See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322702926

The Social Psychology of Populism

Conference Paper · March 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,078

1 author:

Paris Aslanidis
Yale University
16 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conceptualizing Populism View project

Populism as a Social Movement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paris Aslanidis on 26 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Social Psychology of Populism
Paris Aslanidis, Yale University

Draft paper, prepared for ASU Populism Workshop, 15-17 February, 2018

Introduction
szociális sérelem
The essential element of populism is an invitation to assess and politicize social grievances as
owing to a contest between two distinct groups over the legitimacy of holding power: “the
people” versus “the elite”. Given the value of popular sovereignty as a constituent principle, the
will of the people should be expected to enjoy absolute primacy in the political decision-making
process against other interests. In reality, however, this positive asymmetry is threatened or has
already been inverted by elites who have gamed “the system” to serve their own ends.
Accordingly, populists urge the people to mobilize and win back their status as sovereigns.

The demand for the rehabilitation of popular sovereignty rests on firm normative ground, yet, as
with most political claims, it is generally difficult to produce metrics that guarantee a sound
verdict on the degree to which elites are indeed manipulating the system. Nevertheless, if a
sizeable part of the electorate finds itself in broad agreement with this idea then populist
entrepreneurs may benefit from a strong momentum for mobilization. But, in addition to moral
redemption against mischievous power-holders, the populist formula further offers a rather vague,
yet still discernible, utilitarian promise: the successful abolition of elite domination over the lives
of the common folk is expected to rapidly increase society’s overall welfare, and significantly so.

On the other hand, as it is well known, the various populist projects that have historically
emerged around the world have suggested particularly inconsistent policies to deliver upon this
promise. To the despair of trained political scientists, populist policy recommendations fail to
map smoothly around established political classifications (Aslanidis 2017). On the contrary, there
is ample evidence that the populist frame is flexible enough to accommodate diverse and even
contradictory ideas along the traditional left-right and libertarian-authoritarian axes. Fiscally
conservative populists decrying Washington or Brussels elites for over-regulating the economy
are too numerous to warrant mention, and so are populists on the opposite end of the spectrum
who accuse the very same centers of deliberately exacerbating social inequality through economic
deregulation. Authoritarian politicians may invest their populist outlook with a law-and-order
agenda that promotes xenophobic solutions, yet anti-racist populists advocating post-materialist
values and multiculturalism are equally plentiful. Therefore, despite their strict adherence to
popular sovereignty and their vehement anti-establishment attitude, populists – as a whole – fail
to prioritize specific socioeconomic grievances and suggest consistent solutions for them.
Accordingly, there is no coherent set of principles that could establish populism as an ideology
with systematic socioeconomic implications (Aslanidis 2016a). Comparative studies of public
opinion confirm that the “average” populist voter is nowhere to be found, and that the search for
such a construct is manifestly futile (Rooduijn 2017).

1 
 
Crisscrossing the cartesian plane of political values while offering highly erratic policy
prescriptions, populism is bound to remain elusive for most mainstream theories of voter
representation, and especially those based on the epistemology of individual cost-benefit
calculations. Given these limitations, we are in need of an alternative analytical paradigm to
inspire further research on the phenomenon. Social psychology can perhaps contribute towards
this aim.

Social psychologists have criticized individualistic conceptions of personal and group processes
on the basis that individuals do not operate in a social vacuum. They argue that interpersonal
utility decision-making is perhaps captured well by game-theoretical analytical instruments, but
actual politics involves complex social processes irreducible to the forces of individual
psychology (Brown 2000; Hogg & Reid 2006). Given the overwhelming evidence that collective
identification is a significant predictor of collective mobilization (Reicher & Hopkins 1996;
Simon et al. 1998; Sturmer & Simon 2004; Turner & Reynolds 2001; Huddy 2013; van Zomeren
et al. 2008), social psychologists recommend correcting for the over-individualistic portrayal of
social activity by studying the interaction between self and society. In recent years, the relevance
of social psychological theories for political science has been repeatedly acknowledged, leading
to valuable findings for a variety of research questions (e.g. Miller et al. 1981; Conover 1984;
Kinder & Kam 2010; Reicher & Hopkins 2001; Jenkins 2008).

