Public Epistemologies and Intellectual Interventions in Contemporary Italy

Brandmayr, Federico

doi:10.1007/s10767-019-09346-3

“… 2. Populism is not consistently opposed to expertise per se. As an anti-institutional and anti-establishment political style, populism challenges experts and forms of expertise associated with the establishment and its institutions, while at the same time often appealing to counter-experts (Ylä-Anttila, 2018; Brandmayr, 2019; Schulman, 2020). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxes of populism during the pandemic

Brubaker

¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populist protests against Coronavirus-related restrictions in the US appear paradoxical in three respects. Populism is generally hostile to expertise, yet it has flourished at a moment when expertise has seemed more indispensable than ever. Populism thrives on crisis and indeed often depends on fabricating a sense of crisis, yet it has accused mainstream politicians and media of overblowing and even inventing the Corona crisis. Populism, finally, is ordinarily protectionist, yet it has turned anti-protectionist during the pandemic and challenged the allegedly overprotective restrictions of the nanny-state. I address each apparent paradox in turn before speculating in conclusion about how populist distrust of expertise, antipathy to government regulation, and skepticism toward elite overprotectiveness may come together – in the context of intersecting medical, economic, political, and epistemic crises – in a potent and potentially dangerous mix.

show abstract

“…This discursive process can form a discursive institution, and this process occurs every time because of the coordinative discourse and communicative discourse occurs at any time. Therefore, he explained institutional change and continuity more dynamically and adaptively to social changes and political dynamics, by changing public epistemology (Brandmayr, 2019). This is what distinguishes it from the previous three institutionalism namely sociological institutionalism, historical institutionalism, and rational institutionalism in terms of institutional meaning, institutional change, interests, uncertainty, norms, and relativism (Schmidt, 2017b;Schmidt, 2015).…”

Section: Discursive Institutionalism: Bridging Multi-vector Power Relmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discursive Institutionalism as Framework of Analysis for Multi-Vector Power Relations in Organizing Political Parties

Kuswandoro¹,

Marijan²,

Nugroho³

2020

OJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates power relations in Intra-Party Democracy in the study of organizing political parties. Intra-Party Democracy refers to the notion of formal political institutions, whereas the political process more often occurs informally, personally, multi-vector which involves multi actors, multi political resources and power relations no longer come from formal institutional sources but any direction and beyond the reach of formal institutions. Using the literature review method, this article enhances the explanation of Intra-Party Democracy by presenting the perspective of Discursive Institutionalism as an analytical framework that bridges multi-vector power relations that occur in organizing political parties. Discursive Institutionalism explores the actors' discursive capabilities, namely coordinative discourse and communicative discourse in the discursive process in organizing political parties.

show abstract

“…2 Populism is not consistently opposed to expertise per se. As an anti-institutional and anti-establishment political style, populism challenges experts and forms of expertise associated with the establishment and its institutions, while at the same time often appealing to counter-experts (Ylä-Anttila, 2018;Brandmayr, 2019;Schulman, 2020).…”

Section: Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxes of populism during the pandemic

Brubaker

¹

2021

Intersections

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populist protests against Coronavirus-related restrictions in the US appear paradoxical in three respects. Populism is generally hostile to expertise, yet it has flourished at a moment when expertise has seemed more indispensable than ever. Populism thrives on crisis and indeed often depends on fabricating a sense of crisis, yet it has accused mainstream politicians and media of overblowing and even inventing the Corona crisis. Populism, finally, is ordinarily protectionist, yet it has turned anti-protectionist during the pandemic and challenged the allegedly overprotective restrictions of the nanny-state. I address each apparent paradox in turn before speculating in conclusion about how populist distrust of expertise, antipathy to government regulation, and skepticism toward elite overprotectiveness may come together – in the context of intersecting medical, economic, political, and epistemic crises – in a potent and potentially dangerous mix.

show abstract

Public Epistemologies and Intellectual Interventions in Contemporary Italy

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

Paradoxes of populism during the pandemic

Paradoxes of populism during the pandemic

Discursive Institutionalism as Framework of Analysis for Multi-Vector Power Relations in Organizing Political Parties

Paradoxes of populism during the pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About