Kenes, Bulent. (2024). “Populism and Time: Temporalities of a Disruptive Politics.” ECPS Book Reviews. European Center for Populism Studies. November 27, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55271/br0022
Andy Knott’s Populism and Time: Temporalities of a Disruptive Politics offers a groundbreaking exploration of populism through the lens of time, challenging traditional spatial and ideological frameworks. Knott and his contributors delve into the temporal dimensions of populism’s emergence, persistence, and transformation, drawing on historical, philosophical, and regional perspectives. The volume’s innovative use of metaphors and analyses sheds light on populism’s ability to navigate crises and disrupt hegemonic norms. By examining regional variations and the interplay between technology and populist dynamics, the book provides fresh and valuable insights. It is an essential resource for scholars, redefining populism as a diachronic force shaping contemporary politics.
Reviewed by Bulent Kenes
In Populism and Time: Temporalities of a Disruptive Politics, editor Andy Knott and contributing authors offer a compelling exploration of the relationship between populism and temporality, an often overlooked yet crucial aspect of this political phenomenon. While the spatial dimensions of populism have dominated much of the academic discourse, this volume distinguishes itself by situating populism within the framework of time, presenting fresh theoretical insights into its emergence, persistence, and impact.
The collection originated from an idea for a workshop that ultimately took place online during the COVID-19 lockdown. Keynote speakers María Esperanza Casullo and Simon Tormey laid the groundwork for the book’s rich intellectual inquiry. Comprising ten chapters organized into three thematic parts, the book addresses historical, technological, and regional dimensions of populism. Contributions from scholars such as Tormey, Clare Woodford, and Casullo tackle critical questions: What triggers populism’s explosive emergence? Why does it seem to thrive in particular historical moments? And how do technological advancements reshape populist dynamics? Why does populism arise in advanced democracies? What role does algorithmic interference play in forging populist solidarities? And why are populist leaders so resilient in power? These inquiries are enriched by conceptual frameworks like cyclicality, spatiotemporality, and populist constitutionalism, offering a nuanced lens to examine populism’s global manifestations.
Knott’s introduction critiques teleological frameworks that dismiss populism as a fleeting anomaly. He instead situates it as a dynamic, diachronic force capable of disrupting hegemonic political norms. Drawing on the philosophical insights of Nietzsche and Heidegger, alongside Machiavelli’s interplay of necessity and contingency, the volume investigates populism’s ontology, asking whether its recurrence stems solely from the politicization of “the people” or deeper ontological parameters that shape modern politics. Particularly compelling is the volume’s focus on regional specificity, especially in Latin America. Scholars such as Paula Biglieri and Eleonora Mesquita Ceia analyze how populism in the region navigates the dual pressures of rupture and institutionalization, challenging its characterization as inherently unstable.
The first chapter of the book titled “Introduction: Populism, Metaphor, Temporality” penned by editor Knott, highlights the neglect of temporality and seeks to address this gap by advancing a nuanced, interdisciplinary framework for understanding populism through the lens of time. Knott begins by critiquing the predominant spatial focus in populism studies, which has been shaped by disciplines such as comparative politics and international relations. He notes that global and regional analyses often overlook how populism operates within temporal frameworks, an omission that limits the depth of our understanding. This chapter ambitiously aims to reframe populism not as a static anomaly but as a dynamic, time-sensitive phenomenon with implications for political stability and transformation.
Central to Knott’s analysis is the role of metaphors in shaping perceptions of populism’s temporal character. The tidal metaphor, for example, suggests cyclicality and permanence, aligning with the ebbs and flows of political phenomena. In contrast, the wave and eruption metaphors evoke disruption, irregularity, and transformative power, underscoring populism’s capacity to challenge established political orders. These metaphors reveal populism’s temporal flexibility, adapting to various contexts while disrupting hegemonic political structures.
Knott further draws on philosophical perspectives, engaging with Martin Heidegger’s notions of temporality, Jacques Rancière’s plural modernities, and Niccolò Machiavelli’s interplay of necessity and contingency. By linking these theoretical insights to populism, Knott presents a compelling argument for understanding populism’s emergence, persistence, and evolution as deeply rooted in temporal contexts. Knott’s introduction effectively situates populism within a broader temporal framework, offering fresh insights into its ontology and dynamics. By bridging philosophy, history, and political theory, this chapter not only reframes populism as a diachronic phenomenon but also invites readers to reconsider its role in shaping contemporary political trajectories. It sets the stage for a rich exploration of populism’s temporalities throughout the volume.
In the second chapter titled “On Populism’s Beginnings,” Knott embarks on an ambitious exploration of the origins of populism, mapping out three distinct historiographical approaches while critiquing their methodologies and assumptions. This chapter serves as a foundational inquiry into the historiography of populism, bridging disciplines such as history, political science, and theory to illuminate how populism’s beginnings have been conceptualized. Knott identifies three frameworks: the first locates populism within specific historical case studies, such as the People’s Party in late 19th-century America and Russia’s narodniki movement. These case-based approaches often tie populism to particular social and economic conditions, such as industrialization and urbanization. The second framework, exemplified by Federico Finchelstein, elevates populism as a transnational regime with its roots in mid-20th-century politics, positioning it alongside liberal democracy, fascism, and communism. Lastly, theorists like Margaret Canovan and Ernesto Laclau trace populism back to antiquity, framing it as a persistent political logic grounded in the antagonistic relationship between “the people” and elites. Knott’s interdisciplinary analysis critically interrogates these approaches, highlighting tensions between populism as a historical phenomenon and as a timeless political form. By weaving together historical narratives and theoretical insights, Knott not only questions the adequacy of existing historiographies but also underscores the need for more nuanced, transdisciplinary research.
Clare Woodford’s chapter “Populism, Impossible Time, and Democracy’s People Problem” is a scathing critique of prevailing populism scholarship, exposing its foundational contradictions and its often-unacknowledged complicity in undermining democracy. Central to her argument is the bold assertion that much of the literature on populism perpetuates a flawed conceptualization of “the people” and “democracy,” framing the former as a perpetual threat to the latter. Woodford dismantles this perspective, arguing that such scholarship narrows democratic possibilities and inadvertently bolsters authoritarian tendencies. Woodford critiques the dominant binary framework that pits populism against democracy. Scholars, she argues, have too readily labeled populism as anti-democratic, ignoring the complexity of its interactions with democratic processes. By casting populism as inherently problematic, these academics, whom Woodford does not hesitate to criticize as gatekeepers of an elitist liberal-democratic orthodoxy, distort the political landscape into a restrictive populism-vs-democracy dichotomy. This oversimplification delegitimizes left-wing alternatives and conflates democratic expressions with anti-democratic tendencies, thereby shrinking the space for meaningful political discourse.
Her engagement with theorists like Rancière, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe underscores the necessity of redefining populism. Woodford particularly emphasizes the aesthetic moment of democracy, where competing definitions of the people coexist, making politics an ongoing, transformative process rather than a static structure. By rejecting the “false dichotomy” of liberal minimalism versus right-wing authoritarianism, she challenges scholars to embrace the pluralistic, dynamic nature of democracy. Woodford’s chapter is a clarion call for populism scholars to abandon their entrenched biases and reconsider their theoretical foundations. Her critique is not merely an academic exercise but a plea for a renewed commitment to democracy that respects the people’s role as its central actors.
