Rethinking Politicisation in Politics, Sociology and International Relations

By Claudia Wiesner

This book decisively advances the academic debate on politicisation beyond the state of the art. It is the first book to theorise and conceptualise ‘politicisation’ across the epistemic communities of different subdisciplines, bringing together the different strands in the debate: (international) political theory, political sociology, comparative politics, EU studies, legal theory and international relations. This provides a comprehensive discussion of different concepts of politicisation, their ontological and theoretical backgrounds, and their analytical value, including speech-act, practice- and actor-oriented approaches. Furthermore, the linkages of politicisation to the concepts of politics and the political, democracy, depoliticisation, juridification, populism, and Euroscepticism are clarified. Finally, the book shows how the methodological toolbox in empirical politicisation research can be completed regarding different arenas, actors and modes of politicisation. The volume thus provides a much-needed theoretical and conceptual reflection to the newly emerging research field of politicisation in order to recognise and define the key issues and build a solid foundation for further debate and empirical research. 
‘When does something come to be considered political - for good or for ill? In social scientific terms, what is politicisation, under what conditions does it occur, created by whom, and with what consequences. These questions drive this outstanding collection of papers that explore how politicization is to be theorized and methodologies for its study. Rather than just a special sphere of activity, the volume demonstrates how politics is best thought of as an activity that can occur across individual and various collective levels. One of the signature contributions of this volume is its exploration of these issues across disciplines: political science, philosophy, sociology and international relations. The texts will be of interest toall students of politics at a time when the very basis of political identity, action, and organization is contested, normatively and analytically. The texts will help bring clarity to these debates.’

 —David L. Swartz, Department of Sociology, Boston University, USA

‘Politization has become a widely used and disputed term In International Relations (IR) and more recently in comparative politics as well. This edited volume tries to elevate the term politization onto an analytical concept by i.a. opening it up for action theoretical and organizational approaches. One of the great achievements of the editor is to bring conceptual order into a dispersed debate across political science and its subdisciplines. Moreover, the contributions show how to apply the concept(s) of politization on such different subjects such as democratization, de-democratization, transitions, denationalization or the emergence of populism and Euroscepticism. This is a muchawaited bookwhich can become a conceptual point of reference for better understanding the evolution of national and international regimes.’

—Wolfgang Merkel, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Release date: Jan 4, 2021
• ISBN: 9783030545451

Book preview

© The Author(s) 2021

C. Wiesner (ed.)Rethinking Politicisation in Politics, Sociology and International RelationsPalgrave Studies in European Political Sociologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54545-1_1

1. Introduction: Rethinking Politicisation in Politics, Sociology and International Relations

Claudia Wiesner¹  

(1)

Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany

Claudia Wiesner

Email: [e-mail]

Keywords

PoliticisationTheoriesMethodsSubdisciplinesepistemic communitiesInternational RelationsEU Studies(International) Political TheoryComparative PoliticsPolitical Sociology and Legal Theory

1.1 What Is Politicisation? Opening the Debate

The point of departure for this volume is an apparent contradiction in the current academic debate: on the one hand, there is a hugely increased interest in politicisation as a topic in the Political and Social Sciences, and, on the other hand, the state of the art of this debate is marked by disparateness and several open questions. More concretely, politicisation as a concept is often used in an unspecific and under-theorised way, going the second step of empirical research before the first step, which should consist in theoretical and conceptual clarification. The newly emerging field of politicisation research is in lack of thorough theoretical and conceptual reflection in order to build a solid foundation to the further debate and empirical research. This is why this volume aims, first and generally, at a theoretical and conceptual clarification of the concept of politicisation and its operationalisation.

