Suchergebnisse

In an era when (especially new) media are celebrated for their participatory potential, questions about the nature and intensity of these participatory processes seem to be superfluous. But raising these questions pushes us into a critical mode towards the changes that have lead to the present-day media landscape. This volume's authors aim to activate this critical mode and reflect on the participatory nature of contemporary media organizations and products. In order to stand even a remote c

Building on Rinaldi and Bekker's scoping review of articles on the impact of populist radical right (PRR) politics on welfare and population health, this short article formulates three pointers towards a framework that might help structure future research into PRR, populist politics more generally, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other health issues. First, we discuss the centrality of welfare chauvinism to the PRR's impact on health, taking this as a cue for a broader reflection on the importance on distinguishing between the nativist and populist dimensions of PRR politics. Secondly, we turn our attention to the potential moderating effect of the PRR's welfare chauvinism on the welfare cuts proposed by their right-wing coalition partners, comments we see as pointing to the need to focus on nativist, populist, neoliberal and other threats to welfare policy more generally, rather than on the PRR only. Thirdly, we reflect on the paradoxical nature of welfare chauvinism – its negative consequences for the health of the 'own people' it proclaims to defend – as a starting point for a brief discussion of the need to consider carefully the not-so-straightforward relation between the PRR's political rhetoric, its (impact on) policy and institutions, and the outcomes of such policy.

Abstract
'Populism' has become ever more ubiquitous in political analysis, to the extent that 'populism studies' appears on course
to establishing itself as a field of research in its own right. This article warns about the dangers of such a development. Taking a
discourse theoretical approach as our starting point – but also critically engaging with this tradition's contribution to the hype about
populism – we suggest that 'populism studies' (and the preoccupation with populism this field embodies) risks reifying populism by focusing
on populism as a phenomenon 'as such', and through an over-reliance on the concept of populism to approach
that phenomenon. This, we argue, hampers a nuanced and contextualized understanding of the exact role populism plays in different populist
politics. This is not a call for abandoning the concept of populism altogether, but a call for de-centring the concept and for moving beyond
academia's 'populist moment'.

AbstractIn a recent article in this journal, Rogers Brubaker formulates a critique of the distinction we make in our work between populism and nationalism, and further develops his own, thicker conceptualization of populism, which integrates the nationalist dimension without however totally conflating populism and nationalism. In this article, we briefly respond to the critique of our work, further clarifying and refining our plea for clearly distinct conceptualizations of populism and nationalism in dialogue with the considerations formulated by Rogers Brubaker. More broadly, we see this response as a chance to contribute to the further development of a framework that allows for the rigorous study of populism's pivotal as well as complex and often troubling relation with nationalism.

Trade unions have been the object of sustained critique coming from across the political spectrum for several decades now. Based on a discourse theoretical analysis of articles in three Dutch-speaking Belgian newspapers, published in two periods of social protest in 2014 and 2016, this article identifies six strands of critique: (1) critiques that label unions as conservative anachronisms that are out of sync with the realities of our times; (2) critiques that psychologize unions as egoistic, irresponsible and child-like actors; (3) critiques that criminalize unions as vandals, hostage takers or terrorists; (4) critiques that oppose unions to a homogenized general interest; (5) metadiscursive critiques of unions' discursive practices; and (6) metapolitical critiques that problematize unions as polarizing and 'political' actors. These six strands of critique get articulated through discursive logics that operate within and across texts, newspapers and voices. Together they constitute a heterogenous but relatively consonant polyphonic discourse that challenges trade unions and their right to strike. This discourse has metapolitical implications for the debate on the mode(s) of politics that can legitimately be practiced by civil society actors. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Criticizing mainstream media for their 'lies' or 'fake news' has become a common political practice on the radical right. Further empirical research is needed to better understand the intricacies of these attacks on media, in particular for the way they relate to criticism of the political system as a whole and to matters of political representation. How do radical right actors construct a sense of political misrepresentation through their critique of media, and how does this allow them to make representative claims? This is what we explore in this article through a discourse analysis of the Flemish radical right youth movement Schild & Vrienden. Drawing inspiration from constructivist theories of representation, we explore the entanglement in empirical practice between two dimensions of representation: 1) between its literal meaning (as 'portrayal') and its political meaning (as standing or speaking for), and 2) between representation and misrepresentation. With our analysis, we shed light on the increasing politicization of the media as a non-electoral space of representation and misrepresentation, and on the role played by media criticism in the radical right's broader (meta)political strategies.

