'영국의 롱맨 사전은 '포퓰리스트'(Populist)를 부자나 지식인보다는 보통 사람들을 대변하는 자'로 가치중립적 의미로 정의하고 있다.[7]
이브 메니(Yves Mény)와 이브 수렐(Yves Surel)[8] 은 포퓰리즘의 특징을 세 가지로 정리하는데, 첫째, '인민'이 최고 가치를 지니며 '인민'을 통한 공동체 귀속감에 있어 수평적 구분 보다는 수직적 구분이 사용된다는 점과 둘째, 인민이 엘리트의 부패와 권력 남용으로 배신당했다는 주장이 제기된다는 점, 셋째, 현재의 엘리트가 인민을 위한 새로운 지도자로 대체되어야 한다고 요구한다는 점이 그것이다.
폴 태거트(Paul Taggart)는 포퓰리즘이 순수한 인민을 강조하기 위해 타자를 고안하고 적대한다고 주장한다. 결국 포퓰리즘은 인민 최우선과 인민과 적대하는 엘리트, 외국인, 부유층 등의 반인민적 집단의 구성이라는 두 가지 특징으로 종합된다. 여기서 인민은 역사적으로 언제나 전체가 아닌 일부가 되는데, 우파의 경우 지역, 혈통, 인종, 습속, 종교 등이 구심이 되어 극우 인종주의 및 외국인 혐오증으로 변하며, 이러한 실례로 히틀러가 예시되기도 한다. 좌파 포퓰리즘의 경우 인민은 아르헨티나 페론주의에서는 소작농이 되고 프랑스 푸자드주의(Poujadism)에서는 소시민이 되는 등 일반적으로 '민중'이라고 불리는 피지배층을 표상한다.[9] 민주주의가 대중의 순수한 의지를 반영한다는 걸 감안할 때, 포퓰리즘은 좌우 이념을 가리지 않고 모두 나타날 수 있다.[10][11][12]
Academic definitions of populism are historically varied and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to reference appeals to "the people," demagogy, and "catch-all" politics. The term has also been used as a label for new parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists.[3]
In recent years academic scholars have produced definitions which enable populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4] Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do,[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.
In the United States, populism has historically been associated with the left, whereas in European countries, populism is more associated with the right. In both, the central tenet of populism—that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people—means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing", "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]
Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] In the United States populist movements have high prestige in the history books, for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]
Some scholars argue that populist organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving.[13][14] Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[15] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views.[16] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby",[17][18] "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite".[19] Examples of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum include the anti-corporate-greed views of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.
Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide—agrarian and political—and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:
In recent years academic scholars have produced definitions which enable populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4] Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do,[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.
In the United States, populism has historically been associated with the left, whereas in European countries, populism is more associated with the right. In both, the central tenet of populism—that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people—means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing", "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]
Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] In the United States populist movements have high prestige in the history books, for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]
Some scholars argue that populist organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving.[13][14] Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[15] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views.[16] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby",[17][18] "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite".[19] Examples of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum include the anti-corporate-greed views of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.
Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide—agrarian and political—and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:
No comments:
Post a Comment