Moreover, the state of the art of the politicisation debate shows a separation into different subfields and subdisciplines—and this means: into separate and often disconnected epistemic communities. Politicisation of the European Union (EU) and in International Relations (IR) are discussed, on the one hand, but politicisation and depoliticisation are also thematised in fields such as (International) Political Theory, Comparative Politics, Political Sociology or Legal Theory. So far, these debates are barely connected, even if each subfield has important contributions to make to the general question of how to theorise, conceptualise and operationalise politicisation. But as the epistemic communities are largely disconnected, this theoretical and conceptual richness has remained nearly unexplored. What is more, the different epistemic communities largely have been adhering to their specific paradigms and following their own particular paths of conceptualising and operationalising politicisation, and, as will be discussed in a number of chapters in this volume (see especially Kauppi and Trenz, Liste, Robert, von Staden and Wiesner), as well as in this introduction and the conclusion, this leads to different forms of shortcomings and gaps in the respective approaches. Each particular theoretical, methodological and ultimately empirical lens limits the researcher’s focus: you only can find what you search for. Accordingly, each analytical lens only allows to see part of the reality and hence only part of the phenomena at stake. In order to overcome these limitations, it is necessary to open different perspectives and use different tools (as is the mission of mixed methods research). This also means that a debate across subdisciplines and, even more importantly, across epistemic communities and beyond their standard truths and established instruments is necessary.

This is why this volume aims at a thorough rethinking of politicisation as a general Social Sciences concept. It offers the first systematic attempt to theorise and conceptualise politicisation across the epistemic communities of different subdisciplines. The cross-subdisciplinary approach opens up new avenues for theorising, conceptualising and operationalising politicisation. With this approach, the book opens not only decisive new perspectives in the current debate on politicisation, it also allows for important synergies and knowledge generation by making the different subdisciplines mutually fruitful. This is also what distinguishes this volume from most other contributions on politicisation that usually stem from one of the subdisciplines and hence from one epistemic community only.

In particular, the volume provides a thorough discussion of different concepts of politicisation and their ontological and theoretical backgrounds, conceptualisation and analytical value. It also explores the theoretical, conceptual and analytical linkages of politicisation and its relation to neighbouring or countervailing concepts such as politics, the political, democracy, depoliticisation, juridification, populism and Euroscepticism. The chapters discuss how the concept of politicisation can be operationalised and applied to different empirical examples and cases, and how the methodological toolbox of politicisation research can be broadened. In particular, the chapters go beyond a sole focus on the classical political system, its actors and institutions, and a methodological orientation on quantifications. The discussion in this book hence opens broad, comprehensive and new perspectives on politicisation that not only unite approaches and conceptualisations from different subdisciplines but also go well beyond the state of the art. The volume decisively advances the academic debate on politicisation.

1.2 Aims and Questions

As the editor, I wanted to value and validate the strengths of the different backgrounds, perspectives, approaches and (sub)disciplines the authors represent. Therefore, when we worked on the chapters, I did not prescribe a notion or definition of politicisation to be used by the authors. On the contrary, they were invited to discuss and develop their respective and specific approaches. This leads to a book consisting of chapters that rely on different theoretical backgrounds, follow different approaches and discuss different dimensions of conceptualising politicisation.

However, the general aims of the book sketched above were taken up by all authors. In the discussion in the chapters, they condensate into four fields of dimensions that are crucial for conceptualising politicisation:

1.

The theories, understandings and/or definitions of politics and the political that conceptualisations of politicisation relate to;

2.

The who, where and what of politicisation: dimensions, actors, issues, objects, addressees, areas, arenas and spaces of politicisation;

3.

The relation of politicisation to concepts such as democracy, depoliticisation, juridification, legalisation, populism or Euroscepticism;

4.

The methodological toolbox and the approaches and dimensions of empirical study of politicisation.

These four fields relate to the fact that politicisation is a concept that refers to several levels of meaning, namely a theoretical and normative level of general or principled normative, ethical, political or social questions; a level that refers to the more concrete dimensions such as the institutions, actors, issues, processes, arenas and spaces of politicisation; and, finally, a level that refers to the specific analytical understanding and operationalisation of these research dimensions, that is, the research strategies, research methods and research items. These levels of meaning can be considered as macro-, meso- and micro levels of a concept (see Chap. 2 in this book). The four fields mentioned above will now be discussed in detail.

