Translate

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Can Ben Stanley explain what he means about the "thin" ideology of populism?

From Ben Stanley, lecturer at SWPS University in Warsaw:

"The concept of populism has in recent years inspired much debate and much confusion. It has been described variously as a pathology, a style, a syndrome and a doctrine. Others have raised doubts as to whether the term has any analytical utility, concluding that it is simply too vague to tell us anything meaningful about politics. Drawing on recent developments in the theoretical literature, it is argued that populism should be regarded as a ‘thin’ ideology which, although of limited analytical use on its own terms, nevertheless conveys a distinct set of ideas about the political which interact with the established ideational traditions of full ideologies."

"The concept of populism has in recent years inspired much debate and much confusion." - Not to non-academics, mate.

"It has been described variously as a pathology, a style, a syndrome and a doctrine." - Has it? Where? In other unintelligible papers written by academics publishing twaddle?

"Others have raised doubts as to whether the term has any analytical utility, concluding that it is simply too vague to tell us anything meaningful about politics." - Populism is just what is popular with the masses and not what the liberal establishment is shoving down their throats ie Sun/Mail rather than Guardian/New Statesman. It is not vague at all, but made vague by academics teaching political "science" as part of the programme of PC indoctrination with the intention of obscuring and confuse perfectly simple and easily explicable ideas.


"Drawing on recent developments in the theoretical literature, it is argued that populism should be regarded as a ‘thin’ ideology which, although of limited analytical use on its own terms, nevertheless conveys a distinct set of ideas about the political which interact with the established ideational traditions of full ideologies." - What theoretical literature? Does he mean unread papers by other political "science" academics teaching twaddle?

Why does Stanley pointedly refuse to explain what he means by a "thin" ideology?

Credit where credit's due, Stanley is honest enough to admit that the term "thin ideology" has "limited utility". I would suggest that it has NO UTILITY WHATSOEVER, unless its purpose is to confuse and obscure ideas and to waste the time of the reader.

What are "ideational traditions"?

Can he give examples of "full ideologies"?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13569310701822289

https://swps-pl.academia.edu/BenStanley

Is he wasting his Polish students' time teaching twaddle?

I have tried asking him to explain himself but have not as yet managed to elicit a substantive response. Perhaps others will have more luck.


It will come as no surprise to my Polish readers that the Polish politician I admire most is Janusz Korwin-Mikke mentioned below at:

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lgbts-have-hissy-fit-at-me-because-of.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/claire-khaws-class-and-gender-theory-of.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/greek-women-predictably-vote-for-most.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/janet-dalely-is-being-nonsensical-when.html

No comments: