphasis on digital transformation.
Yannis Stavrakakis is a Professor of Political Discourse Analysis at the School
of Political Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. He is the
editor of the Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory (New York:
Routledge, 2020). His current research focuses on the discursive study of
populism and especially on the analysis of populist and anti-populist discourses.
He is the director of the POPULISMUS Observatory: www.populismus.gr.
Ybiskay Gonzalez Torres is a sociologist from Venezuela and completed her
Ph.D. in Politics at the University of Newcastle, Australia. She is currently
a casual academic staff at the University of Newcastle, Australia. She has
published about Venezuela in the Bulletin of Latin America, and in the book
Populismus. Diskurs–Hegemonie–Staat, edited by Kim and Agridopoulos
(forthcoming Nomos, 2020). Her book entitled Polarised Politics: The
Confrontational “Us and Them” between Chavistas and the Opposition in
Venezuela will be published by Rowman & Littlefield International in 2021.
Christian von Scheve is Professor of Sociology at Freie Universität Berlin.
He is a Member of the Executive Board of the DFG Collaborative Research
Centre ‘Affective Societies’ and Research Fellow at the German Institute of
Economic Research (DIW) Berlin. His main research fields are economic
sociology, social psychology, and cultural sociology with a special interest in
emotion, social interaction, and stratification.
Boris Vormann is a Professor of Politics and Director of the Politics Concen-
tration at Bard College Berlin. His research focuses on the role of the state
in globalization and urbanization processes; nations and nationalism; and the
crisis of democracy. His most recent books are the co-edited volume The
Emergence of Illiberalism: Understanding a Global Phenomenon (Routledge,
2021; coedited with Michael Weinman) and a handbook on politics and policy
in the United States for a German-speaking audience (Handbuch Politik USA;
Springer VS, 2020; coedited with Christian Lammert and Markus Siewert).
Daniel F. Wajner is a postdoctoral fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute for
International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, while teaching
at the Department of International Relations and the Rothberg International
School. His main areas of research are international legitimacy, conflict resolu-
tion, regional cooperation and populist foreign policies, particularly focusing
on their interplay in the realm of Middle East and Latin American politics.
Nathalie Weidhase is a postdoctoral researcher in Media, Culture and
Communication at Bournemouth University. She has published on women in
popular music, celebrity feminism, and Brexit and the royal family. Her current
work is concerned with the intersections of populism and gender in popular
culture and media.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xxiii
Szymon Wróbel is a full Professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Artes

Liberales at the University of Warsaw and the Institute of Philosophy and
Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the author of numerous
books and articles scattered in various scientific journals. His books in English
include: Deferring the Self, The Animals in Us—We in Animal and Grammar
and Glamor of Cooperation, published in 2013, 2014 and 2015 by Peter
Lang Publishing. In Polish: Ćwiczenia z przyjaźni (Exercises in Friendship),
Lektury retroaktywne (Retroactive Readings) and Polska pozycja depresyjna
(Polish Depressive Position) published by Kraków Publishing House Univer-
sitas in 2012, 2014, 2015. In 2016, IFiS PAN Institute published his book,
Filozof i terytorium (Philosopher and Territory) on the Warsaw School of
Historians of Ideas. His last book, Atheism Revisited. Rethinking Modernity
and Inventing New Modes of Life has been published by Palgrave Macmillan
in 2020. Currently, he is the head of the experimental Laboratory of Techno-
Humanities at the Faculty of Artes Liberales where for several years he realizes
the ‘Technology and Socialization’ project.
List of Figures
Fig. 8.1 Simplified cross-lagged, autoregressive model

between generalized emotions, specific worries,
and support for (right-wing) populist parties (Note Simplified
generalized model of generalized emotion, populist support,
and specific worries in a cross-lagged, autoregressive panel
setting) 153
Fig. 22.1 Placement of right-wing populism within the conflict line
model of contemporary party systems (Own illustration The
big circle marks the sphere of constitutionality) 374
Fig. 23.1 Ideological landscape twentieth century (Source Azmanova,
2020) 382
Fig. 23.2 Ideological landscape twenty-first century (Source Azmanova,
2020) 384
Fig. 26.1 % primaries competence based 428
Fig. 26.2 Candidate quality 429
Fig. 28.1 How the authoritarian past shapes the populist present 454
Fig. 36.1 Right-wing and left-wing populism by party identification
2017 cooperative congressional election study 590
Fig. 36.2 Predicted effects of right and left-wing populism on Trump
or Clinton voting in 2016, by partisan subgroup 602
Fig. 37.1 Salience of selected issues in Bundestag speeches 618
Fig. 37.2 Polarization in selected issues in Bundestag speeches 619
Fig. 37.3 Polarization in policy field ‘environment’ and populism 620
Fig. 37.4 Polarization in policy field ‘reunification’ and populism 621
Fig. 37.5 Polarization in policy field ‘welfare state’ and populism 622
Fig. 37.6 Polarization in policy field ‘immigration’ and populism 623
Fig. 38.1 Interaction between right-wing populism and Securitization
Theory. (Source Own illustration) 633
xxv
xxvi LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 39.1 Relationship between the electoral success of right-wing

populist parties and the level of voter turnout in Western
European countries 656
Fig. 39.2 Relationship between the electoral success of right-wing
populist parties and the level of voter turnout in Eastern
European countries 657
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Perspectives on populism 6

Table 8.1 CLP model regressing AFD support on specific worries
and fear and anger 155
Table 10.1 Hungary V-DEM scores and IDEA indices 183
Table 10.2 Philippines V-DEM scores and IDEA indices 186
Table 10.3 USA V-DEM scores and IDEA indices 189
Table 11.1 Authoritarian populists’ framing of memory 207
Table 17.1 Right-wing populist patterns of gendering 294
Table 19.1 Three kinds of populism and their relationship concerning
environmental policies 325
Table 36.1 Exploratory factor analysis with two retained factors, eight
initial items in populism index 587
Table 36.2 Exploratory factor analysis with two retained factors, six
items (Dropping Traditionalism and Manufacturing Jobs ) 588
Table 36.3 Confirmatory factor analysis, right-wing populism
and left-wing populism, 2017 cooperative congressional
election study 590
Table 36.4 Republican identifiers: Determinants of right-wing
and left-wing populism 592
Table 36.5 Democratic identifiers: Determinants of right-wing
Table 36.6 Partisan independents: Determinants of right-wing
Table 36.7 Republican identifiers: determinants of voting for Donald
Trump in 2016 597
Table 36.8 Democratic identifiers: determinants of voting for Hillary
Clinton in 2016 598
Table 36.9 Partisan independents: determinants of voting for Donald
Trump in 2016 599
Table 36.10 Partisan independents: determinants of voting for Hillary
Clinton in 2016 600
xxvii
xxviii LIST OF TABLES
Table 39.1 Voter turnout and vote shares for right-wing populist
parties in European Countries 654
Table 39.2 Regression models (dependent variable: voter turnout) 658
Table 40.1 The three dimensions of populism 666
Table 40.2 The exclusionary–inclusionary axis of counterstrategies
actor-related (Combating the symptoms) 669
Table 40.3 Countering the roots of populism—supporter-related 675
Part I
Populism–Introduction to & Some Reflections

on the Concept
CHAPTER 1
The New Age of Populism: Reapproaching

a Diffuse Concept
Michael Oswald, Mario Schäfer, and Elena Broda
Populism as a Concept
Populism has become one of the most frequently researched topics in political
science and its different conceptualizations are used in many other disciplines
such as communication, sociology, economics and its mother discipline history.
The dedication of whole conferences and journal issues to just one aspect of
populism—e.g. environmental populism—is a testimony to this development,
let alone the sheer numbers of publications: Google scholar lists just under
20.000 hits for populism in the year 2020 alone. The recent success stories
of populists, especially in Europe and the United States, have added to this
interest.
Researchers have conceptualized and defined populism since the term
evolved into an analytical tool in the 1950s but despite this large research
agenda, populism remains a contested concept. In fact, there are at least three
M. Oswald (B)
Political Science, University of Passau, Passau, Germany
e-mail: michael.oswald@uni-passau.de
M. Schäfer
International Politics, University of Passau, Passau, Germany
e-mail: mario.schaefer@uni-passau.de
E. Broda
Department of Journalism, Media and Communication JMG, University of
Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
e-mail: elena.broda@jmg.gu.se
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 3

Switzerland AG 2022
M. Oswald (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Populism,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80803-7_1
4 M. OSWALD ET AL.
different strands of populism research: populism as political strategy, ideology,

and as discursive style. This alone makes the field of populism fragmented thus
rendering the term less clear today than at any other point in time. In fact, an
extensive amount of literature has been devoted to this problematic nature of
populism in the first place. Much more than there is regarding possible syner-
gies among the different strands of research. Additionally, each generation of
researchers slightly varied the focus of populism research and thus the meaning
of populism itself.
Consequently, the term is used in and beyond science to refer to a myriad of
regionally different phenomena throughout varying historical periods. As such,
scholars have analyzed an agrarian movement in the United States during the
late nineteenth century, the evolvement of Latin American populism during
the twentieth century, and the current resurgence of populism in Europe all
under the same cloak (see for instance Betz, 1994; Dornbusch & Edwards,
1991; Jagers & Walgrave, 2007; Kazin, 1995; Mudde, 2007; Mudde &
Kaltwasser, 2017; Norris & Inglehart, 2019; Roberts, 1995; Taggart, 2002).
Moreover, the term is utilized to characterize parties, movements,
supporters of certain policies, attitudes and much more—sometimes even for
mainstream politicians if they imply to speak for the common people. On top
of that, some researchers apply a normative presumption—be it positively or
negatively—to the term. And in political discussions it is often utilized as a
means to defame people or issues. This broad span of populism research, the
different approaches, the pejorative connotation, and the arbitrary use of the
term leaves the analytical value of the concept slim. And yet, populism research
has made great progress identifying issues around populist attitudes and how
they can affect voters (e.g. Van Hauwaert & Van Kessel, 2018), the psycho-
logical roots of populism (Lilleker and Weidehase in this volume) as well as
the role of emotions (see Betz and Oswald in this volume), just to name a
few. These accomplishments show that we cannot just retire the term. After
all, it continues to be ubiquitous in research and politics. Therefore, we need
to ask what populism can mean today, especially regarding its suitability for
the scientific debate.
To that end, we briefly dip into the past, assess the historic roots of the
concept and identify common conceptual elements as well as elements that are
not constitutive from a conceptual point of view. We also discuss the relation
between populism and democracy further, especially in terms of the relation
between populism and extremism. Finally, we offer an eclectic definition and
propose a six-step orientation that should be viewed as an axiom as a means
to re-assert the scientific value of the concept of populism as well as populism
research writ large.
Definitions, Perspectives and Strands of Populism