1.2.1 Conceptualising Politicisation and Its Relation to Politics

Conceptualising politicisation accordingly begins at the theoretical or macro level of meaning. This concerns first the normative, theoretical and conceptual relation of politicisation to politics, or the political, as the understanding of what is considered politicisation crucially depends on the understanding of what is politics/political. This means, in return, that the concept of politics or the political that is, respectively, at the theoretical basis is decisive for the further conceptualisation of politicisation.

It can be noted for a start that there are different definitions of politics that can be used in conceptualising politicisation. While in the academic debate on politicisation, a systems or a field perspective on politics is dominant, the chapters in the book underline that politics itself can be interpreted in different ways. As is discussed especially by Palonen and Wiesner, politics can be understood, respectively, as action, as conflict, as sphere, as field, as arena and as system. Depending on whether the emphasis is put on (a) an activity-oriented approach to politics, seeing it as action or conflict or (b) on seeing politics as a sphere, system or field, different approaches to politicisation develop. In one understanding, politicisation is defined as action based; in the other, it has a spatial connotation. However, as discussed throughout the book in several of the chapters, these approaches are to be understood as ideal-types, not in a simple either-or opposition (see the Chaps. 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12).

The authors in the volume draw their innovative definitions and operationalisations of politicisation from various traditions of thought in Political and Social Theory, be it agonistic Political Theory (Chap. 3), the concept of post-democracy (Chaps. 5 and 7), a rethinking of Parliamentarism (Chap. 4), Bourdieusian and Habermasian sociology (Chap. 8) or Critical Legal Theory (Chap. 12).

1.2.2 The Who, What and Where of Politicisation: Beyond a Systems Approach to Politics

These different understandings of politics, and especially the question whether it is understood as activity-based or as spatial, raise two further questions that are highly relevant for conceptualising politicisation both theoretically and analytically: first, what are the boundaries of politics, and should politics at all be conceptualised with boundaries? And second, what is a decisive degree of relevance of political conflicts or actions, and from which point onwards should they be made an object of analysis? These questions are directly related to actorship, issues and locations of politicisation, or the who, where and what of politicisation: who can politicise? What is an object of politicisation? What are the spaces, spheres and arenas in which politicisation takes place? All these points refer, on one hand, to the macro level of meaning of the concept, and, on the other hand, to its different dimensions, that is, to the meso level of meaning of the concept of politicisation.

In the current academic debate on politicisation, most empirical approaches rely on a systems model of politics and the relevant actors and issues. More particularly, they focus on the classical political system (parties and institutions) or the international system (international institutions), and the mass media. Politicisation is, then and consequently, often regarded in a top-down logic (parties and institutions that address voters) and in dichotomies that ask for agents and their audience (see the discussion in the Chaps. 2, 8, 9 and 11).

The chapters in this book go beyond such a systems approach regarding the who, what and where of politicisation and its analysis because they follow innovative theoretical and conceptual paths: when building upon traditions and perspectives in Political and Social Theory such as agonistic political theory or a politics-as-action perspective, other and more open models of politics and hence broader conceptualisations of politicisation follow. It is then understood as the act of marking something as political, as the opening of a Spielzeitraum, as the moment that brings the political to the fore or as the active use of contingency, as is discussed later and in a number of chapters of the book (see especially Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12). All these understandings have in common that politicisation is not fixed to specific contexts or circumstances, but to action, and the who, where and what of politicisation hence can be searched and found potentially everywhere.

This raises the question whether and to what extent politicisation is conceptualised with boundaries. Purely action-oriented approaches in principle consider politics and politicisation as being unlimited and without boundaries, which brings about obvious analytical difficulties: if politics has no boundaries, where does research start (see also the discussion in Chap. 13)? If, on the other hand, politics is considered a sphere or field, it can well be understood to include actors and issues outside the classical political system, but politicisation then, nevertheless, refers to moving actors or issues into, or out of, this sphere. As said earlier, these differentiations do not describe exclusive dichotomies, but conceptual ideal-types. Accordingly, politics as action can be conceptualised in a sphere or field concept of politics, and also in the classical political system, and vice-versa. All these considerations have to be well-grounded and well-reflected in order to build a solid research design for politicisation.

