Comparative Politics

B11 - Populism and Right-Wing Extremism

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 10:15am to 11:45am | Location: SJA-252E

Chair/Président/Présidente : Lucas Kins (ULB)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Lucas Kins (ULB)

Une science extrême : usage stratégique du discours scientifique par l’extrême droite en ligne: Antoine Lemor (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: Cette communication analyse l’usage stratégique du discours scientifique par les influenceurs francophones d’extrême droite sur YouTube en France et au Québec (Fischer, Kolo, et Mothes 2022). Malgré une méfiance idéologique envers les institutions scientifiques, ces influenceurs intègrent de plus en plus des arguments scientifiques, notamment en biologie et en psychologie, pour légitimer leurs positions (Blee 2018; Lewis 2020). Ce paradoxe, accentué par la pandémie de COVID-19, interroge le rôle de la rhétorique scientifique dans la communication de ces acteurs. La question de recherche est : Quel rôle joue le discours scientifique dans les stratégies de communication des influenceurs d’extrême droite sur les médias sociaux ? Nous posons l’hypothèse que cette tendance représente une mutation discursive qui traduit une adaptation stratégique face à la régulation des plateformes et aux critiques idéologiques adverses (Hong 2020). S’appuyant sur une base de données de plus de 20 000 vidéos et 10 millions de commentaires, l’étude utilise des outils de transcriptions automatiques afin d’obtenir le contenu des vidéos; ce qui n’a encore jamais été réalisé à ce jour. Grâce à des techniques de traitement automatisé du langage naturel (TALN), sont identifiées les orientations idéologiques et les discours haineux afin de comprendre comment la rhétorique scientifique est employée dans un tel cadre. Cette recherche vise à comprendre les mécanismes qui favorisent la propagation des discours haineux sur les plateformes numériques et le rôle que jouent la science et la rhétorique scientifique dans ce contexte.

Collective memory and belonging in the area of right-wing populism: Kate Korycki (Western University)
Abstract: In this paper I explore why, and by what means, national political elites shape the emergent imaginary of “the people.” Adapting the framework of collective memory and anchoring the story in my recent book, Weaponizing the Past: Collective Memory, and Jews, Poles and Communists in 21st Century Poland, I argue that a) the narratives of past structure political competition, and b) affect the present-day notions of common belonging - that is, they determine political positions of players and they reveal who is included and excluded from the conception of the ‘we,’ (and if included, on what conditions). I first develop the concept of mnemonic capital - a politically productive symbolic resource that accrues to political players based on their turn to, and judgment of, the past. I identify three clusters of parties - all of which ruled Poland since transition to the present - based on the distribution of mnemonic capital. Second, I trace how the political and intellectual elites of each cluster weave the stories of the recent past, paying particular attention to the way they narrate Polish Jewish relations and their imbrications with communism. I demonstrate that despite narrative differences, all major political actors conflate communism with Jewishness. In doing so, they polarize the political field, elevate the nation as the main category of belonging, and racialize its meaning.

Power to the People?: Arendt and a Reimagining of Popular Sovereignty: Zach Pfeifer (York University)
Abstract: Populism’s current electoral success across liberal democracies attests to the fact of its growing appeal and increasing ability to reshape the liberal democratic status quo. Cas Mudde, among other researchers engaging with his ideational approach, has identified populism’s ideological characterization of the world as a struggle between the “corrupt elites” and the “moral people”. The subsequent political project of populist movements and parties has been interpreted as an attempt to remove these “elites” from power and to empower the “people”. Accordingly, much of the recent analysis has focused on analyzing how populism has contested the existing entitlements that legitimize “elite” rule in liberal democratic countries and the theoretical implications of this contestation. However, alongside populism’s questioning of who political power belongs to, there is the accompanying, but largely overlooked, question of how populism conceptualizes political power in the first place. This presentation will examine this latter question, arguing that the populist ideology accepts existing conceptualizations of what political power is while contesting the basis of its allocation. To illuminate the theoretical implications of this simultaneous acceptance and contestation, this presentation will draw on the political thought of Hannah Arendt, whose critique of ‘traditional’ understandings of political power as sovereignty offers a compelling alternative. Through an analysis of Arendt’s reconceptualization of power as a non-possessive activity, this presentation will apply her framework to populism’s conceptual approach, arguing that this approach creates internal tensions that prevent it from achieving its ultimate goal of a genuine popularization of power.