Populism as a Conceptual Problem: Disciplinary Differentiation, Specialization, and the Complex Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article proposes an interesting discussion about the concept of Populism and its flaws, which are widely discussed in literature. I have some comments that I hope can be useful for improving the manuscript. Please find them below:

- In Table 2, you present a new classification of the existent theoretical approaches to Populism in three categories. I kept thinking if the approach of populism as an "anti-incumbent", "anti-establishment" or "anti-mainstream" attitude does not also fit in the "political strategic" category. Similarly, does the approach of populism as an attempt of persuasion not fit in the "ideational approach" category, too? This shows how the different approaches may be linked to different primary ones, which weakens the categorization.

- Right after Table 2 you point out how Ernesto Laclau's ideas "transverse all the approaches." But right after that you say that Laclau's theory does not contain the others. The explanation of your argument was not clear to me, I suggest you elaborate it better.

- Still concerning Laclau, I felt that you neglected his ideas during the manuscript. Considering his importance for Populism studies, I believe you should explore his theory better and explain how it relates to the approach you are proposing.

- On page 5, the following excerpt was not clear to me: "The approach also rejects, by definition, any genuine populist leader. This is hard to determine accurately, and ultimately is not relevant, but it shows the limitations of the preconceptions of this view." Maybe when you say "genuine populist leader" you are referring to a popular leader instead? 

- On page 7, line 303, you say that the characterization of populism as an anti-democratic phenomenon prevents it from being described in non-democratic regimes. Why? It is unclear. 

- I believe the discussion of paradigms in the social sciences, as well as of differentiation and specialization, is not central to the article. You could mention it but not dedicate so much space to that. It breaks the rhythm of the article.

- The discussion about the concept of society is also important but, in my opinion, can be shorter so you can explore better other aspects related to Populism theory, such as Laclau's ideas.

- Why, in Table 3, you don't consider your own division, as proposed in Table 2?

- Isn't the definition you propose for Populism too vague? It is so wide that may be deflating its importance. I think you have to justify it better. 

- On page 17, the following sentence seemed a bit reductionist to me: "We observe populism if it reaches a certain undetermined – likely variable – threshold, thus allowing for a perception of discontinuity." Aren't there other factors?

Thanks for the opportunity to read your work. I hope the suggestions help you to improve the article.

Author Response

Thank you vermy much for your constructive and thorough review! You find our responses below.

Overall: The changes in the text are highlighted in red. We also improved the paper regarding your feedback in the chart.

Comment 1: In Table 2, you present a new classification of the existent theoretical approaches to Populism in three categories. I kept thinking if the approach of populism as an "anti-incumbent", "anti-establishment" or "anti-mainstream" attitude does not also fit in the "political strategic" category. Similarly, does the approach of populism as an attempt of persuasion not fit in the "ideational approach" category, too? This shows how the different approaches may be linked to different primary ones, which weakens the categorization.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your remark as it reveals your close and critical reading of our paper. Regarding the possible recategorization: In this table we only refer to the distinct cited approaches, although we appreciate your reflection. We would reply that you argue here from a Laclauian perspective, which justifies undoubtedly your recategorization. But as we refer only to the cited literature and the dominant research subsumed under these approaches, we would defend the categorization respectively: 1) The mainstream and cited research is asking for the social strata and groups open to populism. 2) Persuasion and Ideational. Since Persuasion is highly dependent on the audience, we understand your idea, but the discussed approaches are focusing on the strategies and not the linked ideas.(But with Laclau this is already arguably the point) Thank you very much for your ideas, as they show, that we must make this point clear and delve more into the merits and distinctiveness of Laclau, who is much less reductionist than the others. We added this to our paper, after table 2

Comment 2: Right after Table 2 you point out how Ernesto Laclau's ideas "transverse all the approaches." But right after that you say that Laclau's theory does not contain the others. The explanation of your argument was not clear to me, I suggest you elaborate it better.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. See our argument above, as we implemented it together.

 Comment 3:  Still concerning Laclau, I felt that you neglected his ideas during the manuscript. Considering his importance for Populism studies, I believe you should explore his theory better and explain how it relates to the approach you are proposing.

Response 3: Thank you for your remark!  It really enhanced our paper.

Comment 4:  On page 5, the following excerpt was not clear to me: "The approach also rejects, by definition, any genuine populist leader. This is hard to determine accurately, and ultimately is not relevant, but it shows the limitations of the preconceptions of this view." Maybe when you say "genuine populist leader" you are referring to a popular leader instead? 

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. We reformulated and elaborated the paragraph. We refer to a figure that believes in the ideas that conveys to the public, rather than using them just as a tool to attract supporters without ac-tual ideological commitment –as implied by the political strategic approach.

Comment 5: On page 7, line 303, you say that the characterization of populism as an anti-democratic phenomenon prevents it from being described in non-democratic regimes. Why? It is unclear. 

Response 5: Thank you for your remark, we elaborated it and marked the changes red.

Comment 6:  I believe the discussion of paradigms in the social sciences, as well as of differentiation and specialization, is not central to the article. You could mention it but not dedicate so much space to that. It breaks the rhythm of the article.