The ambiguity of populism begins with a lack of consistency inasmuch as the
variety of definitions ranging from an interpretation as discourse over one as
1 THE NEW AGE OF POPULISM: REAPPROACHING A DIFFUSE CONCEPT 5
style to its strategic use. We have delineated nine different theoretical perspec-
tives which harbor commonalities but also, at times, contradict one another.
These perspectives are presented in Table 1.1, alongside a short definition and
exemplary authors.
There are certainly more viable approaches, like understanding populism as
a ‘Collective Action Master Frame for Transnational Mobilization’ (Aslanidis,
2018), so the list presented here is non-exhaustive. Yet, it goes to show just
how dispersed populism research has become. One of the major issues with
these different approaches concerns what populism actually constitutes and
what categories should subsequently be used for its analysis. Relatedly, it is
questionable if all of these approaches are suited to grasp the entire span of
populist phenomena within some 130 years.
In practice, it seems, we tend to go with an ‘you know it when you see
it’ approach when it comes to identifying populist phenomena, much like
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s comparison to a definition of pornog-
raphy. This analogy is not that farfetched if we think about the fact that some
people despise nude magazines and others would reserve the word strictly for
more explicit material. Some would argue that the world needs pornography
while others warn of its dangers. Still, it is there and efforts to inhibit it are
futile. The same applies to populism.
Populism today is largely determined by a similar subjectivity and there-
fore what people we want to perceive as such—from establishment politicians
to extremists. Both are concerning: using the term for extremists is belittle-
ment; using it for politicians who might suggest a simple policy appealing to a
large segment of society can be distortive. A real ‘voice’ for the people against
unpopular policies can be denigrated if labeled populist even though some see
populist movements as a cure (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017, cf. Huber
& Schimpf, 2016; Ostiguy, 2017). Further, the lack of anything resembling a
conceptual consensus in addition to the widened gap between perspectives
may sometimes lead to an increasingly ideological or normative stance on
the issue even within science. This fragmentation impacts operationalization,
analytical approaches as well as the quality of and trust in science.
In addition to conceptual challenges, populism became a ‘Kampfbegriff’
(‘battle word’) within media discourse and political practice: a means to defame
policies that seem disagreeable, or to attack politicians, not necessarily for
policy content, rather categorically. It therefore attaches a stigma to polit-
ical movements or personalities—deserving or undeserving—and is often more
a means to lead a political battle than for scientific analysis. This pejorative
character of populism and the normative attachment that many add to the
concept gives rise to the assumption that populism either encompasses a dero-
gation from democratic norms or that it is a means to revive democracy for
the people. This sets the focus on both normative ends neglecting the more
relevant part for democracy that may lie in between.
The imbalance of today’s populism research is also found in the fact that the
term seems to imply right-wing populism (RWP) to some, inasmuch that even
6
Table 1.1 Perspectives on populism
Perspective Short definition Authors (examples)
Populism as a strategy of mobilization, or mode of ‘[P]opulism is best defined as a political strategy Brubaker (2017), Jansen (2011), Weyland
organization through which a personalistic leader seeks or (2001),
exercises government power based on direct, Barr (2009) and Betz (2002)
unmediated, uninstitutionalized support from large
M. OSWALD ET AL.
numbers of mostly unorganized followers’

(Weyland, 2001)
‘[A] mass movement led by an outsider or
maverick seeking to gain or maintain power by
using anti-establishment appeals and plebiscitarian
linkages’ (Barr, 2009, p. 38)
Populism as a practice of discourse Populism is ‘a dichotomic discourse in which “the (Laclau (1985), Laclau and Torfing (1995),
people” are juxtaposed to “the elite” along the Howarth and Stavrakakis (2000) and Aslanidis
lines of a down/up antagonism in which “the (2016)
people” is discursively constructed as a large
powerless group through opposition to “the elite”
conceived as a small and illegitimately powerful
group. Populist politics thus claim to represent
“the people” against an “elite” that frustrates their
legitimate demands, and presents these demands as
expressions of the will of “the people”’ (De Cleen
& Stavrakakis, 2017, p. 310)
Populism as a socio-cultural approach ‘Populism is characterized by a particular form of Ostiguy (1998, 2009, 2014, 2017) and
political relationship between political leaders and a Aslanidis (2020) (populism as a cultural
1
social basis, one established and articulated phenomenon)

through “low” appeals which resonate and receive
positive reception within particular sectors of
society for social-cultural historical reasons. We
define populism, in very few words, as the
“flaunting of the low’” (Ostiguy, 2017, p. 73)
Populism as a political style (mostly of political ‘[W]e define the concept of political style as the Moffitt and Tormey (2014), Block and
communication) repertoires of performance that are used to create Negrine (2017) and Bonikowski and Gidron
political relations Appeal to “the people”; Crisis, (2016)
Breakdown, Threat; “Bad Manners” “use of slang,
swearing, political incorrectness and being overly
demonstrative and “colourful”, as opposed to the
“high” behaviours of rigidness, rationality,
composure and technocratic language’ (Moffitt &
Tormey, 2014, p. 392)
Populism as ‘political opportunism’ ‘[P]olitical ideas and activities that are intended to Betz (1994), Nkrumah (2021) and
get the support of ordinary people by giving them Cambridge (2014)
what they want’ (Cambridge, 2014)
(continued)
THE NEW AGE OF POPULISM: REAPPROACHING A DIFFUSE CONCEPT
7
8
Table 1.1 (continued)
Populism as an ‘anti-incumbent’, Populism ‘is a mass movement led by an outsider Sikk (2009) and Barr (2009)
‘anti-establishment’ or ‘anti-mainstream’ attitude or maverick seeking to gain or maintain power by
using anti-establishment appeals and plebiscitarian
linkages. To be clear, one cannot reduce populism
M. OSWALD ET AL.
to the use of fiery, antielite rhetoric, nor to the rise

of demagogic outsiders, nor even to highly vertical
connections between leader and followers. Rather,
the specific combination of these factors defines
populism’ (Barr, 2009, p. 44)
Populism as a ‘thin centered ideology’ as ‘a set of ‘Thin-centered ideology that considers society to Canovan (2002), Freeden (2017), Mudde
ideas’ be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and (2004) and Shils (1954, 1956, 1960)
antagonistic camps, “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’ (Mudde & Kaltwasser,
2017, p. 6)
An attempt of persuasion ‘[P]oliticians employ populism as a flexible mode Kazin (1995)
of persuasion’ (Kazin, 1995, p. 3) It can be used
anywhere politicians want to persuade advocating a
conflict between the oppressors and the suppressed
Logic (Logic is often seen as a part of the ‘[I]f populism consists in postulating a radical Da Silva and Vieira (2019), De Cleen (2019),
category ‘discourse’. But not all approaches do alternative within the communitarian space, a Laclau (2005a), Judis (2016) and Müller
1
not strictly fit in that category) choice in the crossroads on which the future of a (2016)
given society hinges, does not populism become
synonymous with politics? The answer can only be
affirmative’ (Laclau, 2005a, p. 47)
THE NEW AGE OF POPULISM: REAPPROACHING A DIFFUSE CONCEPT
9
10 M. OSWALD ET AL.
specific RWP characteristics become elevated to general characteristics. Even

though RWP is at the political forefront, populism can occur in any political
spectrum, and it often does in left-wing discourses. According to Matthijs
Rooduijn and Tjitske Akkerman, the French PCF and the Italian PRC are just
as populist as the Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz and Germany’s Die
Linke for instance (Rooduijn & Akkerman, 2017). This renders the question:
if the (democratic) left and the (democratic) right are nearly all ‘populist’,
what can the term ‘populism’ deliver in terms of understanding the political
landscape? Because this would mean we have a ‘non-populist’ political center—
even though mainstream politicians often are accused of ‘populists moves’—
populists to the left and right, and extremists on both fringes. The ongoing
difficulty of uniformly defining and conceptualizing populism is reflected in
this question and adds to the term’s scientific disvalue and its character as a
Kampfbegriff .
Despite these glaring issues, the populism concept is still of importance—
not just as a social phenomenon but also from a research perspective. On the
one hand, this is evidenced by the consistently high occurrence of populist
parties, social movements and related phenomena. On the other hand, the
sizeable research shows that the concept provides important, promising, and
resonant explanations. In any case, reflections on the origins of populism
should provide some interesting insights. A brief historical perspective allows
us to distinguish populism from other concepts and to develop some common
characteristics of populist strands.
The Normative Attachment to Populism

In the past years, there is a mainstreaming in populism research to measure
if and to what degree populism poses a threat to liberal democracy. This
carries the undertone that populism is per definition bad, partially arrived
through looking at all forms of populism and a broad time span with the
same perspective.
Generally speaking, the first forms of populism appeared in the United
States as early as the seventeenth century. Conflicts between government and
farmers, small business owners and miners occurred left those groups with the
feeling they had been cheated out of their political influence (Oswald, 2020).
Farmers, in particular, complained of low prices for their products and high
tax burdens. If uprisings such as the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts or even
the French Revolution are counted—just think of Marat’s newspaper L’Ami
du peuple (The people’s friend)—populism has even contributed to the forma-
tion or improvement of democracy. Also, the Chartists as a working-class male
suffrage movement for political reform and the Narodnik revolutionaries in
Tsarist Russia were essentially populist movements in the nineteenth century.
Still, we believe one can only speak about a path dependent populism that we
can use in today’s understanding if we look at representative institutions as a
yardstick. Based on this, we can date the populism we talk about today to the
Populist Movement and the People’s Party in the United States.1
The United States People’s Party was founded in 1892 and it initiated
impulses to social change (Clanton, 1984, p. 148). They called for unem-
ployment benefits, women’s suffrage and the direct election of senators,
strengthening the belief that Senate should be accountable to the people.
Overall, due to their commitment at the municipal, state and national level,
many regulations came into force, such as protective requirements for jobs or
innovations in health and housing policy. In many cases, these initiatives laid
the foundations for the far-reaching social reforms of the twentieth century.
At the federal level they were able to push for a reform of the public service as
well as some monopoly and railway regulations (Freidel, 1973, p. 84). Despite
these leading impulses, the party gradually became insignificant at the begin-
ning of the twentieth century, mainly because its demands were finally adapted
by the two major parties (Clanton, 1984, p. 142). Richard Hofstadter aptly
described the People ‘s Party’s fate with an analogy of a bee: it died after it
had stung the political establishment (Hofstadter, 1955).
The People’s Party and the populist movement nevertheless left a legacy:
until the 2000s, populism in the United States was rather positively conno-
tated—and it still is more so than in other Western democracies. It is
sometimes even given a cultural value, since many citizens understand that
populists, as representatives of the ‘forgotten people’, fulfill the task of a
corrective. After all, not only the farmer’s protest in the late nineteenth century
but also impulses for the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement were
populist struggles.
Nevertheless, the view on populism has changed quite a bit over the last
130 years. Until the mid-1950s, populism as a scientific term was used almost
exclusively by historians. And until then, the populist movement was mostly
described as a noble cause. Especially John D. Hicks’s Populist Revolt (1931)
made a large contribution in the sense that populists were understood as
fighters against an unbridled power of the economy and the political elite.
Since the 1950s, however, the paradigm changed, and populism has increas-
ingly been discussed critically—at least in academia (Oswald, 2020). Parts of
the populist movement were suspected to have been anti-Semitic (aversion to
Jewish bankers) and nativistic, plus it was increasingly seen as a forerunner
of the Coughlin movement and McCarthyism (Freidel, 1973, p. 83, see also
Anton Jäger in this volume). Although some of those theses are disputed, they
still defined the connotation of populism in most academic circles until today.
Even though the negative effects of populism are much more part of the
discourse, there is still a tradition that defends its positive effects: ‘Populists
aim to channel [an] authenticity and speak truth to power, bringing about
positive change on behalf of the people’ states Margaret Canovan (1999,
pp. 2–3). And Chantal Mouffe’s call For a Left Populism (2018) is just one
prominent example for a theoretical strand that makes a case for a ‘good
populism’ and calls to put an end to the liberal and elitist denigration of
12 M. OSWALD ET AL.
populism (Laclau, 2005a). This tradition sees populism as a means for eman-
cipation and to cope with right-wing populism. Granted, populism can give a
voice to those who do not feel represented and therefore, populism offers
perceivably ‘forgotten’ parts of the electorate a political home, improving
political responsiveness (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). Furthermore ‘Populist
parties can shake up party systems where government has long been domi-
nated by the same (combination of) parties” (Verbeek & Zaslove, 2019, p. 8).
Thus, populism diversifies a rather homogenous political landscape without
any relevant alternative. As such, populist movements force governments or
traditional political parties to reflect on themselves and their positions.
In this sense, Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Kaltwasser describe populists as the
‘(bad) consciousness of liberal [democracies]’ (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017,
p. 116). They raise their voices to criticize multilateral organizations ‘lim-
iting the power of elected politicians’ (p. 117) to conduct the will of ‘the
people’ or to criticize the power of non-elected and non-responsive tech-
nocratic institutions, such as constitutional courts or the European Central
Bank. And ‘Populist actors revitalize social movements as well as public
opinion by emphasizing a conflictive dimension of politics’ (Huber & Schimpf,
2016, p. 874). This became clear during the presidency of Donald Trump in
which a couple of social movements have been revitalized and had a strong
impact on society. This also affected the 2020 voter turnout. The prospect of
Trump’s second term as President pushed more people to the ballot boxes
than ever—on both sides. Even though populism does not increase voter
turnout per se, populist parties characterize a self-protecting democracy to
promote competition and set a new strung of political thoughts to established
parties. Additionally, populists can bring already salient topics to the fore on
the agenda (Huber & Schimpf, 2016, p. 874). Still, populists often show disre-
gard toward democratic institutions such as systems of checks and balances as
well as the separation of powers (Huber & Schimpf, 2016, p. 875; Hawkins,
2003)—Donald Trump being a case in point. Even though, he complied with
court decisions and the checks and balances provided a stable foundation, the
disregard for institutions that perceivably distort the people’s will must be eyed
critically.
But instead of focusing on the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ character of populism we
should rather see it as a symptom of a political system’s graver problems.
And in light of the either too abstract definitions or concreter ones that in
return cannot account for all populist phenomena as well as the either posi-
tive or negative connotation of populism, it is still necessary to find a more
concise, rigid and meaningful definition. If some elements do not match,
logic requires that we steer back to the lowest common denominator and
take it from there. We agree with Rooduijn when he suggests, we should
‘carefully conceptualise populism, building on existing studies, and distin-
guishing it from related concepts” (Rooduijn, 2019, p. 366). Furthermore,
he cautions to employ precision, distinctiveness and a rather narrow frame-
work but remains open-minded exploring the literature and formulating novel
hypotheses (Rooduijn, 2019, p. 362). However, it is not even clear which

criteria are widely accepted and why some approaches prioritize certain cate-
gories over others. In the following we thus set out to identify several ‘core
elements’ that most conceptual approaches to populism have in common.
Six categories can be reconstructed deductively from mostly accepted cross-
range populism definitions, which gives an opportunity to conceptualize
populism, building on existing studies. Therefore, we are not focusing on the
perspectives but the elements.
Core Elements of Populism

Anti-establishment, ‘for the People’ and Projection on Out-Groups
First and foremost, researchers generally share the understanding of populism
as a dualism of ‘the elite’ vs. ‘the people’ (Comaroff, 2011, p. 104; Rooduijn,
2019, p. 364). This dichotomy is the central message of populists that claim to
represent and speak in the name of the ‘people’ on the one hand, and an out-
group which is very often named the ‘elite’. As part of the populist mindset,
the elite harm the people, either economically or culturally.
Yves Mény and Yves Surel see three essential aspects at the core of populism
in terms of this relationship: (1) The role of the people and their fundamental
position not only in society, but in the structure and functioning of the entire
political system. In this view, there is a discrepancy between the ‘privileged
few’ and the ‘underdogs’. (2) Thus, there is a betrayal by those who should
represent the people. (3) Lastly, there is the demand to restore the primacy of
the people and their place in society, replacing the elite by leaders who govern
for the good of the people (Mény & Surel, 2000, 2002b). In this sense, anti-
establishment politics refer to rhetorical appeals based on an opposition to
those in power (Barr, 2009, p. 44). These appeals also involve specific correc-
tions to remedy the shortcomings of the nation’s representative democracy.
This can range from simple demands to a replacement of the government by
those who supposedly embody the will of the people (Barr, 2009, p. 44).
Elites are also thought to look down on the common people who allegedly
do not understand the complexity of society or politics. This implies that
expertism is flawed and we should rather ‘rely on ordinary citizens’ common
sense’ (Galston et al., 2018, p. 34). Consequently, it is not necessarily an
external designation but an internal one of the disenfranchised, forgotten,
powerless group themselves.
It is noteworthy that ‘the elite’ and ‘the people’ can be viewed as empty
signifiers, meaning it is largely a matter of interpretation who specifically forms
part of either category. For instance, ‘the elite’ can refer to establishment
parties, the media, international businesses or international organizations.
Similarly, ‘the people’ can refer to a population based on a specific perception
of class or culture, as long as it remains a homogenous character of some sort.
Consequently, both terms can be more or less exclusive, depending on the
14 M. OSWALD ET AL.
respective interpretation. The terns ‘the people’ has taken on varying mean-
ings—in RWP it is typically constructed along cultural or ethnic dimensions,
whereas left-wing populism has generally taken a civic approach. What ‘the
elite’ is somewhat less clear. The term remains vague and appears to mostly be
constructed in its opposition to ‘the people’ (whatever the term may refer to
in any given context) rather than on a substantive basis of any elite group. It is
also noteworthy, however, that populist audiences often do not take issue with
the fact that their populist leaders often are part of some kind of elite. Finally,
in relation to the elite-people dichotomy, certain out-groups may emerge that
are blamed for perceived problems within society (Salmela & Scheve, 2017,
p. 574). Again, any group could be constructed as such but especially affected
are perhaps societal minorities.
Anti-status Quo (Protest Attitude) and Relative Deprivation