Despite the affinities between populism and processes of collective identification, scholars have
so far failed to bring the two fields together. This chapter should be seen as an attempt at
delineating the contours of a research agenda to potentially fill this gap, focusing in particular on
the social psychological function of constructing the dichotomy between people and elites that
underpins populism. Understanding how populists render these two categories psychologically
salient to reap political benefits can provide us with an alternative perspective compared to the
overly reductionist research agenda based on cost-benefit calculations of personal utility.

The chapter begins with a brief overview of key social psychological concepts relevant to
political contestation and, after examining their fit with the psychological substructure of populist
mobilization, proceeds to identify the adversarial nature of populist discourse as the driving force
behind populism’s success. The core argument of the analysis is that populist entrepreneurs
manage to sever voters from their existing political allegiances by politicizing their social identity
as “the people” and benefitting from the normative effects of self-categorization: in-group
favoritism, encouraging voting for the populist party/leader, and out-group derogation, which
solidifies the identity of the populist camp via sustained hostility against political forces seen as
representing the elites.

Social identity theory and political mobilization

Among other topics, social psychology deals with the complex mechanics of intergroup behavior
(Brown & Gaertner 2001; Hornsey 2008). The main premise, drawn from consistently replicated
empirical findings, is that identification with a group prescribes personal conduct by rendering the
individual sensitive of her commonality with ingroup peers and difference with non-peers,
leading to the adoption of stereotypical norms of behavior that can potentially instigate intergroup
conflict. Through the pioneering work of Muzafer Sherif (Sherif et al. 1961[1954]) in the Robbers

2 
 
Cave experiments, it was first established that intergroup behavior was not confined to ascribed
identities such as race or sex, as it was commonly held. Dividing individuals of similar
background into two arbitrary groups and exposing them to tournament competitions over scarce
resources led to the construction of an ingroup identity and a hostility against the outgroup.

An even more important breakthrough took place several years later, when Henri Tajfel and his
associates (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Billig & Tajfel 1973) executed their “minimal
group” experiments, demonstrating that competition over resources was largely irrelevant for
group identity formation and intergroup conflict. Instead, these researchers found that in
experimental settings where instrumental concerns were not encouraged by design, the mere act
of categorizing people – with no face-to-face interaction – into arbitrary groups produced a
psychological effect strong enough to trigger ingroup bias, in the absence of clear material
benefits for the ingroup, and even at an aggregate cost for its members. As soon as the notion of
“group” was introduced to participants, in-group favoritism emerged in the absence of explicit
social pressure or realistic benefits towards acting in such fashion. Building on the outcome of
these experiments, Tajfel formulated a general theory of intergroup relations, known as Social
Identity Theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel & Turner 1979). Social Identity Theory (SIT),
along with Self-Categorization Theory (SCT), developed later by Taijfel’s student John Turner
and his associates (Turner et al. 1987), are now the most influential theories of group processes
and intergroup relations worldwide (Hornsley 2008) and they will consist the main theoretical
paradigms employed in the social psychological analysis of populism undertaken in this chapter.1

The concept of social identity, defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives
from his knowledge of his membership [in] a social group (or groups) together with the emotional
significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel 1974: 69), is pivotal for intragroup and
intergroup behavior. A person will begin acting as part of a group when the social identity
associated with the latter acquires enough salience to produce depersonalization, a condition
where “individuals tend to define and see themselves less as differing individual persons and
more as the interchangeable representatives of some shared social category membership” (Turner
et al. 1994). While personal identities influence our self-interpretation as unique individuals,
social identities operate at a higher level of abstraction (Sturmer & Simon 2004). In other words,
self-categorization – through depersonalization – shifts our assessment of reality from a personal
identity viewpoint to a social identity one, from thinking in terms of “I” to thinking in terms of
“we”. While different explanations have been suggested, Tajfel and Turner saw categorization as
the manifestation of an inherent human need to hold on to positive group identities in our effort to
sustain a healthy level of individual self-esteem and personal value (Hornsley 2008; Thoits &
Virshup 1997).2

