Center vs Periphery and Populist Articulations in Denmark

According to Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theoretical articulation of populism, it should be conceptualised as a logic, and not an ideology, deviant political behaviour, anti-knowledge or whatever. According to the theory there is no political content specific to populism, i.e. it is neither left nor wright wing, nor do political demands such as (anti-)environmental, (anti-)immigration, (anti-)feminism, (anti-)liberal rights have a predetermined, necessary relationship to populist articulations. Everything depends on the extent to which political demands or frustrations are articulated within acceptance of the existing order or as antagonising the elite/ power block representing this order. At present, one of the many demands being articulated in an antagonistic manner is the interests of the periphery (/ outskirts/ countryside etc.) versus those of the centre, c.f. e.g. The Netherlands. So far, most commentators and scholars have argued that this is a typical (right wing) populist emotional mobilisation, signalling backwardness and lack of acceptance of rationality in the form of (environmental and climate) science. However, as any formulation of political demands necessarily involves passions and affective investments such a simple dichotomy must be rejected. Primarily based on material from the period up to the former Parliamentary Election in Oct. 2022 in Denmark, this paper analyses the many different ways the antagonism between centre and periphery is articulated, both as the central demand/ antagonism, and the way it is articulated to other demands (as one among other demands). The paper problematises any easy linking of centre – periphery with (right-wing) populism. But it also problematises certain aspects of Laclau and Mouffe’s populism theory, notably the underdeveloped way the concept of demands figure in the theory. This underdevelopment has many aspects. First, a lacking analysis of how a grievance/ lack is transformed into a political demand. This necessarily involves passions or affective investment as any transformation of an experienced grievance (or dislocation) to an specific articulation exceeds positive determination (be it causal, functional or whatever). Second, the analysis of the specific and different articulations of the ‘cause’ of the grievance itself (the ‘problem’ or dislocation). Thirdly, a lacking analysis of different way the ‘same’ grievance can be articulated as quite different, if not opposing demands. Fourthly, how this specific articulation of the demand is itself articulated into broader political positions – including populism or institutionalism and left- vs. right-wing articulations.