1.2.3 The Garden of Concepts Around Politicisation

Both the tasks of theoretically clarifying politicisation and of defining its research dimensions include exploring what can be termed the garden of concepts around politicisation, that is, the concepts that relate to politicisation. This means, once more, to clarify the macro- and the meso level of meaning of politicisation.

One other concept that is decisive for theorising and conceptualising politicisation is democracy. In the current academic politicisation debate, the relation between politicisation and democracy is often, and again, thematised in dichotomies: while populist or openly anti-democratic politicisation is frequently discussed as a danger or at least a challenge for democracy, other voices underline that politicisation can have democratising effects.

The chapters in this book go beyond this dichotomy. They underline that there is no simple answer to the question whether politicisation is beneficial or harmful for democracy. Politicisation is discussed as strengthening democracy if it is democratic politicisation, and as potentially harmful if it is anti-democratic politicisation (Chap. 2) or a politicisation that does not bring the political to the fore (Chap. 5). Furthermore, some chapters in this book discuss the relation of politicisation and democracy in terms of the theoretical conceptions of democracy that are behind concepts of politicisation (Chap. 3) and in relation to institutions (Chaps. 4 and 11), parties and voting (Chaps. 6 and 7).

This open perspective on the relation of politicisation and democracy is also enlightening for the relation of the concept of politicisation to two other concepts: politicisation in the academic debate is often critically linked to populism and Euroscepticism. It is seen as provoking contestation and system criticism, hindering EU integration and triggering populism. Accordingly, a number of chapters explore these links conceptually and regarding empirical findings (see Chaps. 6, 7, 8 and 9). They underline that it is not politicisation per se that causes populism and Euroscepticism but that both these are an outcome of specific type of politicisation processes, namely populist and/or Eurosceptic, or even anti-democratic politicisations (see Chaps. 2 and 5 in this book).

The discussion in the book, furthermore, indicates that a predominantly negative judgement of politicisation is related to biases in epistemic communities. First, as Robert convincingly shows, some integration scholars and EU representatives depict representative democracy as dangerous, inadequate to solve problems and even irrational. She explains how this judgement has led both EU representatives and EU scholars to support mechanisms circumventing representative democracy. Second, specific theoretical, conceptual and methodological choices influence the assessment of EU politicisation and the prediction of its effects. What is termed ‘pessimist model’ of EU politicisation by Wiesner is an outcome of a systems model of politics and an analysis of a limited amount of actors and dynamics, out of whom a great number are populist and/or anti-EU and/or anti-democratic. If such normative, theoretical and methodological choices are opened up, a broader set of actors and issues can be included in the analysis, and the general positive effects of politicisation can get into sight—which unfolds the possibility of an ‘optimist model’ (see Chap. 2 in this book).

The conceptual relations between politicisation and depoliticisation, juridification and legalisation are explored in a number of chapters in this book. This means to close another gap in the current academic debate, as especially the discussion on depoliticisation is rarely connected to the one on politicisation. Contrary to this, several authors in this book discuss depoliticisation as linked to politicisation, be it as a countervailing force (Chap. 8), as a connected phenomenon (Chap. 10) or as an opposite tendency (Chap. 2). Depoliticisation is often linked to processes of bureaucratisation and expertise (Chap. 10), as well as legalisation and juridification (Chaps. 2 and 12). Juridification describes what is meant by the German term Verrechtlichung : the fact that issues, decisions and policy areas are defined as legal issues and not as political ones, which makes them seem not to be objects of political action. Juridification in this sense has a depoliticising effect (see Chap. 12 in this book).

These discussions underline that the conceptual linkages of politicisation to its neighbouring concepts should be more systematically explored. The chapters in the book make an important contribution here and hence build the groundwork for a solid and broad theoretical and conceptual approach to the garden of concepts around politicisation.