How can we determine whether an individual will indeed experience depersonalization vis-à-vis a
specific group identity? SCT’s answer is that the person is required to perceive this identity as
reflecting her expectations, values, motives, and needs, as conditioned by the existing social

                                                            
1
 While there are important differences among the two theories, with the former focusing more on 
intergroup relations and the latter more on the psychological basis of intragroup behavior, they are widely 
considered as complementary (Thoits & Virshup 1997). See Hornsey (2008) for a historical review. 
2
 This specific point of the theory is still contested (see Brewer 2001; Hornsey 2008). 

3 
 
context. More specifically, group identification has both a cognitive and an evaluative
component, represented respectively by the concepts of comparative and normative fit (Turner et
al. 1994). Comparative fit is governed by the principle of meta-contrast, which states that we may
consider including ourselves into a group if we perceive our intra-class differences as
significantly smaller compared to inter-class differences within a given frame of reference
(Turner et al. 1987). The ingroup must be seen as internally coherent and adequately distinct from
competitive groups. However, mere variation is insufficient on its own; the category’s contents
also matter. Normative fit refers to the requirement that the emerging difference between the
focal category and its background exhibits consistency with our “normative beliefs and theories
about the substantive social meaning of the social category” (Turner et al. 1994: 455). To paint
these requirement with a broad brush, the prospective ingroup must exhibit uniqueness and moral
merit.

The sociocognitive passage from “I”-behavior to “we”-behavior is pivotal for political

mobilization. Empirical studies have repeatedly confirmed that allegiance to partisan identities
explains electoral behavior better than alternative theories (Campbell et al. 1960; Conover 1984;
Dalton & Weldon 2007; Huddy et al. 2015). It is now a truism to indicate that group-based
attitudes and behavior arise “from basic cognitive categorization processes that partition the
social world into ingroups and outgroups” (Brewer 2007: 695). Moreover, strategic agency in
political contestation entails that otherwise normal processes of social categorization are
exacerbated “through deliberate manipulation by group leaders in the interests of mobilizing
collective action to secure or maintain political power” (Brewer 2007: 703). Politicians are able to
do this because group-relevant appeals carry greater legitimacy over claims couched in terms of
personal utility (Brewer 2001). This inherently moral element in the mobilization of political
identities (Reicher & Drury 2011; Gamson 1992) will always tend to prioritize collective causes
over the pursuit of personally beneficial outcomes.3

Social psychological processes in populist mobilization

As Klandermans (1984; also Simon 2004) indicates, successful recruitment to any type of
collective political cause relies on a long sequence of mobilizing stages: communicating the
existence of the ingroup to the targeted individual, conveying her eligibility for inclusion,
establishing the social significance of the ingroup for current political affairs, extending an
invitation and persuading the individual of the normative value of symbolically enlisting in the
ingroup, and, finally, nudging the new member towards adopting and enacting the group’s norms
in terms of manifest political behavior at the voting booth or elsewhere. Several psychological
mechanisms need to be activated before the last stage can be reached.

Since political entrepreneurs will mobilize social identities exhibiting some political bearing, it is
crucial to clarify the distinction between membership and reference groups (Turner et al. 1987;
Turner & Reynolds 2001). Societies are multigroup structures involving a constellation of social
categories in constant competition for salience (Tajfel 1974). Superficial acknowledgment of
“objective” membership in a sociological group as defined by outsiders (e.g. woman, Mandarin

                                                            
3
 This explains why, for instance, clientelism is considered a political pathology rather than a legitimate 
avenue of winning or holding power. 

4 
 
speaker, etc.) does not necessarily indicate positive or normative attachment that lead to political
action. Instead, affiliation with a reference category unlocks the potential for political activity,
since the ingroup can act as a nodal point of psychological reference with all the affective,
evaluative, and normative implications this entails (Brewer 2007; Hogg & Reid 2006; Turner &
Reynolds 2001).

