There are many reasons to think of populism as the opposite of deliberation. Populism appeals to base instincts, sacrificing intellectual rigour and slow thinking in favour of quick solutions. Its polarising speech style creates information silos which bond rather than bridge opposing views. Inherent to the populist logic is the division of the ‘virtuous people’ versus the ‘dangerous other,’ which inflames prejudices and misinformation instead of promoting public reasoning as ways of determining the common good.
In this presentation, I challenge the populism-deliberation dichotomy by offering methodological and empirical interventions. Methodologically, I propose to shift the gaze from the populist leader to the populist publics, as well as their mediated relationship. This, I argue, provides a more complex understanding of the relational and negotiated character of populist claims, instead of depicting them as top-down, manipulative, and homogenously spiteful rhetoric.
Empirically, I argue that ethnographic research on populist publics open a discussion on possible spaces for the democratisation of populist claims. I offer three conjectures. First, there is potential for discursive pluralism in populism. Second, populism can give voice to unspeakable grievances and render deliberative politics more inclusive. Third, populism forces a rethinking of deliberative claim-making, particularly its focus on voice and text, by foregrounding the roles of passion, presence and visceral forms of communication.
These conjectures are based on research findings from my ethnographic research in the Philippines and a review of ethnographic research of populist movements in the United States, UK, Brazil and Venezuela.