One notion, that was of importance in the past but appears to be sometimes
neglected nowadays is that there must be a disbalance in what a part of the
population wants and what the government does. Simply put: citizens who are
completely satisfied would probably not protest. Even though a utopian status
of contentment for all cannot be achieved, it is striking that dissatisfaction,
anti-elitism, the global rise of populism and globalization go hand in hand
ever since populist movements started in the late nineteenth century. Populism
therefore is often seen as ‘the product of a failure of the existing system of
political parties to provide credible representation for “neglected” groups of
citizens’ (Schmitter, 2019, p. 76). Still, many right-wing populist parties fared
best in some of the wealthiest countries in Europe such as Austria, Denmark or
Germany and they did so in the most affluent country-regions: the German-
language cantons of Switzerland, the Flemish part of Belgium and northern
Italy. Populism might be ‘closely linked to growing distrust of the formal insti-
tutions that organise social, economic and political power within individual
countries’ (Hadiz & Chryssogelos, 2017, p. 400) but one of the ‘neglected’
groups of citizens might also be affluent und decently represented. Thus, we
believe it is important to understand the neglect foremost as perception of
neglect or fear thereof.
One important typical aspect of this anti-status-quo-sentiment is ‚feelings
of relative deprivation, referring to a perception of one’s own—or one’s
group’s—disadvantage in relation to others, and thus relative deprivation
should be seen as a favorable indicator of populism (Pettigrew, 2017). Rela-
tive deprivation can occur with loss of status or fear thereof. This includes
resentments against those who supposedly caused a personally disadvantageous
situation, but also those who stand for progressive change that, from such a
vantage point, leads to the loss of one’s own lifestyle. Interestingly, positional
deprivation in relation to the wealthiest deciles enhances support for the radical
left, whereas positional deprivation in relation to the poorest deciles causes
support for the radical right (Burgoon et al., 2019, p. 84). The anti-status-
quo-sentiment and the perception that the country is on a losing track, create
the fear of loss, be it economically or culturally.
There certainly are neglected societal groups—and to some extent also
those that have been labeled losers of globalization. But the ‘modernization
loser thesis’ as an explanatory model for populism is obsolete since those
groups account for a rather small share of the vote. Overall, a frustration over
economic and cultural concerns might well be a better explanation than just
looking at ‘neglected groups’. There is more to the protest attitudes toward
the political leadership and their ideas of a society, which might even be just a
fear of loss.
Loss (Fear) Economic-Cultural

Anti-status quo (virulent protest attitude) and relative deprivation go hand in
hand with existing or perceived problems within specific segments of society.
Therefore, populism must always be viewed in the context of interaction and
social background.
Loss aversion is a powerful driver for both economic and cultural issues.
Populists from the left mostly use terms like ‘neoliberal reforms’ or ‘neolib-
eral politics’ and thereby insinuate that the government and financial elites
are using ‘the people’ for their own financial gain or implementing their
vision of a society over the people’s will. In the right-populist sphere often
both cultural and economic issues are seen as problematic. This particularly
encompasses immigration where populists claim to speak for the forgotten
and disadvantaged people in terms of leveraging alleged favorable socio-
economic conditions for migrants in comparison to their own. Due to this
alleged primacy given to migrants they feel unacknowledged. This also extends
to debates around free speech which is, accordingly, denied as a means of
maintaining the status quo, in particular by means of enforcing political
correctness.
The populist sentiment extends to taxation as well—opposition to taxes
being the original claim by populists from the nineteenth century. In the same
manner (though due to different reasons) left- and right-wing populists posi-
tion themselves against globalization since it is perceived as one of the main
reasons for the loss of manufacturing and lower skilled employment in many
Western countries, but also culture. Similar to the fear of job loss, populists
raise the issue of losing one’s social standing in society. By blaming glob-
ally acting ‘elites’ who themselves enjoy favorable jobs and status advantages,
populists channel their anger.
Unimodality and Anti-pluralism

Anti-pluralism is an essential part of populism because of its homogeneous
conception of ‘the people’ and the idea of a uniform popular will. Though,
populists do understand that they are not speaking for society as a whole, they
16 M. OSWALD ET AL.
rather see the will of ‘the people’ as a majority rule representation of what the
‘ordinary people’ want.
This elevation of the will of a segment of the population as the one of ‘the
people’ per se renders ‘the people’ to be a monolithic group. This is considered
to be one of the major issues with populism from a democracy perspective
(Jagers & Walgrave, 2007, p. 322). As such, populism is often characterized as
anti-pluralist and as a counter-concept to liberalism, some even argue contrary
to democracy (Caramani, 2017; Müller, 2016; Pappas, 2019; Riker, 1982):
[D]ividing a country’s population into the people and the others suggests that
some parts of the population are not really part of the people and do not deserve
to share in self-government. Individuals outside the charmed circle of the people
may therefore be excluded from equal citizenship, violating the principle of
inclusion that is part of Dahl’s definition of democracy. […]. Imposing the
assumption of uniformity on the reality of diversity not only distorts the facts
but also elevates the characteristics of some social groups over others. To the
extent that this occurs, populism becomes a threat to democracy. (Vgl. Galston,
2018, pp. 37–38)
Taking a less pessimistic stance, Takis Pappas (2019) understands populism as

democratic illiberalism; as the opposite of political liberalism. This democratic
illiberalism puts populism on the same level as other ideologies (Pappas, 2013,
p. 33). Pappas therefore looks at populism in a reductionist way:
[M]odern populism is better understood as a novel political system that main-

tains electoral democracy while also working against the principles of political
liberalism. […] [W]e may define populism simply as ‘democratic illiberalism’
[…]. (Pappas, 2019, p. 19)
Indeed, the exclusionary approach to populism may give way for more radical
and fundamental opposition in a Manichean ‘who-is-not-with-us-is-naturally-
against-us’ stance. This approach is sometimes extended to populism as overall
anti-democratic. Though, this is criticized by Yannis Stavrakakis and Anton
Jäger because of its ‘essentialist rigidity’ which reduces ‘democracy to liber-
alism’; they see it as ‘maybe fitting for a polemical pamphlet; yet one quickly
realizes what is at stake here’ (Stavrakakis & Jäger, 2018, p. 552). This is
certainly true considering the equation of liberalism and democracy, plus the
idea of majority rule representation is by definition not anti-democratic. Plus,
we must not forget that the idea of populism is that the will of the movement
is not represented. Certainly, the protest focuses on the issues this partic-
ular group wants to see represented. This seems to be very important—but
also neglected by theorists—since the anti-pluralism of issues might just be a
consequence of the perception that their issues are not represented.
Ultimately, the Manichean generalization might rather be described as a
political difference between diametrically opposed factions as Filipe da Silva
and Mónica Vieira suggest:
Populism, we contend, is not synonymous with politics as such, but an

outgrowth of popular sovereignty and its egalitarian promise. Its primary logic
is not an oppositional logic of friend versus enemy, but a logic of resentment
between fellow citizens. (Da Silva & Vieira, 2019, p. 6)
There are indeed advantages of such minimal definitions and Pappas’ claim
that populism can serve as a means to dismantle liberal institutions is surely
right. But the generalization that populism is per se anti-democratic, cannot
be upheld. It can even be a means to make grievances and issues which are
vital to a segment of society salient in the first place. The shortcomings of
the definition as anti-democratic is often a theoretical fuzziness because the
conception of populism thereby stretches into other illiberal currents such
as authoritarianism or even extremism (see discussion on conceptual flaws &
distinguishment from other concepts).
In this context, we need to touch upon the diverging perspectives on
left- and right-wing populism and their relation to democracy. Left-wing
populism is often described as inclusionary and right-wing populism as exclu-
sionary. Granted, left-wing populist attitudes are directed primarily against
economic and political elites but mostly inclusive regarding other out-groups;
right-wing populists’ anti-elitism is directed against political elites, with lower
tolerance values for out-groups (Andreadis et al., 2018, pp. 33–34). Still, left-
wing populism cannot be labeled entirely inclusionary since the anti-pluralistic
stance is also advocated in the agitation against the elite out-group.
Adversity to Political Mediation and the Volonté Générale

Populism in most definitions is seen as adverse to political mediation. Populist
parties are often ‘anti-party-parties’ and usually there are calls to strengthen
direct democratic institutions such as referenda. This is part of the claim to
represent the majority of the people who are either silent or cannot project
the popular will into politics. From this perspective, representative politics are
perceived as being distortive. In some cases, there is an immediate contact
between the (charismatic) leader of the populist movement and the people
without intermediary institutions. Although we regard adversity to political
mediation as only being a minor characteristic usually, they simultaneously
demand to strengthen the Volonté Générale.
The Volonté Générale (popular will) is understood as being more than the
sum of all particular interests (volonté de tous; will of all). It is the articula-
tion of common interests within a community that serves the benefit of this
community as a whole. Thus, individuals on their own might err but ‘the
people’ who articulate a common will of what’s normatively desirable within a
society cannot. The vox populi is the ‘common sense’ which constantly chal-
lenges the status quo by criticizing complex issues by more simple answers
which can be deducted from simplistic assumptions. This general will can,
however, only be achieved by restoring a popular government in the sense
that it acts for the people and not for a corrupted elite. Therefore, populists
18 M. OSWALD ET AL.
often promote more ‘self-government’ and reject representative democracy

(Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 17). Thus, populism is perceived to be an
empowering force to give the people their voice back. The assumption of any
popular will is problematic, though. Surely, it would be impossible to even
come close to it within any pluralistic society due to the variety of different
interests. Elevating one will above others may thus serve to alienate in partic-
ular minorities. Further, it might very well justify illiberal tendencies (Huber
& Schimpf, 2016, p. 875).
Simplification
Most populist communication is shaped by what Canovan calls a “simple and
direct style” (Canovan, 1999, p. 3). Many populism definitions include this
simplification of complex issues and some of them cite it as a central feature:
Complex political issues are broken down in a simplified way and portrayed
as monocausal so that equally simple solutions can be formulated as answers.
This often results in policies that resonate with the population but often are
only geared toward short-term gains.
However, not just the communication style is characterized as simplistic
but the underlying assumptions as well. This does not only refer to how
populists frame political issues but to the very nature of the populist concept:
The dichotomization between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’ is an example of
this. However, these clear and simplistic lines of argumentation reduce the
world’s complexity into general—albeit more feasible—categories. That being
said, breaking political issues down to simple categories to render them more
comprehensible is not always a sufficient condition for being labeled a populist.
The first chancellor of the Germany’s Federal Republic, Konrad Adenauer, is
famous for his ability of simplification, yet few would label him as such.
Conceptual Flaws and Distinguishment

from Other Concepts
There are a couple of features in populism definitions that are not gener-
ally valid in the sense that they are constitutive elements of the concept of
populism. We thus proceed with a non-exhaustive discussion of elements that
should not be included in definitions of populism.
Firstly, charismatic leaders are one such feature. Granted, in many cases,
strong leadership is conducive to the functioning of a populist project but
not all populist movements and parties do have a charismatic leader—at least
not always more than other parties and movements do. Thus, it should not
be regarded as a main characteristic even though populist movements favor
tendentially strong charismatic leaders.
Furthermore, the moralization and moralism approach is certainly inter-
esting but probably not a defining criterion. From a populist perspective, moral
virtues are mostly present among the people, not among the elites. Therefore,
they see a moral renewal of politics necessary. Jan-Werner Müller observes that
populists claim to represent the authentic people exclusively morally, which
is certainly a valid observation; but he even goes this far to say that ‘[t]he
core claim of populism is [a] moralized form of antipluralism’ (Müller, 2016,
p. 20). We certainly talk about moral categories since the mere accusation of
governing not in the people’s interest as their representors is a moral flaw. But
this is problematic as Stavrakakis and Jäger pointed out:
the essentially moralistic (i. O.) profile of populist reasoning – the idea that
‘the key distinction in populism is moral’ (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 14),
that it involves a predominantly ‘moralistic imagination’ (Müller, 2016, p. 19)
– bears striking resemblances to the stereotypical treatments of populism first
offered in the pluralist canon […]. [T]he crucial problem with the criterion of
moralization is not its origins and/or is dubious intellectual trajectory; it is its
precise status as one of the minimal criteria for the differential identification of
populism. Indeed, one is left wondering what such a criterion really means and
how it could be effectively deployed. A series of interrelated questions seem
pertinent here: How exactly is the moralistic stress of populism to be defined?
Does moralization affect only populist discourse? Is it something unequivocally
dangerous? (Stavrakakis & Jäger, 2018, pp. 558–559)
These are important questions (to which Stavrakakis and Jäger give answers).
We cut it short and simply state if anything is moralistic, it is much of the
political mainstream in Western democracies.
As mentioned before, many people refer to right-wing populism in relation
to political mobilization of mass constituencies against established elites, and
some even count nationalistic exclusionism as a key characteristic of populism.
However, populism can be used to further any political project regardless of
the ideological outlook. Thus, right-wing populism is more of a sub-type of
populism rather than embodying the concept as such. In order to evaluate
movements, parties or single actors, the underlying ideologies need to be
scrutinized, not just the populism they use.
It is generally problematic that the term populism is used all too frequently,
and even more so if it is used for clearly authoritarian, demagogic or extremist
phenomena. This creates an overall vagueness in addition to rendering author-
itarianism, for instance, more harmless than it actually is.2 Both authoritarians
and extremists might use populist methods and stylistic devices since populist
techniques generally deliver a means for all kinds of demagogues in order to
activate people’s emotions, especially their hopes and fears (Galston, 2014,
p. 18). But that does not mean one should conflate populism with these more
extreme phenomena, even if they bare resemblance. It very much depends on
the relation of parties and movements with democratic institutions, norms and
processes. Authoritarians and extremists are anti-democratic, and their goal is
to scrap democracy and install an authoritarian or even totalitarian regime;
populism’s relationship with democracy is more ambiguous as stated earlier in
20 M. OSWALD ET AL.
this chapter. Sheri Berman, for instance, suggests that right-wing extremists
should be labeled as populists:
Current right-wing extremists are thus better characterized as populist rather

than fascist, since they claim to speak for everyday men and women against
corrupt, debased, and out-of-touch elites and institutions. (Berman, 2016,
p. 43)
We, however, believe this to be wrong as measuring everything by the same

yardstick would render the term populism useless, and the belittlement of
grave anti-democratic tendencies frankly poses a danger itself. After all, we
would not categorize dictators as (just) populists, even if they use parts of the
populist playbook. And suppressing the feeling that the political game is rigged
against a part of society by labeling all populism extremism would not make
the phenomenon vanish. The issue of distinction from other concepts is not
exhausted with extremism or authoritarianism, of course. Rooduijn (2019),
for instance, discusses ‘nativism’ and ‘Euroscepticism’.
Even though it is important to distinguish populism from other (especially
graver) concepts, it should not be viewed as completely harmless either. The
question of the extent to which populist attitudes and actors pose a threat to
liberal democracies is very relevant. But this question can only be answered
within specific contexts and using correct terminology may actually be of
help as terminological precision renders the concept itself more meaningful
for scientific endeavor, ridding it of its current arbitrariness.
Naturally, terminological precision is only possible when there is conceptual
clarity in the first place. Having touched upon both constitutive and non-
constitutive elements of current conceptualizations of populism, we now turn
toward synthesizing the more constitutive elements into a definition.
Defining Populism
Canovan stated in 1981 that an all-encompassing definition of populism
cannot be formulated (Canovan, 1981). She might be right taking into
account the current developments in science, the media and general discus-
sions on politics. Nevertheless, we have an abundant collection of definitions.
An evaluation of the saliency by the currently most used populism defini-
tion revealed that beneath the rich literature, few of the definitions are used.
Among the most salient are older ones like Edward Shils (1960), Margaret
Canovan (1999), Cas Mudde (2004) and Ernesto Laclau (2005a, 2005b) as
well as recent publications such as Jan-Werner Müller (2016) and Cas Mudde
and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (2017).3
Müller built on a vast conceptualization of political logic tradition. Still, he
states we do not ‘have anything like a theory of populism, and we seem to
lack coherent criteria for deciding when political actors turn populist in some
meaningful sense’ (Müller, 2016, p. 2). We second that there are not cohesive
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Aye, but I could never swear so sweet and ladylike as you, mem.”
“Why, then,” sighed her ladyship, “we must forgo your swearing, I
suppose, though ’tis pity. But hark’ee, Bet, and mark this well!
Should Sir John come endeavouring to persuade you to return to
England, you will raise your eyebrows—so! Droop your eyelids—
thus! and say: ‘Howbeit, sir, ’tis my pleasure to journey on to Paris!’
Then turn your back on him and send me to command your coach to
the door——”
“Aye—and when it comes, my lady?”
“Why, get in and drive away, sure!”
“But where to, mem?”
“Towards Paris, silly wench—or anywhere you choose——”
“And you, madam? You will come along o’ me?”
“Perchance I may and perchance not. Mayhap I shall run away—
disappear at the last moment—I’m not decided on this yet——”
“O my dear lady——”
“If I should think fit to run away, you will drive as far as St. Pol,
then turn back to Dieppe, where you shall probably find me at the
‘Eperon d’Or’—Giles knows it——”
“But, my lady—O mem—what o’ yourself?”
“So long as I am myself I shall be safe, child. I’ll play my part, do
you play yours! Remember, should you meet the gentlemen below,
swim in your walk, tilt your chin, say nothing—and stare. Stare above
’em, below ’em and through ’em, but never at ’em. And now I’ll go
order supper—in private, for thy sake, Bet. Lud, but I’m famished!”
And a-down the creaking stair tripped my Lady Herminia Barrasdaile,
as dainty a waiting-maid as ever was or ever will be.
Then it chanced that Sir John, rolling his eyes in the throes of
poetical composition, suddenly beheld her standing radiant in the
doorway, all fresh, shapely young womanhood from ribbanded cap to
trim shoe; and struck by her air of modesty and all the shy-sweet
beauty of her, he sighed, closed his tablets and slipped them into his
pocket.
“Ah, Rose,” said he, “thou flower of innocence, sure no words of
mine may do thee justice; thou’rt beyond my poor poesy. Come
hither, child, and tell me, is your mistress still for Paris?”
“’Deed, yes, sir, she seems mighty set on’t.”
“Alas, sweet Rose!”
“Is Paris so tur’ble wicked, sir?”
“’Tis no place for the like o’ thee—thou gentle innocent!” At this,
my Lady Herminia glanced at him shy-eyed, drooped her lashes,
pleated a fold in her neat apron and contrived to become the very
perfect embodiment of all that ever had been, was or possibly could
be virginally shy and sweet and innocent.
“But I do hear ’tis a mighty fine place, sir,” said she softly, “and I do
yearn to see the ladies and grand gentlemen. And, if ’tis so wicked,
naught harmful can come anigh me by reason I do ever wear this—
night and day, your honour!” And she drew from her bosom a small,
plain gold cross suspended about her shapely throat by a ribband.
“’Twas my mother’s, sir, and ’tis good against all evil ... and I shall
say my prayers!”
Now at this, Sir John must needs call to mind certain unworthy
episodes of the last five years: his keen gaze wavered and he sat,
chin on breast, staring into the smouldering fire.
“And so d’ye see, sir,” she continued, finding him silent, “I shall not
fear anything, nor any one—no, not even though he be wicked as—
as the ‘wicked Sir John Dering’ himself!”
“Child,” said Sir John at last, “go ask your lady to favour me with
five minutes’ conversation.”
“Yes, your honour!” she answered, curtsying, and departed
obediently forthwith.
Thus Sir John was presently ushered upstairs and into the
presence of a tall, handsome creature, magnificently attired, who
acknowledged his profound obeisance with a curt nod, and
thereafter stared at him from head to foot and sniffed.
“Madam,” quoth he, a little startled, “I come to reassure you as to
the welfare of Viscount Templemore.”
The lady stared haughtily at his dusty boots. “I am happy to tell
you,” continued Sir John, “that the meeting will not take place——”
The lady, tilting dimpled chin, stared fixedly at the topmost curls of
Sir John’s peruke. “If, therefore,” he proceeded, “you contemplate
returning immediately to England, my friend and I shall be honoured
to escort you.”
The lady shook her handsome head, shrugged her dimpled
shoulders and sniffed louder than ever, so much so that Sir John
retreated somewhat precipitately.
“Tush, sir, fie and no!” she exclaimed. “I’m minded to go to Paris
an’ to Paris I’ll go!”
Sir John opened his eyes a little wider than usual and bowed
himself out forthwith.
“O my lady,” cried Betty so soon as the door had closed, “O mem,
did I do it right?”
“’Twas admirable, Bet! Didst see him blench and flush? You dear,
clever creature! There is that taffety gown—’tis thine, child—aye, and
the neck-chain with the pearl pendant! He flushed—he blenched!
Come kiss me, Betty!”
CHAPTER IV
SHEWETH THE WICKED DERING IN A NEW
RÔLE
Sir John, deep-plunged in gloomy abstraction, was suddenly