Adrià Porta Caballé’s chapter, titled “Politics and Time: The Nostalgic, the Opportunist and the Utopian. An Existential Analytic of Podemos’ Ecstatic Times,” offers a profound exploration of Podemos’ political trajectory in Spain, reframing its internal conflicts through the lens of temporality. By weaving Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophies into his analysis, the author develops a compelling framework to dissect the tensions within Podemos, which he categorizes as nostalgic, opportunist, and utopian – aligned with the past, present, and future, respectively. Caballé’s critique challenges traditional analyses that confine themselves to ideology, class, or politics, arguing that they neglect the crucial role of time in understanding political movements. His temporal framework posits that the internal factions within Podemos – Pablistas (nostalgic), Errejonistas (opportunist), and Anticapitalistas (utopian) – represent distinct, albeit incomplete, relationships with temporality. This fragmentation, Caballé argues, was both the source of Podemos’ initial success and its eventual decline.
The chapter excels in its integration of Heidegger’s existential temporality and Nietzsche’s historical triad, applying these abstract concepts to a concrete political case. Particularly striking is Caballé’s assertion that Podemos’ fragmentation mirrors the disunity of political temporality itself, where prioritizing one temporal mode over the others inevitably leads to imbalance and conflict. This approach not only sheds light on Podemos but also provides a heuristic for analyzing broader left-populist movements. Caballé’s work is a masterclass in blending philosophy and political analysis, offering an original perspective on the existential dynamics of time in politics. His call for an “authentic politics” that integrates nostalgia, opportunism, and utopia underscores the necessity of temporal unity for sustainable political action.
Simon Tormey’s chapter, titled “Populisation: Populism – Temporary Dysfunction or Modernity’s Revenge?” offers a comprehensive and provocative exploration of populism’s entrenchment in modern politics, challenging conventional narratives that view it as a transient phenomenon. Tormey’s core argument positions populism not as an aberration but as a symptom of deeper systemic crises in liberal democracy and late modernity. Through his concept of “populisation,” he illustrates how populism has evolved into a normalized and persistent feature of the political landscape. The chapter critically interrogates the dominant frameworks in populism studies – treating it as a regime, strategy, or event – and instead reframes it as a product of endemic tendencies within late modernity. These tendencies, including globalization, media transformation, and the erosion of traditional authority, create fertile ground for populist movements and leaders. Tormey’s analysis links populism to the cultural and economic grievances exacerbated by modernity’s rapid changes, offering a nuanced explanation of its rise across the political spectrum.
Particularly compelling is the chapter’s assertion that populism thrives on the pervasive sense of crisis, amplified by new media technologies that foster immediacy, emotionality, and a demand for simplistic solutions. Tormey argues that these conditions have entrenched a style of politics characterized by spectacle, hyper-representation, and an “outsider” ethos that increasingly defines democratic engagement. Thus, Tormey positions populism as a response to, and symptom of, late modernity’s failures – a reflection of systemic anxiety and dislocation rather than a temporary disruption. His insights provide a vital framework for understanding populism’s permanence and its implications for democratic systems.
In his chapter, titled “Populism and the Mirror of Technology,” author Michaelangelo Anastasiou’s presents a critical intervention in populism studies by scrutinizing the predominance of synchronic analyses. He argues that such approaches reduce populism to static, episodic snapshots, neglecting its diachronic evolution and the political dynamics underlying its (re)constitution in time. This critique challenges the established methodologies within the field, which often favor universal definitions or linear cause-effect reasoning. Anastasiou identifies two significant shortcomings in current populism scholarship: first, the reliance on fixed typologies that fail to capture populism’s fluid and context-dependent manifestations; and second, the under-theorization of the political practices that enable populism’s emergence and evolution. By equating populism with a series of static outcomes, according to Anastasiou, these studies overlook its historical and temporal dimensions, thus underemphasizing the creative agency and disruptive potential inherent in populist politics.
The chapter advances a compelling theoretical framework grounded in post-Marxist thought, linking populism’s spatiotemporality to the affordances of modern technology. Technology, Anastasiou argues, acts as both an enabler of spatial connectivity and a catalyst for temporal disruption, thereby broadening the scope of populist possibilities. Through this lens, populism is positioned as a political logic rooted in the interplay of space and time, facilitated by the indeterminacy and dislocation characteristic of modern social configurations. The exploration of populism’s ontological ties to technology in this chapter offers an innovative perspective on its historical emergence and its adaptability across contexts. By situating populism within the broader socio-technological dynamics of modernity, Anastasiou provides a critique of synchronic methodologies, calling for a more nuanced, diachronic understanding of populist politics.
Jamie Ranger’s chapter, titled “Populism, Social Media and the Technospheric,” critically examines the intersection of populism, social media, and the “technospheric condition.” Drawing on Bernard Stiegler and Hartmut Rosa, Ranger argues that the technospheric condition—a sociotechnical milieu accelerating since the Industrial Revolution—reshapes politics by distorting democratic contestability into technical expertise. This environment fosters public distrust in political institutions and contributes to the resonance of populist rhetoric, which opposes “the people” against technocratic elites.
The chapter explores how the technospheric, underpinned by social media and the attention economy, intensifies political polarisation and disrupts traditional political processes. Ranger critiques the algorithmic steering of political affinities on platforms, arguing that chains of equivalence, central to populism, are increasingly shaped by algorithmic interference rather than authentic political will. This phenomenon, termed “semi-automated politics,” complicates the authenticity of populist solidarities, raising questions about the agency behind contemporary digital populism.
Ranger highlights the dual potential of social media as both a counter-hegemonic tool for progressive change and a breeding ground for reactionary forces. He emphasizes the risks of fragmented political subjectivities in the hyperconnected technospheric world, where misinformation and algorithm-driven partisanship challenge cohesive political mobilization. This chapter offers a deep analysis of the technospheric’s role in reshaping modern politics, making it a vital contribution to understanding populism’s rise in the digital age.
María Esperanza Casullo’s chapter, titled “Antagonism, Flexibility, and the Surprising Resilience of Populism in Latin America,” provides an incisive analysis of the resilience of Latin American populism, challenging dominant narratives that depict populism as a fleeting political phenomenon. By focusing on the leftist populist presidencies of Hugo Chávez, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Fernando Lugo, Casullo highlights how flexibility in antagonistic narratives and the capacity for rapid public mobilization underpin the endurance of these leaders in a politically volatile region.
Casullo effectively argues that populist leaders construct a compelling “myth” centered on a heroic leader, a villainous antagonist, and a damaged collective identity. This myth fosters unity among diverse constituencies and enables populists to adapt antagonistic rhetoric to shifting political contexts. Furthermore, she underscores the role of street mobilization as a critical tool for countering threats, illustrating how mass demonstrations often shield populist leaders from impeachment, protests, or coups. Her chapter also addresses objections to populist resilience, including arguments that attribute their longevity to favorable economic conditions or the absence of opposition. Casullo counters these claims by emphasizing the strategic nature of populist politics, which leverages antagonism and mobilization to navigate crises. Casullo’s exploration situates populism as a rational and effective political strategy, offering valuable insights into its persistent presence in Latin America’s political landscape.
Chapter 9 by Paula Biglieri and Gloria Perelló, titled “Populist Temporality in Latin America,” offers a theoretical exploration of the temporal and spatial dynamics of Latin American populism. Anchored in the works of Laclau and Mouffe, the authors argue that populism embodies an irreducible tension between rupture—a dislocation of established order—and spatialisation, the institutionalisation of new configurations. This duality, they contend, defines the “heart” of populist politics.
The chapter’s strength lies in its nuanced analysis of populist temporality as a moment of radical reactivation that disrupts entrenched practices, creating space for new possibilities. Biglieri and Perelló underscore how populist leaders connect this rupture to historical struggles, constructing a lineage that situates present movements as heirs of past resistance. This linkage not only legitimises their causes but also sustains popular mobilization by blending hope for the future with a reimagining of the past.
The authors also highlight how spatialisation translates populist ideals into institutional frameworks, such as constitutions that challenge neoliberal or colonial legacies. However, they argue that this institutionalisation never fully resolves the rupture, leaving an open-ended struggle that ensures the continuous evolution of populist politics.
