Politicisation, Depoliticisation and Anti-Politics: Towards a Multilevel Research Agenda

Abstract

The concepts of ‘politicisation’ and ‘depoliticisation’ have become increasingly used by political scientists over the last decade, in light of the presumed ‘triumph’ of neoliberal ideology in the 1990s, and its subsequent challenge (‘re-politicisation’) by the 2008 financial crisis. Debate has emerged in the literature, however, over what conceptual strategy is best for critically analysing depoliticisation – ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’. This article argues for attempting to find common ground among ‘competing’ definitions, by viewing politicisation and depoliticisation as ‘multilevel’ concepts, with theoretical, analytical and empirical purchase. The uniting theme, it is argued, is a critical analysis of the dynamics of neoliberalism as a paradigm of political thought, and how that paradigm allegedly leads to the rise of ‘anti-politics’. Thinking about (de)politicisation in this way helps avoid facile conceptual reinvention and stimulates a coherent yet pluralistic research agenda focused on translating insights and criticism across macro, meso and micro levels.

Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate

“…In the depoliticisation process, political parties have converged on similar polices, leading to disenchantment and contempt among the electorate (Brandenburg 2011). Depoliticisation is said to contribute to anti-politics (Wood 2016). Although there has probably never been a "golden age" of democratic engagement, it seems clear that anti-political sentiment is on the rise in Britain (Clarke et al 2016).…”

Encouraging Action in the Private Sphere: Demand‐Side Practices in the Depoliticization of Economic Policy in Israel

“…Following the literature on neoliberal depoliticization, I define depoliticization as practices and processes in which economic issues are relocated beyond the reach of democratic politics . The literature views relocation as occurring through institutional reform and/or discursive efforts (Wood ). Politicians may relocate these issues through delegating authority for economic policy making to unelected bureaucratic experts or through establishing rules that formally bind their own discretion.…”

“…Some scholars have recently discussed the need to study depoliticization and repoliticization together (see e.g., Beveridge and Naumann ; Jenkins ; Wood ; Wood and Flinders ). The framework presented here suggests that repoliticization processes, at least those pushed for by societal actors, are not necessarily a counter‐response to depoliticization but may have their roots in depoliticization practices themselves.…”

“…Burnham ; Flinders and Buller ). Nonetheless—and in spite of the variety of theoretical perspectives and methods of inquiry it presents (see Wood ; Wood and Flinders )—the depoliticization literature is strikingly unified in its concern with “supply‐side” practices of relocation; that is, practices aimed to discourage public action of politicians and societal actors in regard to economic policy. According to existing literature, these practices involve the removal of control over economic policy from elected officials and forums, the closure of social and political spaces for deliberation on the economy, and the denial of political agency (Beveridge and Naumann ; Burnham ; Flinders and Buller ; Hay ; Kettell ).…”

“…Moving beyond theory, this implies a concerted effort to motivate citizens to withdraw from political participation, thus undermining an important pillar of the democratic regime. Another implication of the demand‐side notion touches the relationship between depoliticization and repoliticization (Beveridge and Naumann ; Jenkins ; Wood ; Wood and Flinders ). In this article, I point out the substantial link between the two processes in that repoliticization processes may be shaped by the declining effectiveness of channels created for depoliticization purposes.…”