1.2.4 Broadening the Methodological Toolbox in Politicisation Studies

Finally, this volume aims at opening up the academic debate on new analytical developments in politicisation research and at broadening the methodological toolbox. This refers to the micro or third level of meaning of the concept, that is, the concrete research strategies and items. When it comes to the approaches and dimensions of empirical study, the chapters underline that empirical accounts on politicisation need to be better linked to the theoretical questions raised earlier—the concept of politics that is behind politicisation, the linkages to the neighbouring concepts and phenomena, and the questions regarding the boundaries, issues and actors of politics—in order to fully grasp the research subject. Concise reflection of these aspects leads the way to clearly set research dimensions. So far, this reflection has been rare, and this, in return, limits the range and focus of empirical research on politicisation.

This relates, once more, to the fact that the epistemic communities are too disconnected. While it is a standard in Democratic Theory to discuss the history of ideas of different concepts of politics and democracy, it is not in empirical research on democracy. To take an example: Political Theory, EU studies and Comparative Politics all study populism and democratic deconsolidation. But while Political Theory includes the whole range of concepts of politics possible in the discipline, EU studies and Comparative Politics most often rely on a set of indicators that focus mainly on the classical political system and the mass media. The lens of analysis is thus limited to the phenomena and dynamics that can be found in the system and the mass media. These are without doubt important arenas for populism and democratic deconsolidation, but not the only ones.

It is thus a decisive goal of the volume to name and explore new analytical avenues for politicisation research beyond the framework of the classical political system (parties and institutions), the international system (international institutions) and the mass media. Methodically and regarding research dimensions, this means to go beyond strategies and research items that concentrate on quantifiable indicators and measure the salience of an issue, the degree of controversiality or actor involvement, or the politicisation within EU institutions (see Chaps. 2, 8, 9 and 10 in this book). The approaches presented, as the chapters in this book demonstrate, open up a large variety of new foci and dimensions of analysis, and in particular micropolitical, speech-act and action-oriented perspectives.

Having thus opened the debate, the leading thread for the volume is to see what we can learn throughout the chapters and the various perspectives they develop on the leading questions sketched earlier.

1.3 The Chapters

The chapters conceptualise politicisation in different respects. The first three chapters begin by raising and answering general questions regarding the theory and conception of politicisation (Chaps. 2, 3 and 4). The next three chapters discuss politicisation regarding representative democracy , post-democracy and populism (Chaps. 5, 6 and 7). The following chapters discuss politicisation and depoliticisation in and of the EU (Chaps. 8, 9 and 10). Last but not least, a focus is set on international politics (Chap. 11) and transnational law (Chap. 12), and their effects for politicisation.

Claudia Wiesner (Chap. 2) begins the book by conceptualising politicisation and its relation to two other key concepts in Political Science: politics and democracy. The chapter discusses crucial theoretical and conceptual questions related to the understanding and usage of politicisation in general and EU politicisation in particular, setting a special focus on the theoretical and conceptual linkages between politicisation, politics and democracy. The argument is based on the presumption that politicisation needs to be understood as a multilevel concept that covers the theoretical and normative macro level, a conceptual meso level and an operational or empirical micro level. The chapter is split into three parts: in the first section, key questions and theoretical steps related to conceptualising politicisation and its linkages to the concept of politics are lined out. After this, two ideal-typical conceptions of politics are presented, that is, (a) an understanding of politics as a system, field or sphere, and (b) an understanding of politics as action. In the remainder of the chapter, the reflections are based on an action-oriented understanding of politics and politicisation, arguing that both potentially can take place anywhere and anytime. In the second section, the normative-theoretical question if, and to what extent, a concept of politicisation as action is compatible with representative democracy , is raised and answered: if politicisation is action, then it can be both democratic and anti-democratic action, and the ensuing question is how democracies react to this challenge. In the third section, existing and possible interrelations between politicisation and democracy in the EU are thematised. The chapter concludes with a typology of four types of interrelations between politicisation and democracy and a research outlook.

