Unpacking the Affective Dimensions of Populist Mobilization

This paper argues that the political has to be understood as an inherently irrational realm, where populism acts as a challenging force vis-à-vis political consensus and mainstream narratives with passions playing a key role. It critiques the dichotomy between rationality and affectivity, arguing that this separation often serves to obscure socio-political contingencies. These claims go against conventional wisdom in political science, where passions, emotions, and affect are often considered to be irrational elements in an otherwise rational political order. To support the claims, the paper uses discourses around the signifier “woke” as an empirical entry point for analysis and discussion. Empirical material is derived from an on-going project that examines antagonisms, identities, and affective signifiers through a bottom-up inquiry into populist practices in the Nordic medialised public discourse. As such, the project breaks with the prevalent practice of simply studying populist parties and politicians. Instead, it casts a much wider net by not presuming to know in advance where, when or by whom populist politics are performed. In the wider project, the material is used to map antagonisms, demands, identities, and political frontiers. For the current paper, the material is analysed by combining a discourse-theoretical framework in combination with rhetorical political analysis, showing how “woke” becomes affectively inscribed with certain feelings through repeated association. The analysis integrates insights from post-foundational theories of populism with sociological theories that emphasise the affective, performative, and irrational nature of politics. This allows the paper to address questions of how affect functions to configure and strengthen populist identities and antagonisms. In particular, it explores the affective resonance of populist narratives and performances, highlighting how emotions accumulate around social and political elements within various populist mobilisations. In navigating the assumptions of the rational/irrational=affective dichotomy in populism, the paper argues for a more integrated approach that recognises and expects an interplay between rationality and affectivity. It suggests that political science can benefit from acknowledging, exploring, and theorising the productive role of passion in political mobilisation and identity formation. By doing so, scholars can develop a more comprehensive understanding of populist – and other – movements and their relation to democratic politics.