Populism as a model of “polarized democracy”: Pierre Rosanvallon’s theory of populism in contemporary debate
This paper examines Pierre Rosanvallon’s contribution to understanding populism by adopting two approaches: the first one is the internalist approach, comprising an analysis of his book Le Siècle du populisme (2020) and its comparison with his theory of changes in contemporary democracy (2006-2015)....
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
| Repositorio: | Sociologias (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués inglés francés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/106783 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/sociologias/article/view/106783 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Pierre Rosanvallon Populismo Democracia Indeterminação Chantal Mouffe populism contemporary political theory Nadia Urbinati Ernesto Laclau populisme théorie politique contemporaine |
| Resumo: | This paper examines Pierre Rosanvallon’s contribution to understanding populism by adopting two approaches: the first one is the internalist approach, comprising an analysis of his book Le Siècle du populisme (2020) and its comparison with his theory of changes in contemporary democracy (2006-2015). The second approach consists of comparing Le Siècle du populisme with the works of other authors on the subject. The paper is divided into three parts. First, we analyze Le Siècle du populisme, focusing on the two aspects that we consider the most original: the typology of “limit forms of democracy” and its ways of degradation and his critique of populism. In the second part, we contrast this work with his theory of changes in contemporary democracy. In the third part, we contextualize Rosanvallon’s work within the literature on populism, exploring the author’s idea of populism vis-à-vis democracy. We also compare his interpretation with three of the main contemporary works on the subject: that of Nadia Urbinati involving theory of democracy, and that of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, leading theorists of “leftist populism”, targets of Rosanvallon’s criticism. Then, we argue that what distinguishes his contribution to populism research is the scope of his theory, able to encompass tensions and complexities in the study of democracy and that offers a way out of the theoretical ambiguities of previous studies on populism. |
|---|