Criticizing mainstream media for their 'lies' or 'fake news' has become a common political practice on the radical right. Further empirical research is needed to better understand the intricacies of these attacks on media, in particular for the way they relate to criticism of the political system as a whole and to matters of political representation. How do radical right actors construct a sense of political misrepresentation through their critique of media, and how does this allow them to make representative claims? This is what we explore in this article through a discourse analysis of the Flemish radical right youth movement Schild & Vrienden. Drawing inspiration from constructivist theories of representation, we explore the entanglement in empirical practice between two dimensions of representation: 1) between its literal meaning (as 'portrayal') and its political meaning (as standing or speaking for), and 2) between representation and misrepresentation. With our analysis, we shed light on the increasing politicization of the media as a non-electoral space of representation and misrepresentation, and on the role played by media criticism in the radical right's broader (meta)political strategies.

Criticizing mainstream media for their 'lies' or 'fake news' has become a common political practice on the radical right. Further empirical research is needed to better understand the intricacies of these attacks on media, in particular for the way they relate to criticism of the political system as a whole and to matters of political representation. How do radical right actors construct a sense of political misrepresentation through their critique of media, and how does this allow them to make representative claims? This is what we explore in this article through a discourse analysis of the Flemish radical right youth movement Schild & Vrienden. Drawing inspiration from constructivist theories of representation, we explore the entanglement in empirical practice between two dimensions of representation: 1) between its literal meaning (as 'portrayal') and its political meaning (as standing or speaking for), and 2) between representation and misrepresentation. With our analysis, we shed light on the increasing politicization of the media as a non-electoral space of representation and misrepresentation, and on the role played by media criticism in the radical right's broader (meta)political strategies.

The close empirical connections and conceptual affinities between populism and nationalism, have led to a widespread but misleading overlap between the concepts of populism and nationalism in academic debates, journalism and political rhetoric. Despite the obvious importance of the connections between nationalism and populism, their conceptual and empirical relations have received rather limited systematic attention. Drawing on the poststructuralist discourse theoretical tradition associated with Laclau and Mouffe and the Essex School of discourse analysis, this article treats populism and nationalism as distinct ways of discursively constructing and claiming to represent 'the people', as underdog and as nation respectively. The differences between them can also be identified and highlighted from a spatial or orientational perspective, by looking at the architectonics of populism and nationalism as revolving around a down/up (vertical-power) and an in/out (horizontal-identity and territory) axis respectively. Building on this framework, we suggest that the co-occurrence of populism and nationalism can fruitfully be studied through the prism of articulation. Again, a focus on discursive architectonics allows grasping how different political projects construct different discourses by connecting the building blocks of populism and nationalism in particular ways. The last part of the article illustrates the benefits of the discourse-theoretical approach by studying the articulation of populism and nationalism in the populist radical right's exclusionary nationalist rejection of ethnic-cultural diversity, and in the criticisms of supra-national and multi-national politics found both on the Left and on the Right. ; Las estrechas conexiones empíricas y las afinidades conceptuales entre el populismo y el nacionalismo han llevado a una superposición generalizada pero engañosa entre los conceptos de populismo y nacionalismo en los debates académicos, en el periodismo y en la retórica política. A pesar de la evidente importancia de las conexiones entre el nacionalismo y el populismo, sus relaciones conceptuales y empíricas han recibido una atención bastante limitada. Basándonos en la tradición teórico-discursivo post-estructuralista asociada a Laclau y Mouffe y la Escuela de Essex de análisis del discurso, este artículo trata el populismo y el nacionalismo como formas distintas de construir discursivamente y de reclamar representar al "pueblo" como "los de abajo" (underdog en inglés) y como nación, respectivamente. Las diferencias entre ambos conceptos también se pueden identificar y resaltar desde una perspectiva espacial u orientacional, al mirar la arquitectura del populismo y el nacionalismo como si se estructurase en torno a un eje abajo/arriba (poder vertical) y un dentro/fuera (horizontal - identidad y territorio) respectivamente. Sobre la base de este marco, sugerimos que la coincidencia del populismo y el nacionalismo pueden estudiarse fructíferamente a través del prisma de la articulación. Una vez más, un enfoque en la arquitectura discursiva permite comprender cómo distintos proyectos políticos construyen diferentes discursos al conectar los componentes básicos del populismo y el nacionalismo de maneras particulares. La última parte del artículo ilustra los beneficios del enfoque teórico-discursivo al estudiar la articulación del populismo y el nacionalismo en el rechazo excluyente y nacionalista de la derecha populista radical de la diversidad étnico-cultural y en las críticas de la política supranacional y multinacional encontradas tanto en la izquierda como en la derecha.