The History of the Study of Political Populism and Its Current Position in Political Science

The article considers the phenomenon of political populism, which is complex and multifaceted. Despite more than fifty years of interest in this issue, political science has still not developed a unified concept and common understanding of populism. In this regard, in the framework of this study, the aim was set to analyze the evolution of approaches to understanding populism, highlight their specific features, and also note their current state. This seems very important and relevant in the context of the "victorious advance" of populist practices and ideas around the world: from the "new" European right and left parties to Donald Trump and Rodri-go Duterte. At the same time, in Russian realities, this phenomenon has practical consequences, expressed in the increase of political activity and protest moods among young people, which is associated with the dominance of populist practices in virtual space in general, and in social networks in particular. The study is based on the works of prominent foreign researchers of political populism, who proposed their own vision of this phenomenon and had a significant influence on their followers: the Argentine and Spanish post-Marxist political scientist E. Laclau (formal-discursive approach), the British political scientist M. Canovan (structural approach), the Dutch and American political scientist C. Mudde (ideological approach). Based on the methods of comparative and dia-chronic analysis, the author identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the concepts under consideration. At the same time, special attention is paid to the modern manifestations of populism and their theoretical explanations by researchers, which led to the emergence of the concepts "digital populism", "populism 2.0" (similar to Web 2.0). In the course of the research, the author made several important conclusions. The conceptual vagueness of the notion of political populism originates at the first conference (at the London School of Economics) and continues to the present. The explanation of this fact is both the various theoretical foundations that the researchers resorted to, and the attempt to explain the heterogeneous manifestations of the phenomenon under consideration using one model without taking into account historical, political and socio-economic contexts. At the same time, the author notes that nowadays an understanding of the close relationship between populism and the phenomena of post-truth, post-politics and post-democracy has emerged, which, coupled with the growing influence of new information and communication channels, allows us to speak of a "new populism". Developing this idea, the author comes to the conclusion that populism itself should be perceived as a twofold product of the postmodern era, combining advanced digital practices with archaic elements; as a tool to achieve political goals based on the polarization and radicalization of positions and ideas, simplification of politics and political problems, as well as appeal to emotional empathy and irritation.

Keywords

Authors

References