Agency emerges as the crucial factor here: to become focal categories for political contestation,
social identities require politicization by strategically-oriented political entrepreneurs (Simon &
Klandermans 2001). Depersonalization into politicized group consciousness instills the
“realization that the inability to gain valued resources in a society is not a consequence of
personal failings but rather results from inequities in the decision-making and reward distribution
process” (Miller et al. 1981: 508). The individual proceeds from mere identification with a
membership group to conscious attachment with a reference group, qualifying the former with a
political awareness of the ingroup's relative position in society while instilling a commitment to
mobilize and win satisfaction for the ingroup’s aggregate societal demands (Miller et al. 1981).

At the same time, any social marker can grow into a politically relevant social identity, from attire
(e.g. the Phrygian cap in the French Revolution) to musical preferences (e.g. rock music in the
1960s) and even hairstyles (e.g. far-right skinheads). Nevertheless, some identities hold an
advantage. Religion, skin pigment, language, ethnicity, sex, are more or less ascribed markers,
easily identified by third party observers, rendering their politicization relatively straightforward.
Occupational status (e.g. farmer, factory worker) and other “achieved states” (Ashmore et al.
2004) have also been successfully construed as political identities and mobilized in numerous
occasions.

Given this schematic overview of social psychological processes, how do populists foster self-
categorization into their ingroup? From a basic conceptualization of populism as an anti-
establishment discourse in the name of popular sovereignty (Aslanidis 2016a), we can confidently
infer two main social identities at work: the ingroup is defined as “the people”, while “the elite”
operate as the adversarial outgroup. Populism can plausibly achieve both comparative and
normative fit. First of all, the social category of “the people” is symbolically recognizable and
accessible to the average citizen. Looking back at history, the political currency of the popular
masses started acquiring real value when the novel fiction of the “sovereignty of the people”
started replacing the older fiction of the “divine right of Kings” in 17th century England (Morgan
1988).4 After this monumental transformation reverberated in most parts of the western world, the
demand for popular sovereignty became the seed from which the identity of “the people” could
develop and become politically relevant. The great democratic revolutions in France and
America, as well as the 1848 revolutions, offered constituent moments in the history of mankind
that contained a pronounced radical populist element, now part of the global political imaginary
(Frank 2010). The principle of self-government by the people rests de jure within the core of our
current political credos and its denigration is virtually (or at least morally) unacceptable, even by
those skeptical against majoritarian democracy.

                                                            
4
 It can be argued that popular sovereignty had already become politically relevant outside the modern 
western sphere at various points in history, going back to ancient Greece and the Romans. 

5 
 
Fulfilling the basic requirements posed by SCT, self-categorization into the populist ingroup can
take place in most societies, and certainly those where the axiom of popular sovereignty enjoys
recognition by a part of the population, allowing populists to claim the high moral ground as
representatives of this political tradition. However, the fact that populist entrepreneurs pit people
and elites discursively against each other does not deterministically lead to the adoption of the
ingroup’s identity by a given audience. Populism may exhibit a certain level of “out-of-the-box”
comparative and normative fit that can function as a springboard for mobilization, yet the social
identity of “the people” is usually moot in the absence of a social dilemma that would “here and
now” emphasize its significance for the average person.

Put differently, as citizens, we may be passively exhibiting allegiance to our social identity of
“the people”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we are also actively assertive about it (cf. Welzel
& Dalton 2014).5 On the contrary, the identity of “the people” possesses a notorious fluidity,
which can significantly hamper mobilization due to its failure to exhibit quotidian relevance.
Populist identity entrepreneurs need to struggle hard to gather that critical mass of adherents to
provide mobilizing impetus before the psychological benefits of social categorization can foster
wider recruitment. They attempt to overcome these difficulties by means of two psychological
mechanisms: constructing the ingroup as wide as possible, and accentuating its acute differences
to a specific outgroup. The outcome is a strictly dichotomous identity space where inclusion in
the populist ingroup is the only morally acceptable avenue for politically appropriate self-
categorization.