aroused by the noisy entrance of two travellers, very elegant
gentlemen who, cramped from their chaise, stamped and yawned
and stretched, and damned the dust, the road, the inn, the landlord
and all creation save themselves. Loudest of the twain was a tall,
youngish man who wore a stupendous periwig, a gentleman very
small as to eyes and large as to teeth that gleamed between the lips
of a heavy mouth.
To them presently came the landlord, who, with many profound
obeisances and servile excuses, begged them to follow him to a
chamber more suited to their nobilities.
Left alone, Sir John sat legs outstretched, chin on breast, staring
at the toes of his dusty riding-boots, lost once more in gloomy
retrospection of the last five years, his dejection ever deepening,
until he was aroused for the second time, as from the other side of
the partition behind his chair rose a man’s chuckling laugh, the
sound of desperate struggling, a woman’s scream.
Sir John arose and, stepping out into the passage, threw open the
door of an adjoining chamber and saw this: Upon a roomy settle the
gentleman in the large toupet and upon his knees, struggling wildly
in the merciless clasp of his arms, the girl Rose. Sir John’s serenity
vanished, his habitual languor changed to vehement action: ensued
the quick, light stamp of a foot, a glitter of darting steel and the
gentleman’s lofty periwig, transfixed upon Sir John’s unerring sword-
point, was whisked into a distant corner. Then Sir John spoke:
“Monsieur,” said he softly, “favour me by releasing your so
charming captive.” Next moment she was free, and, shrinking to the
wall, saw Sir John’s face quite transfigured, the mobile lips grimly
set, the delicate nostrils a-quiver, eyes fierce and threatening as his
sword. “Sir,” he continued in the same gentle tone, “permit me to tell
you that I do not like your face—it irritates me! Pray have the
kindness to remove it, therefore—take it hence or——”
“What the devil!” exclaimed the wigless gentleman, getting upon
his legs.
“Rose,” said Sir John, “child, pray leave us!” For a moment she
hesitated then, uttering an inarticulate cry, fled from the room, and
Sir John closed the door. “Now, sir,” quoth he, saluting the gentleman
with an airy flourish of his weapon, “if your friend yonder will be so
obliging as to help push this table into the corner we can settle our
little affair quite comfortably, I think.”
“Damnation!” exclaimed the wigless gallant, and, clapping hand to
sword, half drew it, then checked and stood at gaze. When next he
spoke his tone was altogether different: “You ... I think I have the
honour to address Sir John Dering?”
“The same, sir.”
The gentleman sheathed his sword and bowed.
“My name is Scarsdale, sir,” said he. “I had the pleasure of
meeting you in Paris lately—at the Marquise de Sauvray’s rout, if
you remember?”
“I do not, sir.”
Mr. Scarsdale took out his snuff-box, stared at it, tapped it,
fumbled with it and bowed.
“My dear Sir John,” said he, “if I had the curst misfortune to ... ah
... to cross you in the matter of ... an ... Yon rustic Venus ... poach on
your preserves, ’twas done all unwitting and I apologise.... A
delicious creature; I felicitate you.”
“Mr. Scarsdale,” answered Sir John, “I accept your explanation. At
the same time, I take leave to point you to the fact that this inn is
small and I detest being crowded. May I then venture to suggest that
you and your friend seek accommodation—elsewhere?”
“How, sir—how, Sir John?” stammered Mr. Scarsdale, running
nervous hand over wigless, close-cropped head. “You ... you ask us
to—to——”
“Favour me with your absence, sir.”
For a moment Mr. Scarsdale stood mute; his face grew suddenly
red and as swiftly pale, his eyes glared, his large teeth gleamed
evilly, but noting Sir John’s resolute air, his piercing gaze, the serene
assurance of his pose, Mr. Scarsdale commanded himself
sufficiently to bow with a flourish.
“Tom,” quoth he to his silent companion, “ha’ the goodness to pick
up my wig.” Receiving which indispensable article, he clapped it on
somewhat at random and, hurrying from the room with the silent Tom
at his heels, was presently heard calling for horses and chaise and
damning all and sundry louder than ever until, with a stamp of hoofs
and rattle of wheels, he was borne damning on his way.
Sir John was in the act of sheathing his sword, when he turned at
sound of a light footstep.
“Ah, Rose,” sighed he, gazing into her troubled eyes, “yonder go
two of your ‘grand gentlemen’—Paris teems with such! Better surely
an honest English lover in homespun than be hunted by Brutality in
lace and velvet. Did they fright thee, child ... and despite thy prayers
and little cross?” Here she hid her face in her hands. “Nay, Rose, if
they reverence not thy virgin purity how should they revere aught
else! And Paris reeks of such as they ... to hunt thy fresh young
beauty! And thou ... in thy pretty innocence—alas! Wilt thou to Paris,
child?”
“Your honour knows my lady is determined on’t”
“Then be you determined also. You have a chin—let me look at it.”
Unwillingly she raised her head, eyes abased yet very conscious
of his scrutiny.
“Pray what o’ my chin, sir?” she questioned.
“Firmly round and with a dimple in’t!” he answered. “’Tis a chin
speaks thee resolute to choose and act for thyself. So—if your lady
will to Paris let her go without you, child.”
“Without me?” she repeated, innocent eyes upraised to his. “O sir,
do you mean me to bide here—with your honour?”
At this direct question Sir John was silent a moment, and, meeting
the intensity of her gaze, felt his cheeks burn unwontedly.
“Could you trust yourself to—my honour, child?”
For a long moment she made no reply, and Sir John marvelled to
find himself awaiting her answer with a feeling akin to anxiety. “Well,
child?” he demanded at length.
“I ... think so, sir.”
“You are not sure, then?”
“Ah, sir,” she sighed, “I be only a poor maid and you’m a grand
gentleman like—like them as you druv’ away.”
“Ha, d’ye think so, girl!” he exclaimed pettishly. “Confound me, but
you are not flattering! Can you indeed think me of such base,
material clay, Rose? Are you so addle-witted, so dense, so dull to
suppose ’tis your pink-and-white prettiness lures me?”
“La, no, your honour—indeed, no!” she answered humbly, her
voice a little uncertain and her face hid beneath the laces of her
mob-cap. “Though—though your honour do think I be—pretty?” she
added questioningly.
“Pretty?” he repeated scornfully. “Tush, child! What hath your
prettiness to do with it? ’Tis your natural goodness draweth me, your
fresh simplicity your purity and unstained innocence! I needs must
reverence the white soul of you——”
Here, Sir John chancing to look down and she to look up, their
glances met and he was abruptly silent; wherefore she curtsied
demurely an murmured:
“Yes, your honour!” But Sir John was silent so long that she began
to tap with fidgeting foot and to pleat a fold in her apron.
“Rose,” said he at last, “look at me!” Her eyes were raised in
instant obedience, eyes deep and dark and heavy-lashed, that met
his keen scrutiny unwavering and wholly unabashed.
“You laughed, I think?” he challenged.
“Who—me, sir?” she cried, eyes wider than ever.
“Do any women possess souls, I wonder!” said he bitterly.
“Parson do think so, your honour.”
“Then perchance you may find yours some day, for, until you do,
child, you must remain and never know or appreciate the great, good
things of life——”
“Tripe an’ pig’s-trotters, John!” exclaimed Sir Hector, bursting in
upon them, brandishing a long-handled fork. “Par-boiled, ye ken, an’
crisped in a brisk oven——”
A rush of flying feet; the bang of closing door; a sound of stifled,
hysterical laughter.
“Losh, man Jack,” exclaimed Sir Hector, staring into his
companion’s scowling visage, “was yon that Rose creature?”
“Yon was!” answered Sir John grimly. “And what then, Hector?”
“Umph-humph!” snorted General Sir Hector Lauchlan MacLean.
“Pray, Hector, what might you mean?”
“Supper, John! Tripe an’ pig’s-trotters—aye, an’ cooked by my ain
hand, whateffer—the smell o’ yon wad mak’ Lucullus watter i’ the
mou’! Sae dinna froon, lad, but come an’ eat!”
CHAPTER V
THE ALLURE OF SIMPLICITY: MOONLIGHT AND
AN ELOPEMENT
“Betty lass,” exclaimed my Lady Herminia, surveying her