Kari Palonen (Chap. 4) continues the conceptual discussion of politicisation and representative democracy by discussing parliamentarisation as politicisation and clarifying different strands of thinking on politics and the role of parliament. He argues that in the twentieth-century conceptual history of politics, two main currents of conceptualising the political can be distinguished: a spatial and a temporal one. The former regards politics as a separate sphere, field or sector, the latter as an aspect of human activities, as ‘dealing with contingent event’, as John Pocock put it. Palonen himself understands politics as a contingent and controversial activity par excellence. He further argues that the difference between spatial and temporal perspectives on politics and politicisation is clearly manifested in their views on parliament. In the spatial perspective, it is common to regard parliament as a part of ‘the political system’, as one arena among others in which government and opposition, parties and voters face each other. In the second traditions and a Weberian perspective, indebted to Westminster, parliament is a counter-power to the everyday rule of administration, the paradigmatic occasion for politicising questions by intensifying the contingent, controversial and temporal quality of politics. Parliamentary politicisation is then visible in the dissensual procedure, in the rhetoric of debating pro et contra, in parliamentary control of administration as well as in an ingenious multi-stage and multi-layer play with time as subtext of politics.

Veith Selk (Chap. 3) develops three concepts of politicisation—a republican, a deliberative and an agonistic one. He argues that politicisation has been an object of deeper interest in Political Science for quite some time. Despite this fact, there has been little research in Political Theory on the topic. Selk seeks to fill this gap in three steps. First, he argues that theoretical concepts of politicisation need to take two manifestations of politicisation into account: governmental and social. Second, in engaging with the theoretical strands of Republicanism, Deliberation Theory and Agonism, Selk reconstructs three concepts of politicisation implicit in these paradigms. Third, he assesses whether these concepts are suitable for understanding both instances of politicisation. Selk concludes by arguing that all three concepts capture the governmental form of politicisation; yet, due to their teleological notion of politics, republican and deliberative approaches are unable to conceptualise social politicisation. Thus, in order to understand politicisation properly, non-teleological notions of politicisation are needed. Agonism, this is Selk’s conclusion, is most suitable in this regard.

Meike Schmidt-Gleim (Chap. 5) begins the subsection on the relation of politicisation and populism. She takes up the debate on Post-democracy that was once begun by Rancière and argues that currently we see politicisation processes happening (e.g. anti-elite protests, popular vote and social media mobilisations) that rather dissolve than generate the political and subsequently compromise representative liberal democracy. This runs counter to what civil rights movements since 1968 have done—they often questioned representative liberal democracy for its shortcomings and claimed an extension of rights, but these practices never put democracy at risk. On the contrary, through criticising and challenging the present state of democracy, these movements fuelled democracy, by constantly renewing its institutions and adjusting them to historically changing representative demands. Schmidt-Gleim then asks why this is not the case for many, notably the so-called populist forms, of the current protests. Her answer is that while civil rights movements brought the political to the fore, the latter is suppressed by current protest practices. Bringing the political to the fore for Schmidt-Gleim means to allow the coexistence of more than one representation of one and the same object, it highlights the incommensurability between the people as sovereign and the actual people. It thus prevents the possibility of a full-fledged representation and allows further contesting in the future. Populist mobilisations, instead, go back to referring to a self-identical subject, to a ‘we are the people’. Thus, they eliminate the ambivalence of the political subject and transfer political conflict to the borderline between a clearly defined real people against the so called enemies of the people (minorities, immigrants, the elite, the judiciary institutions, etc.). Populist activities, she concludes, politicise issues without democratising society.