Response 6: We understand your suggestion as your answers and familiarity with theory suggest that you are also familiar with epistemological discussions. But in our experience many scholars do not wonder about these questions which lead to the discussed problem (the many different perspectives and approaches that do lack the possibility to get integrate). Furthermore, our answer “the complex perspective to populism” derives from our epistemological considerations, that constitute the foundation of our latter argument. Hence, we are convinced that they are an integral part of our argument, especially the part on “ontology”. We added this to the text to explain, why this section is key to our whole discussion and got rid of a few sentences and paragraphs.

Comment 7:  The discussion about the concept of society is also important but, in my opinion, can be shorter so you can explore better other aspects related to Populism theory, such as Laclau's ideas.

Response 7: Thank you for your recommendations to make our paper shorter. Since we added the aspects relating Laclau and made some other aspects shorter we think we can keep this section.

Comment 8:  Why, in Table 3, you don't consider your own division, as proposed in Table 2?

Response 8: Thank you for your remark, we added our division!

Comment 9:  Isn't the definition you propose for Populism too vague? It is so wide that may be deflating its importance. I think you have to justify it better. 

Response 9: Thank you for your remark. We added a remark on that, as this questions links also back to our epistemological considerations. We marked them red on page 16.  

Comment 10:  On page 17, the following sentence seemed a bit reductionist to me: "We observe populism if it reaches a certain undetermined – likely variable – threshold, thus allowing for a perception of discontinuity." Aren't there other factors?

Response 10: Thank you for your remark. We elaborated this point.

Comment 11: Thanks for the opportunity to read your work. I hope the suggestions help you to improve the article.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable feedback that improved our paper significantly!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable conceptual paper that, using a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, analyses and reviews the different meanings of the term populism, a concept that has undergone an extraordinary theoretical development over the last decade, especially in the field of political science. Moreover, the use of this term has grown exponentially in colloquial and media language, which adds value to this paper which dissects its different meanings. The paper has a number of merits, including an effective review of the extensive literature that has dealt with the concept - including not only more recent contributions but also its older uses -; the analysis of its interrelationship with other concepts to which it is linked, such as democracy and (in)equality, and its ability to transcend purely political science approaches, providing insights from other disciplines. Particularly valuable and useful in this respect is the syncretic definition and summary of phenomena with which the concept is associated in section 4.2 (pp. 15-16)

Although the English is generally correct and understandable, I invite the authors to revise certain paragraphs or sentences that I found more difficult to understand, perhaps simply because of the syntactic construction:

Fifth paragraph (pg. 5: lines 192-197): I have not managed to understand well what the authors mean in this paragraph.

Second paragraph (pg. 6: 231-237) Although I think I understand the meaning of the paragraph, I think the authors can refine their explanation, especially with regard to the first sentence which I think is not well understood.

In Table 2 row 7 there is a type in Spanish: ‘Populismo como una ideología’ (Populism as an ideology).

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive and thorough review.

Overall: The changes in the text are highlighted in red. We also improved the paper regarding your feedback in the chart.

Comment 1: This is a valuable conceptual paper that, using a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, analyses and reviews the different meanings of the term populism, a concept that has undergone an extraordinary theoretical development over the last decade, especially in the field of political science. Moreover, the use of this term has grown exponentially in colloquial and media language, which adds value to this paper which dissects its different meanings. The paper has a number of merits, including an effective review of the extensive literature that has dealt with the concept - including not only more recent contributions but also its older uses -; the analysis of its interrelationship with other concepts to which it is linked, such as democracy and (in)equality, and its ability to transcend purely political science approaches, providing insights from other disciplines. Particularly valuable and useful in this respect is the syncretic definition and summary of phenomena with which the concept is associated in section 4.2 (pp. 15-16)

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive and well-received feedback!

Comment 2: Although the English is generally correct and understandable, I invite the authors to revise certain paragraphs or sentences that I found more difficult to understand, perhaps simply because of the syntactic construction:

Response 2: Thank you for your remarks, we worked on the specific phrases

Comment 3: Fifth paragraph (pg. 5: lines 192-197): I have not managed to understand well what the authors mean in this paragraph.

Response 3: Thank you for your remark. We completely see your point. We elaborated and reformulated the paragraph. We marked the changed red in the newest version.

Comment 4: Second paragraph (pg. 6: 231-237) Although I think I understand the meaning of the paragraph, I think the authors can refine their explanation, especially with regard to the first sentence which I think is not well understood.

Response 4: Thank you for your remark. We completely see your point. We elaborated and reformulated the paragraph. We marked the changed red in the newest version.

Comment 5: In Table 2 row 7 there is a type in Spanish: ‘Populismo como una ideología’ (Populism as an ideology).

Response 5: Thank you for reading our paper with such a scrutiny!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for considering my suggestions. I believe you need to revise the manuscript: in some of the changes you ended up repeating some words. I.e., writing can be improved after the changes.

Author Response

Thanks for considering my suggestions. I believe you need to revise the manuscript: in some of the changes you ended up repeating some words. I.e., writing can be improved after the changes.

Response:

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for improving our paper. We have revised the whole paper and done a thorough proofreading. We got rid of all the repetitions we could find (there were several). Thank you for your advice.
All the best, 
The authors