handsome features in the travelling-mirror, “Old Drury hath lost a
notable and vastly clever actress in me! I ha’ played the innocent
country wench to such infinite perfection of admiration that the poor
fool languishes already ... ogles my charms and talks—of my soul!
Oh, a dangerous man, Bet, a wicked wretch—one o’ your soft-spoke,
smooth-tongued, dove-eyed, silky, seducing monsters—a very
serpent of iniquity, child! But I’m no poor, meek, bread-and-butter
miss to be lured to shame or whispered to destruction by any such
perfidious and patent villain, not I, Bet!”
“Oh no, my lady!” nodded placid Betty. “No, indeed, mam, heaven
knows you’m a sight too clever an’ knowin’——”
“Knowing, woman! Ha, what d’ye mean by ‘knowing,’ pray?”
“La, I don’t know, my lady ... I only know as you know yourself a
match for any fine gentleman, villain or no, ever and always, mam
——”
“’S bud, but I should hope so, Bet, especially this poor creature!”
“Aye, to be sure, but ... O my lady, if he be truly dangerous——”
“Tush! I know the breed, and forewarned is forearmed. And he
mistaketh me for a country simpleton dazzled by his fine airs! So I
intend to make it my duty to teach him a shrewd lesson, Betty.”
“Yes, mem, but how?”
“I intend to lower his pride, girl—to shame him cruelly.”
“Why, then, ’tis as good as done, mam. But——”
“I’ll drag his insufferable self-esteem in the dust ... through the
mud ... trample it ’neath my feet ... make him a mock—a jest and
byword.”
“I’m sure you will, my lady, but how?”
“How, Bet? Why, by running away with him to begin with, for sure.”
“O mem!” ejaculated Betty, lifting imploring hands. “O my dear lady
——”
“Woman, don’t wail—’tis useless! I regard this as a sacred duty,
girl!”
“But ... O lud, my lady ... think o’ your ladyship’s good name ... the
scandal——”
“One must be prepared to suffer in the high cause of duty, Betty
child ... and, besides, my name will be Rose Ashton!”
“But, O my lady, if you run away—what o’ me?”
“You will proceed towards Paris in the coach as I ha’ told you,
child! You will be quite safe with Giles and the footmen. And this
minds me, the coach should be ready, and the sooner you start the
better. Go down and bid Giles prepare for the road immediately.
Stay, you cannot in all that finery! We’ll send Rose instead!” And
away sped my lady accordingly, quite deaf to Betty’s reproachful
wailings.
Thus Sir John, toying gloomily with knife and fork, was presently
aware of stir and bustle within the house and of stamping hoofs and
rumbling wheels without: wherefore he arose and crossed to the
window in time to see Rose’s mistress, muffled to the eyes, clamber
into the great four-horsed travelling-chariot, followed by Rose herself
similarly attired; he watched the footmen close the door, put up the
steps and swing themselves into the rumble, heard the hoarse
command of the driver, a sudden clatter of straining hoofs, and away
rolled the cumbrous vehicle towards Paris.
“And despite her chin!” sighed Sir John within himself. “Poor, silly,
innocent child! Ah well, perchance her prayers and little cross may
avail. Heaven send it so——”
Here he was roused by a huge hand on his shoulder and Sir
Hector’s voice in his ear:
“Och-heigh! Are ye wearyin’ for Parus—sae sune, John?”
“Paris? Ha—’tis a sink of iniquity!” he retorted so fiercely that Sir
Hector peered.
“Oo aye,” he nodded. “’Tis a’ that, laddie, and yet ye contrived tae
pit up wi’t for five lang year.” At this Sir John frowned and was silent.
“Aweel, aweel,” quoth Sir Hector, “there’s England waitin’ ye, aye,
and happiness, I trust——”
“Happiness!” repeated Sir John scornfully.
“Why not, lad? ’Tis time ye married and settled doon——”
“Horrific thought!” growled Sir John.
“Why, then, John,” quoth Sir Hector, his English suddenly very
precise, “you might begin to take an interest in your own affairs,
particularly your estates; they are damnably mismanaged, I hear,
more especially at High Dering ... where you were born and your
mother died ... sweet soul!”
“High Dering!” repeated Sir John. “I’ faith it seems a far cry to the
old house—the green slopes of Firle and our good South Downs!
’Tis long since we saw ’em together, Hector?”
“Yes, John, it is seven years and more since you left High Dering
for London and the modish world. And to-day, lad, instead of being a
plain country gentleman content in the prosperity of your tenants,
here you stand a man of fashion, a town gallant full of polite airs and
tricks and graces, but curst unhappy by your looks—while High
Dering is going to the devil!”
“’Tis mismanaged, you say, Hector? And yet Sturton, my bailiff,
seems to do very well——”
“Oh, excellent well, John, for you—and himself! But ’tis vastly
otherwise with your tenantry, I hear.”
“You contrive to hear a great deal, Hector, one way or another!”
“No, just in the one way, lad, with my ears. Ye see, Nature gi’e me
eyes an’ lugs an’ I use ’em——”
“And you tell me Sturton is a rogue?”
“I say go and see for yourself, John. Get ye to High Dering and
look, John, listen—and act!”
“I will, Hector. The peace and quiet of the place will be grateful,
besides.”
“Ye’ll no’ find it sae peaceful, lad, nor yet sae quiet whateffer!”
“Why, pray?” demanded Sir John, with sudden interest.
“Well, John, ye’ll ken the name o’ Lord Sayle, I’m thinkin’?”
“Aye, I do!” nodded Sir John, his interest deepening. “I’ve heard he
has ‘been out’ rather frequently——”
“Losh, man, he has that! A wild, desp’rit, duelling body wi’
reputation as unsavoury as—as y’r ain, John, but wi’ this difference
—he fights tae kill an’ generally pinks his man. He’s ane o’ y’r
gentlemanly rapscallions wha’ll insult ye vera politely, y’ ken, an’ kill
ye vera genteelly into the bargain if ye dare tae tak’ offence.”
“So I’ve heard; and what then, Hector?”
“John, the man’s leeving within half an hour’s ride o’ y’r ain park
gates. After killing the young Marquis of Torwood last year, London
grew too hot, so my lord marched bag and baggage to his Sussex
estate, and there he’s lived ever since—aye, and a place of unholy
riot he keeps there, as I hear. An’ what’s more, John, what wi’ his
desp’rit proneness tae bluidshed, there’s few tae gainsay him, y’ ken
—his will is law in the South Country these days.”
“’S bud!” murmured Sir John. “’S life, but begin to yearn for the
country more than ever!”
“Hoot, laddie, hoot-toot, ye’ll no’ be sic a fule tae pick a quarrel
juist for y’r ain vanity an’ vainglory, Johnnie? The man’s good a
sworder as ye’sel’——”
Sir John laughed and, reaching up, straightened Sir Hector’s
periwig that had worked itself rather more askew than usual.
“Tush, man!” said he. “Sure you know that your true duellists take
most particular pains to avoid each other. Shall dog eat dog? And I
detest bloodshed, Hector. I prefer pen to sword—and that reminds
me we have not as yet determined on an apt rhyme to ‘soul!’” And
out came Sir John’s unfinished script. “The work is in ode form, and,
so far as it goes, is well enough. Pray sit down, Hector; the night is
young—listen and judge for yourself.”
“Na, na, John!” answered Sir Hector, retreating to the door. “I hae
no ear for po’try, ye ken—so I’ll awa’ tae bed and leave ye to’t, lad.
But dinna sit too long—for we maun be up betimes. Guid-night.”
Left alone, Sir John tossed the unfinished ode into the fire and,
having watched it flare to ash and vanish up the wide chimney, sat
awhile in thought. Gradually the place above and around him grew
hushed, voices died away, busy feet grew still; the inn sank to rest.
But Sir John sat on staring into the dying fire, deep-plunged in
brooding thought. So lost was he that he heard no sound of opening
door, of light footstep, until roused by a soft touch; he started and
glanced up, to behold her of whom he was thinking.
Meekly she stood before him, clad for the road in a long, hooded
cloak, with a bundle in her hand, a very small bundle tied up in a
neckerchief.
“Rose!” he murmured.
“Here I be, sir,” she answered timidly. “An’ now what will your
honour please to do wi’ me?”
Instinctively Sir John arose, but stood mumchance, for once in his
life speechlessly perplexed; perceiving which, she continued
demurely:
“If your honour is ready to go, I am.”
“To go?” he repeated. “Aye, but whither, child?”
“I ... I thought you would know best, sir,” she answered. “But
wherever it be, the sooner we start the better.”
“What’s your hurry, Rose?”
“’Tis my mistress, sir—the moment she misses me, she’ll come a-
galloping back to find me, y’ see; she do rely on me for her curls an’
complexion, your honour.”
“Ah,” murmured Sir John, “two highly necessary things to any
woman o’ fashion! She will doubtless fly back in quest of ’em.”
“Then pray let us go, sir.”
“Aye, but how? Here is no sort of conveyance unless it be a
posting nag. Can you ride, girl?”
“No, sir.”
“A-pillion?”
“I should tumble off, sir.... But we’ve got legs, your honour——”
“Limbs, child!”
“An’ I be a good walker an’ main strong, sir——”
“Aye, as a goddess o’ the groves and fountains, Rose.”
“An’ ’tis a mortal fine night, your honour! And look at the moon—so
splendid an’ all!”
“Splendid indeed, Rose!” And, opening the lattice, Sir John leaned
out into a radiant night very calm and still—breathed an air soft and
fragrant, saw the gleaming highway barred and fretted by the black
shadows of the sombre trees—a magically alluring road, a way
mysterious to woo the adventurous.
Sir John sighed and drew in his head.
“Y’ are very right, child; the sooner we start the better! In the
corner yonder you will find my cloak and pistols; pray bring ’em
whiles I scribble a line to my friend.” And sitting down forthwith he
took pen and paper and indited the following epistle:
“My dear Hector,—I have departed for England, but will

meet you in High Dering at the earliest moment, where you
shall inquire for one, John Derwent. Meanwhile I am, as ever,
thy wholly devoted, loving
“John Derwent.
“P.S.—I have taken the girl Rose with me.”
Having duly sealed and directed which missive, he arose, took up