The first mechanism takes advantage of the wide scope of the populist social identity and the
inward permeability of the boundaries of “the people”. According to SCT theorists, our self-
categorization into partially overlapping social identities follows a hierarchical system of
classification (e.g. Chelsea FC fan, Londoner, British, European, liberal) that operates at different
levels of abstraction according to the level of inclusivity of each identity (Hornsley 2008; also
Simon 2004). Given a hierarchical structure of politically relevant social identities, politicians
benefit more by accentuating identities at the higher end of the scale, since, at the margin,
potential electoral returns are greater the larger the proportion of the general audience involved
(Reicher & Hopkins 1996).

This is where populists, with their disdain for sectoral interests and their emphasis on the hyper-
inclusivity of the valued category of “the people”, stand at an advantage vis-à-vis most of their
competitors. Accentuating identity at one level pushes competing identities to the background,
attenuating the wider application of the meta-contrast principle (Turner et al. 2006). Open to
enlisting any sort of societal grievances, as long as they can be framed as part of the wider
struggle between people and elites, while at the same time prohibiting salience for less-inclusive
nested identities (e.g. worker, Catholic, student etc.), populists effectively censor competing
meta-contrast calculations and delimit self-categorization operations exclusively to the
superordinate level of the hierarchy, occupied by the populist ingroup. They thus discursively
encompass the whole spectrum of positively valenced political identities, aiming to draw

                                                            
5
 On the capacity of the populist identity to remain constantly in abeyance and the idea that populism 
requires the politicization of citizen identity, see Aslanidis (2016b). 

6 
 
maximum support from the general pool of voters who feel part of “the people”, regardless of
potential incompatibilities in social identification at lower levels of inclusiveness.

A key empirical finding in studies of collective mobilization is that neophyte ingroups can avoid
factionalization by focusing attention on achieving a common end (Brewer 2007). Populists will
therefore implicitly or explicitly demote subordinate “we”-identities as irrelevant in the face of
the ultimate political goal, the restoration of popular sovereignty. For instance, during the years of
social turmoil produced by the Great Recession, populist movement entrepreneurs were found to
be extremely vigilant with the monopoly of the populist “we”-identity. Conscious of the dangers
of allowing subordinate identities to produce centrifugal anomalies in the fragile social coalition
under construction, they aligned their populist framing in such a way as to underplay the role of
nation, religion, class, and any other social category that could split the movement into competing
factions (Aslanidis 2016b, 2018; Gerbaudo 2017).

The populist ingroup is not only wide enough to be all-encompassing; its boundaries are further
depicted as having highly permeable entry points. Due to its normative and apartisan standing, the
social identity of “the people” fashions minimal barriers to entry, allowing the individual to incur
limited costs in acquiring it, compared to most other political identities. For instance, the
psychological strain involved in shedding a previously cherished conservative political identity to
join a progressive ingroup (and vice versa) can be enormous. On the contrary, members of either
group can more readily activate the universally respected baseline value of popular sovereignty
and join the populist cause. This allows populists to drive a wedge into the existing structure of
political identities and encroach into adjacent constituencies, as attested by numerous examples
around the world.

The second core psychological mechanism in populist mobilization involves using outgroup
derogation as a means of recursively enhancing ingroup cohesion. Since self-categorization is
inherently comparative, the salience of shared membership in a specific social category entails a
“perceptual accentuation of intragroup similarities and intergroup differences on relevant
correlated dimensions” (Turner 1999: 11; also Turner et al. 1994). According to Wilder &
Shapiro (1984), the cueing of available out-groups against which comparison can be performed
the influences social identity salience. Therefore, ingroup behavior leads to a cognitive and
affective “dichotomization of the social world into clearly distinct and non-overlapping
categories” (Tajfel 1974: 88). However, intergroup conflict is not a determined outcome. Social
competition is only realized when no alternative exists for establishing a distinctively positive
identity, with intergroup conflict proceeding to operate at the expense of a discernible outgroup
(Mummendey and Schreiber 1983; Brewer 2001).

