什么是民粹主义?谁是民粹主义者?

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston
{"title":"什么是民粹主义?谁是民粹主义者?","authors":"J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined\nterms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and\npopular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian\nconfusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs\nwithin and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);\ntime periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/\nright, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains\nthat muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic\nfeminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have\nbeen made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain\nof populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying\nproliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding\nas to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual\nfragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of\npopulism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy\n(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is populism? Who is the populist?\",\"authors\":\"J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined\\nterms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and\\npopular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian\\nconfusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs\\nwithin and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);\\ntime periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/\\nright, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains\\nthat muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic\\nfeminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have\\nbeen made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain\\nof populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying\\nproliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding\\nas to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual\\nfragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of\\npopulism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy\\n(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).\",\"PeriodicalId\":42255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

长期以来,“民粹主义”和“民粹主义”都被认为是定义不清的术语,因此在学术和政治话语中经常被误用。1民粹主义声音的巴贝尔式混乱加剧了这种定义困难,在全球地区内部和之间(如拉丁美洲和西欧),这个术语的含义不同;时间段(例如20世纪30年代与现在)和分类(例如左/右、威权主义/自由主义、多元主义/反诱惑主义,以及混淆这些区别的限制,如同民族主义、仇外女权主义和多元文化新民族主义)。尽管已经做出了有益的努力来驾驭民粹主义的巨大而异质的概念领域,2但他们很少相互接触。其结果是,不同的定义令人眼花缭乱地激增,而对它们如何相互交流却一无所知。这种概念碎片化强化了对民粹主义的不同评估,并被这些评估所强化,这些评估往往将其视为对民主的“好”或“坏”(例如,Dzur和Hendriks,2018;穆勒,2015年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is populism? Who is the populist?
Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined terms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and popular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian confusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs within and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe); time periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/ right, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains that muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic feminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have been made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain of populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying proliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding as to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual fragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of populism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy (e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Democratic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal published and distributed by Berghahn. It encourages philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions that critically explore democratic theory—in all its forms. Spanning a range of views, the journal offers a cross-disciplinary forum for diverse theoretical questions to be put forward and systematically examined. It advances non-Western as well as Western ideas and is actively based on the premise that there are many forms of democracies and many types of democrats. As a forum for debate, the journal challenges theorists to ask and answer the perennial questions that plague the field of democratization studies: Why is democracy so prominent in the world today? What is the meaning of democracy? Will democracy continue to expand? Are current forms of democracy sufficient to give voice to “the people” in an increasingly fragmented and divided world? Who leads in democracy? What types of non-Western democratic theories are there? Should democrats always defend democracy? Should democrats be fearful of de-democratization, post-democracies, and the rise of hybridized regimes?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信