.png)
Jorge Ramos-González talks about why he decided to write his Journal of Language and Politics article, 'Populism and contingency: Assessing the ideological flexibility of populism through Sorel’s Theory of Myth'.
Photo by Mari Potter on Unsplash
the idea that myths (in the case of populist discourse, the myth of the sovereign people) can adopt different political and social meanings depending on context and discursive articulation helps clarify the challenging and often elusive issue of populism’s ideological flexibility from an innovative perspective
Why did you decide to write this piece?
I believe my initial interest arose from the need to delve into Laclau and Mouffe's theory to address assumptions that emphasise the centrality of the Gramscian concept of hegemony in their theoretical framework. In my view, this emphasis is overstated and detracts from another crucial aspect: the theory of myth and its embedded notion of contingency. While a considerable number of studies analyse the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of their work, as well as the discursive interpretations of populism, there is a noticeable gap in the literature concerning how the concept of contingency operates and its implications for political discourse. This gap likely stems from the limited prominence given to Sorel in populist theory, despite Laclau and Mouffe acknowledging him as the thinker who most effectively addressed the structural crisis of Marxism regarding the ontological role of the working class. By exploring this aspect in depth and uncovering the significant influence of Sorel's theory of myth on Laclau and Mouffe's populist theory, I discovered a novel interpretation. This approach allows for an examination of the ideological flexibility of populism through the theoretical-discursive lens of the Essex School.
What are the key takeaways?
The primary finding of this research is its contribution to the theoretical foundations of contingency in discourse theory through a detailed analysis of Sorel’s theory of myth. This nuanced approach explicitly integrates the concept of myth into populism theory, particularly regarding ideological flexibility. Thus, the notion of ‘work on myth’ —understood as a narrative that provides meaning to social groups by contingently condensing social heterogeneity—is essential for understanding how populist discourses operate.
Moreover, the idea that myths (in the case of populist discourse, the myth of the sovereign people) can adopt different political and social meanings depending on context and discursive articulation helps clarify the challenging and often elusive issue of populism’s ideological flexibility from an innovative perspective. The presence of a realm of contingency within populist theory enables this flexibility of political discourses, as the meaning of discursive practices can be interpreted differently. This research offers an interpretation of this contingency and sheds light on the role of myth theory in its understanding.
Where do you plan to go next in your research?
Well, methodologically, I am currently navigating between discourse analysis and quantitative studies of electoral behaviour, all aligned towards a common goal. In future research, I intend to examine the relationship between the radical left and social stratification, aiming to disentangle the changes that have occurred in this ideological space over recent decades.
On the one hand, I am interested in the shifts in the social bases of these formations in socioeconomic terms, which suggest a move towards social sectors with higher cultural capital but lower economic capital —marking a departure from the traditional bases of communist parties. On the other hand, I aim to investigate the ideological and discursive transformations within these parties, particularly regarding how and in what ways they appeal to their electorates. My goal is to identify emerging patterns in the political discourses of the radical left, specifically concerning the social classes they seek to mobilise.
Kommentare