Fundamentally Reframes the Study of Populism
The first review of The Political Theologies of Populism is out and it is overwhelmingly positive. Bulent Kenes, the Executive Director of the European Center for Populism Studies, argues that my work “fundamentally reframes the study of populism.” That’s pretty high praise from the person who runs what is arguably the most important research center on populism in the world.
His summary of the book is also glowing:
Taken as a whole, Rev. Dr. Bossen’s book is an impressive, original, and intellectually courageous work. It enriches our understanding of American political development by demonstrating that populism has never been a singular phenomenon but rather a contested field of competing democratic and anti-democratic projects. Combining historical depth with theoretical sophistication, it offers an important contribution not only to the study of populism but also to political theology, American intellectual history, religion and politics, and democratic theory. It deserves a wide readership among historians, political scientists, scholars of religion, and anyone seeking to understand why struggles over belonging continue to define American democracy in the twenty-first century.
I am thrilled and I hope that the review will spur further interest in my work.
I will note, however, that Kenes does raise two concerns about the book which I take seriously. Though he does not come out and entirely say it, I think that both are methodological. First, he writes, “greater engagement with contemporary comparative populism scholarship would have strengthened the book’s broader theoretical intervention.” Second, he observes, “If one reservation remains, it concerns not the historical scholarship--which is exemplary--but the comparative balance of the analytical framework.”
The Political Theologies of Populism is interdisciplinary and comparative. This means it carries with it the problem that it never goes as deeply into field specific literature as studies that are firmly situated in one subject area. While I tried to situate my theoretical contributions in dialogue with populism studies I also attempted to situate it relation to political theology, social movement studies, democratic theory, secularism studies, social ethics, the tradition of liberal religious theology, and the historical literature on the three movements I studied. Here Kenes’s review and critique is an opportunity for me, in another forum, to develop my own thinking on the nature of populism more fully in relation to other theorists. I hope to do so in a journal article at some point in the next couple of years.
The other criticism that Kenes raises is something that populates almost all comparative studies. Simply by comparing different phenomenon there is an implicit claim that they share some sort of similarity. I tried to be clear as possible throughout The Political Theologies of Populism that I find white supremacist populism to be one of the great threats that humanity faces today. But merely by comparing it to political theologies that I am sympathetic to (pluralistic and Pan-African populisms) there is the risk that I might be implying that there’s something redeemable within it. I think that this sort of risk is unavoidable in any comparative study. It might also be particularly pronounced in mine since I refuse, as many liberal theorists do, to offer a blanket indictment of populism. As I argue in my book, I think populism is endemic to the nation state. The choice is not whether or not populist movements will be present in a nation state but rather which conception of the people someone is promoting.
Congratulations on the excellent reviews!