Social Typological Analysis of Populism and Its Li...
It is difficult to get a satisfactory universal definition or theory through attempt to generalize the concept of populism.In view of the limitations that can hardly be solved with this strategy，British scholar Margaret Canovan has shifted the focus of research from the general theory of populism to the description of populism types.
Margaret Canovan argues that although there are some controversies over many terms in political science，there is still a commonly recognized“conceptual core”，while the term “populism” does not even have a commonly recognized “conceptual core”.Since populism refers to a variety of different phenomena，any useful explanation must be able to simplify such diversity to some extent and make it hold.As for the conceptualization of populism，a common strategy is to try to place different examples of populism under the same “theoretical roof” so as to explain the essential characteristics of populism and the conditions for its occurrence，just like a physicist studying the essential structure of a matter.[28]
However，although the desire to generalize the concept of populism is wonderful，researches fall into a trap in reality: in order to cover all the phenomena called “populism”，the concept of populism needs to be inclusive enough；however，the concept thus established is often too comprehensive that it covers everything.[29] In other words，with the generalization strategy of the concept of populism，it has always been difficult to effectively solve the contradiction between “comprehensiveness”and “clarity” of the concept.When the comprehensiveness is extended to cover as many objects as possible，the clarity of the concept of populism will surely be greatly reduced.On the contrary，in order to make the concept of populism clearer，it is necessary to artificially exclude some objects，which will reduce the comprehensiveness of the concept.For example，some scholars will choose populist examples with some common characteristics to refine the definition of populism.Therefore，although the definition of populism formed therefrom has the inherent unity of theory，it also makes the definition itself exclusive，namely，examples having no such characteristics are excluded from populism.Different scholars will choose different examples of populism，and the definitions of populism formed on this basis are bound to be mutually exclusive.
Considering the limitations of the “generalization” strategies，Canovan proposed a conceptualization strategy that can be called “type description”.Canovan argued that a preferable strategy for populism，a broad and diverse movement and phenomenon，is to classify these phenomena.The emergence and naming of populist phenomena are highly historical fortuitous，and therefore，we cannot assume that they have some common characteristics；however，we can construct a type description to find out in what sense they are called “populism”.Therefore，this strategy no longer explores the essential characteristics of populism or analyzes the causes and conditions for the formation of populism.Instead，it seeks to empirically describe the phenomenon known as “populism” in social science literature and in history from the perspective of social typology，adapting to its diversity by classifying it.As Canovan said，this strategy is phenomenological，just like a naturalist collecting insects and sorting them into groups，focusing on the “description of experience” rather than the“explanation of theory”，and aiming at “inclusiveness” rather than “the beauty of theory”.[30]
Based on this strategy，Canovan classified the phenomena of“populism” in history or literature into seven types: Farmers Radicalism，Revolutionary Intellectual Populism，Peasant Populism，Politicians ’Populism，Populist Dictatorship，Populist Democracy，and Reactionary Populism.Farmers Radicalism，referring to social movements with farmers as the main body，advocates the promotion of radical economic policies through the government of the “people”，such as the Populist Party movement of the United States and the Social Credit Party movement of Canada.Revolutionary Intellectual Populism，referring to peasant socialist movements initiated by revolutionary intellectuals，idealizes peasants and tries to transcend capitalism，such as the populist movement in Russia.Peasant Populism refers to grassroots peasant movements fighting for“land and freedom” and promoting small producer cooperatives and traditionalism，such as the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union movement.Populist Dictatorship means that charismatic leaders control public opinions to gain and maintain power，such as Juan Domingo Perón and Huey Pierce Long.Populist Democracy refers to movements or programs that urge the formation of governments directly responsible to the people through forms like referendum，people ’s initiative，and people ’s referendum，such as Direct Democracy of Switzerland.Reactionary Populism means that political leaders deliberately use the contradictions and differences between different social groups，especially ethnic groups，to win political power，such as George Corley Wallace and Enoch Powell.And Politicians ’ Populism means that politicians deliberately blur the concept of“people” and try to package themselves as “national” parties or leaders，such as Charles de Gaulle and Jimmy Carter.[31]
Canovan included the majority of populist examples through “type description” and established an “encyclopedia” of populist phenomena，which is helpful to grasp some common characteristics of populism by type and has important practical significance for understanding and grasping complicated populist phenomena.However，it should be noted that this “type description” still has its own limitations.First of all，the criteria for type classification lack internal consistency，and there are multiple reference systems，causing classification of populism lack a strict system.Second，many examples of populism do not necessarily belong to a certain type，and some may belong to multiple types.Therefore，there ’s overlapping of types.For example，Latin American populism belongs to both the Politicians ’ Populism and the Populist Dictatorship；the Populist Party of the United States belongs to both the Farmers Radicalism and the Politicians ’ Populism.It is obvious that this type classification of populism artificially cuts off the diversified nature of populist phenomena，forcing them to fall into a single type in pieces.Third，deliberately avoiding the universal essence and characteristics of populism cannot solve the problem，it will only make the simple type description lack sufficient theoretical confidence.