Dirk Jörke (Chap. 7) continues this debate by discussing voting and non-voting in post-democratic times. He makes out two emerging patterns of political behaviour in Western democracies, namely non-voting and voting for right-wing populist parties. Both are considered as a reaction to the post-democratic turn in general, and the changing meaning of political participation in particular. Against the widespread notion that both non-voting and voting for right-wing populists should be considered as irrational, Jörke argues that at least for some parts of the citizenry, both make sense. He develops this argument in four steps. First, he argues that Western societies have become post-democratic and that especially the practices of political participation are structurally biased towards the well-educated middle class at the expense of the losers of modernisation. He especially asserts that post-representative politics means less, not more democracy. In the second step, Jörke argues that the practice of voting as well as other forms of political participation have become a way to articulate a general appraisal of democratic values rather than to determine the outcome of political decision-making. In criticising theories of simulative democracy, he indicates that for the losers of modernisation, it is highly irrational to participate in these seemingly democratic practices, as their main function is to legitimise a social and economic order through which they are disadvantaged. Yet, the post-democratic constellation has recently changed with the rise of right-wing populist parties, as is demonstrated in the third step. Jörke concludes that at least for those parts of the citizenry which can be described as ‘left-authoritarian’, voting for right-wing populist parties seems to be even more rational than refusing to vote.

Seongcheol Kim (Chap. 6) continues the discussion on populism with an empirically based comparison, asking after populism and anti-populism in the 2017 Dutch, French and German Elections. Drawing on Ernesto Laclau’s theory of the political, Chantal Mouffe’s critique of ‘post-politics’, and Yannis Stavrakakis’s recent work on anti-populism, Kim examines to what extent and in what forms populism and anti-populism are present in political parties’ campaign discourses in the 2017 Dutch, French (presidential) and German election campaigns and to what extent populist discourses took the form of counter-hegemonic challenges to neoliberal crisis management politics, while anti-populist discourses took the form of a defence of the latter. In his post-foundational discourse analysis, Kim (Chap. 6) identifies strongly left-wing populist discourses in the campaigns of the Socialist Party (SP) in the Netherlands, La France Insoumise (LFI ) in France and Die Linke in Germany, while the main far-right discourses in the Netherlands and France were primarily nationalist rather than populist and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) combined high degrees of both populism and ethno-cultural reductionism. Moreover, he finds a widespread ‘thin’ anti-populism in the Netherlands that localised the ‘populist’ threat specifically onto Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV), minimal anti-populism in a French campaign characterised by competing uses of populism across the candidate spectrum and a fairly thick anti-populism in the discourse of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) that was, nonetheless, largely decoupled from economic arguments.

Lisa H. Anders (Chap. 9) opens up the subsection on the European Union. She discusses the effects of EU politicisation, asking if it leads to dissensus, deadlock and disintegration—or not. Anders argues that even if scholars agree that the EU and its policies have become politicised and there is extensive research on the causes and patterns of politicisation, its effects on European integration and supranational decision-making, in contrast, have received relatively little systematic attention. Against this backdrop, she systemises and discusses theoretical approaches as well as recent empirical studies on the consequences of EU politicisation. She shows that recent empirical studies provide support for the thesis that politicisation enhances EU decision-makers’ responsiveness. At the same time, intra- and inter-institutional bargaining processes seem to remain more or less unaffected. Also, regarding European integration, politicisation does not seem to be a hindrance. This, Anders concludes, can be attributed to the various strategies decision-makers can employ to shield decisions at the European level from the increasingly attentive and critical public.

Niilo Kauppi and Hans-Jörg Trenz (Chap. 8) continue the discussion on the European Union, conceptualising the shifting dynamics in an emerging European political field and public sphere. Their aim is to broaden the discussion of politicisation beyond the narrow focus on voters’ preferences and political parties’ strategies and discuss politicisation as a constitutive element of the public sphere. In Political Theory, research has conceptualised politicisation as action involving temporal structures and politics as forming the spatial matrix for this activity. Kauppi and Trenz seek to conceptually broaden and deepen this discussion by tracing forms of contestation that develop over time, including politicisation and depoliticisation and the structuring of a European political space.

Cécile Robert (Chap. 10) concludes the subsection on the EU by focusing on depoliticisation at the European Level, and, more particularly, delegitimisation and circumvention of representative democracy in the European Union. She argues that depoliticisation practices in the European Union are marked by a distrust of representative democracy . Hence, she regards depoliticisation not as a recent response to a critical juncture in EU