Eleonora Mesquita Ceia’s chapter titled “Populism and Constitutionalism in Brazil: : An Enduring or Transitional Relationship in Time?” provides a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between populism and constitutionalism in Brazil’s political history. Through case studies of key populist leaders—from Getúlio Vargas to Jair Bolsonaro—the chapter examines how populist projects have alternately reinforced and challenged liberal-democratic constitutionalism. The chapter argues against the simplistic binary often drawn between populism and constitutionalism in Global North scholarship. Ceia highlights the diverse constitutional engagements of Brazilian populist regimes, noting how some, such as Lula’s and Dilma Rousseff’s administrations, upheld liberal-democratic principles, while others, like Vargas’s and Bolsonaro’s governments, pursued constitutional reforms and institutional capture to consolidate power.
Particularly striking is the chapter’s discussion of populism’s dual nature in Brazil, where it emerges as both a response to crises and a tool for political inclusion. Vargas’s reforms integrated the working class into the political process, while Bolsonaro’s far-right populism weaponized constitutional mechanisms to deepen societal divisions. Ceia underscores that these approaches reflect not populism as a monolith but its variability across time and contexts. A key takeaway from the chapter is the distinction between populism and authoritarian populism: while both can challenge liberal-democratic norms, only the latter consistently undermines constitutional protections and institutions. By contrasting different administrations’ approaches, Ceia offers an insightful critique of the notion of a “permanent populist constitutionalism” in Brazil. This chapter underscores the resilience of Brazil’s 1988 constitution, which has withstood authoritarian populist pressures, reaffirming the importance of institutional integrity in democratic systems.
Andy Knott’s concluding chapter titiled “Time for More? Populism’s Prospects” offers an examination of populism’s future by juxtaposing theoretical models with real-world contexts. Rather than presenting definitive answers, Knott embraces the speculative nature of his subject, framing populism as a contextual phenomenon shaped by crises and historical transitions. The chapter effectively contrasts Tormey’s populisation thesis, which views populism as a permanent feature of modern politics, with the cyclical model, which situates populism within recurring patterns of hegemonic breakdown and reconstruction. Knott’s use of sociological and ontological approaches enriches his exploration of populism’s adaptability and persistence. By grounding these models in historical examples from Europe and Latin America, the chapter avoids abstract theorizing, offering a nuanced understanding of populism’s dynamics. The critique of anti-populist narratives adds depth, challenging the dismissal of populism as an aberration.
Populism and Time: Temporalities of a Disruptive Politics is a thought-provoking exploration that repositions populism within the framework of time, challenging traditional spatial and ideological analyses. By delving into the temporal dimensions of populist emergence, endurance, and transformation, Knott and his contributors provide a groundbreaking interdisciplinary perspective on this political phenomenon. The book’s innovative use of temporal metaphors, alongside rigorous engagement with historical, philosophical, and regional contexts, illuminates populism’s dynamic interaction with crises and hegemonic transitions.
Knott’s editorial vision is particularly commendable for bridging philosophical insights and political realities, effectively situating populism as a phenomenon deeply intertwined with historical and temporal conditions. While some chapters revisit familiar theoretical debates, the collection as a whole offers fresh and innovative perspectives, especially through its focus on regional variations and the transformative interplay between technology and populist dynamics. This volume is an essential resource for scholars and students of political theory, providing a deeper and more nuanced understanding of populism as a diachronic force shaping contemporary politics. Ultimately, the book stands as a timely and significant contribution to the ongoing debate on populism’s evolving role in influencing and redefining political trajectories in the modern world.
Andy Knott (eds). (2024). Populism and Time: Temporalities of a Disruptive Politics. Edinburgh University Press. 272 pp. Hardcover $103,12, ISBN-10: 139952772X, ISBN-13: 978-1399527729