his pistols, examined flint, charge and priming and thrust them into
the capacious pockets of his riding-coat; then he enveloped himself
in the cloak, softly unbarred and opened the door and, hat in hand,
bowed his companion out of the silent inn.
“Come, child,” said he, “let us, confident in Fate and each other,
seek the unknown together, nothing doubting.”
CHAPTER VI
OF SOULS, SOLITUDE AND A DUSTY ROAD
Very soon they had lost sight of the inn and the magic of the night
was all about them, a night of vasty stillness wherein the leaves
hung motionless and none moved but themselves, and with no
sound to break the slumberous quiet save the tread of their feet.
Before them stretched the tree-bordered road leading away and
away to distances vague and mysterious, a silvery causeway fretted
by purple-black shadows, with, to right and left, a wide prospect of
rolling, wooded country.
Sir John walked in serene and silent contemplation of earth and
heaven until his companion, as though awed by the all-pervading
stillness, drew a little nearer and spoke in hushed voice:
“’Tis dreadful solitary, sir!”
“It is, child,” he answered, his gaze still wandering; “but mine is a
nature that craves solitude and, at times, I am possessed of a very
passion for silence.”
“Is this why your honour went and lived in Paris?” she questioned
softly.
Sir John’s wandering gaze fixed itself rather hastily upon the
speaker, but her face was hidden in enveloping hood.
“One can find solitude anywhere, Rose,” he retorted.
“Can one, sir?”
“To be sure, child! ’Mid the busiest throng, the gayest crowd, one’s
soul may sit immune, abstracted, in solitary communion with the
Infinite.”
“Aye, but—can souls sit, your honour?” she questioned.
Once again Sir John’s roaming gaze focused itself upon his
companion, and when he spoke his voice sounded a trifle pettish.
“’Twas but a figure of speech, girl! Souls, being abstractions, ha’
no need to—tush! Why a plague should we puzzle your pretty head
with metaphysics? What know you o’ the soul, child—or I, for that
matter?”
“Not much, your honour,” she answered submissively. “Though
parson do say the soul is more precious than much fine gold.”
“Have you a soul, I wonder, Rose?”
“I ... hope so, sir.”
“Then look before you, child, and tell me what you see.”
“A dusty road!” she sighed.
“And is it nothing more to you, girl? Doth it strike no deeper note?
Do you not see it as a path mysterious, leading to the unknown—the
very symbol of life itself? And yet, poor child, how should you?” he
sighed. “Let us talk of simpler things.”
“Oh, thank ye kindly, sir,” she sighed. “An’ I should like to hear
about yourself, an’t please your honour.”
“Rose!” he exclaimed in sudden dubiety.
“Yes, your honour?”
“I ... I wish to heaven you would not muffle your face in that
pestilent hood!”
Mutely obedient, she pushed back the offending headgear, and Sir
John, beholding the stolid placidity of her, the serene eyes and
grave, unsmiling mouth, grew a little reassured.
“Pray what would you learn of so simple a creature as myself?” he
demanded.
“As much as you’ll tell me, sir. ’Deed, I don’t even know your
honour’s name—except that ’tis John.”
“Then call me John.”
“Nay, sir, I couldn’t be so bold to take such liberty! You a grand
gentleman an’ me a poor maid in service!”
“But I’m in service also, Rose,” he answered. “Indeed we all are,
more or less. I particularly so.”
“You!” she exclaimed, turning to stare at him. “You in service! Who
with?”
“A rather difficult, very exacting person named Sir John Dering.”
“Him!” she cried, and immediately began to walk faster than
before. “But,” she questioned suddenly, stopping to view him up and
down, “but—your grand clothes?”
“His, Rose! Sir John’s—borrowed for the occasion!”
“Oh!” she exclaimed, and walked on again.
“As for my name, you’ll find I shall answer readily to John
Derwent.”
“John?” she repeated. “’Tis the same as your master’s!”
“You may call me ‘Jack,’” he suggested.
“Being Sir John Dering’s servant, you will know all about him and
his evil ways?”
“None better, child.”
“Is he so wicked as they tell?”
“Faith, child, no man could be; ’twere beyond all finite
achievement, and Sir John is only human!”
“But,” said she, her eyes fiercely accusing, “he—murders men!”
“Not often, child,” he answered lightly.
“He fights duels!”
“But only when necessary.”
“He hath broke poor women’s hearts!”
“Only such as were cracked.”
“You are his champion, it seems?”
“Because he hath none other—a poor, lonely dog with a bad
name, child, a solitary creature for the kicks and buffets o’ the world!
Doth not your woman’s heart yearn to such?”
But instead of answering she clasped his arm in sudden terror.
“Look!” she whispered. “There’s something there ... moving in the
shadows—a man!”
“Two men, child!” he whispered back. “I’ve been watching ’em for
some time.”
“What ... what will they do to us?”
“That depends. Art afraid, child?”
“Yes ... yes——” she gasped.
“Then pretend you are not—as I do! Come, step out, and go on
talking.”
As they walked on thus she, stealing terrified glances, saw how
these vague yet sinister shapes began gradually edging towards
them, nearer and nearer, crouching forms that moved on soundless
feet—closer and closer, until she had a vision of sordid, skulking,
ragged misery, of murderous desperation, hunger-fierce eyes, the
grim silhouette of a bludgeon, the evil gleam of a stealthy knife——
And then, with sudden, swift leap, Sir John was upon them, and
she saw him fronting them, a pistol thrust into each pallid, shrinking
face——
“Rose!” he called. “Rose, come hither, child!”
Instinctively, and despite the terror that shook her, she obeyed.
“Good girl!” quoth he, with an approving nod. “I’ the right-hand
pocket o’ my waistcoat you will find five or six guineas; take two and
bestow ’em upon the poor rascals for affording us a sensation.”
Trembling still, she carried out Sir John’s instructions, who, with a
brief word and imperious gesture, commanded the astonished
rogues begone. Nor did they need a second bidding, but flitted away
on silent feet, though oft turning pallid faces to stare their
amazement ere they vanished into the shadows whence they came.
“Rose, child,” quoth Sir John, uncocking and repocketing his
pistols, “I am pleased with thee. ’S heart, I’m vastly pleased with
thee! I rejoice that being fearful you commanded your fear and
neither shrieked, swooned, squeaked, moaned, laughed, wept or fell
to a fit o’ the vapours. Thank God, child, that thou’rt a fine, buxom,
lusty country wench, sound o’ wind and limb, all wholesome flesh
and blood and bone——”
“Oh, fie—hush and ha’ done!” she exclaimed, tossing her
handsome head. “You make me sound as I were a prize cow!”
“Tush!” he laughed. “I do but take your body first. As to your mind
——”
“I ha’ none—so never mind!” she retorted bitterly, and making the
most of her stately height.
“Aye, but I do mind,” he answered seriously. “I mind infinitely,
because ’tis your mind needeth a great deal o’ painful care. ’S life,
girl, were your mind the peer o’ your body you’d be a creature
without peer. The which, sounding paradoxical, is yet very truth.”
“’Stead of which,” she retorted angrily, “I am only a buxom country
wench ... a poor maid, as you think, all body an’ no soul, an’ talk of
as she were a piece o’ cattle! Oh, I could cry wi’ shame, I could!”
“Then I shall kiss you, Rose!”
“You—ah, you wouldn’t dare!”
“Not unless you cry, child. I can endure a woman’s scorn, her
fleerings, even her caresses—but her tears melt my adamantine
fortitude quite. So pray do not weep, Rose. And as for your sweet
country ways, your rustic simplicity, God bless you for ’em, child.
With your goddess-form uncramped by cursed, ’prisoning whalebone
—with no rusks or busks or such damned contrivances to pinch your
figure to the prevailing mode you are as the hand of Nature moulded
you, a woman apt to motherhood, and therefore to be reverenced ...
and a curse on all rusks.”

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism 1St Edition Michael Oswald full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism 1St Edition Michael Oswald full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism 1St Edition Michael Oswald full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism

1st Edition Michael Oswald

The Palgrave Handbook Of National Security 1st Edition

The Palgrave Handbook of Disability and Communication

The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism 1st Edition Carl

The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies

The Palgrave Handbook of Technological Finance 1st

The Palgrave Handbook of Social Harm 1st Edition Pamela

The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites 1st Edition

The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies 1st Edition

ISBN 978-3-030-80802-0 ISBN 978-3-030-80803-7 (eBook)

Cover illustration: Agata Gładykowska/Alamy Stock Photo

Handbooks are intended to give a systematic overview of a subject and its

Passau, Germany Dr. Michael Oswald

Part I Populism–Introduction to & Some Reflections on the

Part II Theoretical Critique

Part III The Political Psychology of Populism & its Affective

8 From Specific Worries to Generalized Anger: The

Part IV Authoritarian Populism & Fascism

Part V Economic Populism, Inequality & Crises

Part VI Populism & Gender

Part VII New Populisms and Cleavages

Part VIII Populism Discourses

Part IX Populists in Office

32 Venezuela: The Institutionalization of Authoritarian

Part X Strategic Populism & Societal Support

Part XI Consequences of Populism & Anti-Populist

Sylvester Odion Akhaine is a Professor of Political Science at the Depart-

of contemporary capitalism. She is the author, most recently, of Capitalism on

Aron Buzogány works at the University of Natural Resources and Life

of and Concepts for the Digital Transformation, Springer Nature: Heidelberg

Miguel Latouche is a Venezuelan writer and an Associate Professor at the

Darren G. Lilleker is Head of the Centre for Comparative Politics and

Rebecca Pates is a Professor of Political Theory at Leipzig University and

Julia Roth is a Professor of American Studies with a focus on Gender Studies

Göttingen. Her expertise lies in parliaments, democracy and public policy

Szymon Wróbel is a full Professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Artes

Fig. 8.1 Simplified cross-lagged, autoregressive model

Fig. 39.1 Relationship between the electoral success of right-wing

Table 1.1 Perspectives on populism 6

Populism–Introduction to & Some Reflections

The New Age of Populism: Reapproaching

Michael Oswald, Mario Schäfer, and Elena Broda

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 3

different strands of populism research: populism as political strategy, ideology,

Definitions, Perspectives and Strands of Populism

Table 1.1 Perspectives on populism

Perspective Short definition Authors (examples)

numbers of mostly unorganized followers’

social basis, one established and articulated phenomenon)

Table 1.1 (continued)

Perspective Short definition Authors (examples)

to the use of fiery, antielite rhetoric, nor to the rise

specific RWP characteristics become elevated to general characteristics. Even

The Normative Attachment to Populism

hypotheses (Rooduijn, 2019, p. 362). However, it is not even clear which

Core Elements of Populism

Anti-status Quo (Protest Attitude) and Relative Deprivation

Loss (Fear) Economic-Cultural