hatzel
6th March 2012, 21:58
So I've been glancing over Laclau's writings on populism. I feel I basically understand what he's talking about, but there's one point that I for some reason feel I may have misunderstood...once a certain horizontal movement has been established, uniting the various disparate demands of 'the people,' he calls for it to become vertical, to make political demands. The basis of his criticism of May '68 (and the Argentinean crisis in 2001?) seems to be the inability or unwillingness of its participants to then link the horizontal to a vertical (i.e. 'political' or systematic) demand.
And this is where I get confused...perhaps my presuppositions of populism as referring to something dictatorial are affecting me here, but is he calling for appeals to some politician or party? A Kirchner or Chavez figure who is supposed to meet the popular demands and reform the political system? And if so, how does this fit in with his idea of populism emerging whenever there is an antagonistic division between 'the people' and those higher up the social pyramid, if 'the people' and some elite figure are supposed to find some reconciliation? Does this not de-populise the populism? Or have I perhaps just misunderstood what he means by making a political demand and acting vertically?
And this is where I get confused...perhaps my presuppositions of populism as referring to something dictatorial are affecting me here, but is he calling for appeals to some politician or party? A Kirchner or Chavez figure who is supposed to meet the popular demands and reform the political system? And if so, how does this fit in with his idea of populism emerging whenever there is an antagonistic division between 'the people' and those higher up the social pyramid, if 'the people' and some elite figure are supposed to find some reconciliation? Does this not de-populise the populism? Or have I perhaps just misunderstood what he means by making a political demand and acting vertically?