Populists frame their in-group wide enough to subsume and police every other positive social
identity, and then fixate intergroup hostility towards those who by populist fiat are refused
inclusion in the body of the people. While these targets may either be specific individuals or
collective interest groups, it is essential that they are seen as forming a coherent group. Persistent
derogation in the name of the ingroup elicits an “outgroup homogeneity effect”, a “tendency for
within-group accentuation of similarity to apply to outgroups rather more than it does to
ingroups” (Oakes 2001; also Jenkins 2008). For those in the populist ingroup, outgroup members
begin to “all look alike”. While the ingroup hosts all those entertaining socially beneficial goals,

7 
 
elites do not represent equally legitimate political perspectives and thus have no legitimate social
bearing; they are simply self-serving. What holds “them” together is their desire to retain their ill-
acquired privileges as members of “a caste”, “an oligarchy”, a handful of oppressors of the vast
majority of the 99%.

Polarization further facilitates the sense of urgency to overthrow “the system” that has stacked the
deck against “us”. As Turner et al. (1987) indicate, the more salient ingroup-outgroup
categorization becomes, the less will “attraction to ingroup members reflect individuals' relative
personal status within the group and the more they will reflect the relative status of the ingroup
compared to the outgroup.” Depending on the salience of the acquired populist identity, the
individual may switch altogether from expressing grievances as a personal predicament to
perceiving her interests in terms of “the needs, goals and motives associated with ingroup
membership” (Turner et al 1987). Therefore, populists will constantly avoid bestowing
unmitigated primacy to particular grievances and will instead strive to deflect attention away
from the intramural discrepancies of their constituency by stressing their differences – as a whole
– with the elite outgroup.

Since residual (non-populist) identities are denied moral legitimacy and no alternative positive
identity can exist at the same level of inclusivity as “the people”, the identity field is effectively
dichotomized. The audience is presented with a stark contrast: either acquire the positive social
identity of “the people” and join the ingroup in its struggle for popular sovereignty, or retain your
old political allegiance and risk becoming “othered” as a disciple of the morally discredited elite
outgroup. In this sense, the two pillars of populism, “people-centrism” and “anti-elitism”, can be
seen as an amalgamation of an “identity identity” of “we, the people” and an “anti-identity
identity” as in “we, the anti-elite”. Assessing identity construction as a strategic undertaking, we
can assume that populists will interchangeably focus on solidifying their ingroup ex positivo,
stressing the moral primacy of popular sovereignty, or take the ex negativo path, investing in the
cultivation of the anti-identity aspect. However, before the group-distinctive perceptions of
populism can emerge and prescribe political behavior, its entrepreneurs must eventually weave
the two together into a coherent whole, since, conceptually, populism entails their combination.

Conclusion: the comparative social psychological advantages of populist entrepreneurship

Despite the pivotal role of social psychological processes in political contestation, populist
mobilization has never been adequately analyzed from a social-psychological perspective. To
investigate possible avenues for further academic collaboration, I have explored how basic
principles of the social identity approach apply to our empirical knowledge of populism. My
study has proceeded to suggest several psychological processes as operative in the discursive
construction of the ingroup of “the people” and the outgroup of “the elite” as axiomatically
adversarial social identities. I have consequently pointed to the conclusion that political
entrepreneurs who attempt to mobilize may render their project viable by activating latent social
psychological advantages of populist discourse.

The comparative advantages of populism’s particular social psychological format can be

schematically summarized as follows: (a) uncontested availability of comparative and normative
fit in most societies due to the historically constituent value of popular sovereignty, allowing

8 
 
ingroup members to claim the high moral ground; (b) low barriers of political self-categorization
due to ingroup boundary hyperpermeability, facilitating compatibility with a wide array of
societal grievances and fostering cross-ideological recruitment; (c) superordinate positioning in
the hierarchy of social identities due to the hyper-encompassing scope of the category of “the
people,” authorizing the censorship of meta-contrast calculations and the repression of competing
intragroup identities; (d) strong ingroup cohesion and identity commitment due to the
dichotomization of social space by means of outgroup homogeneity effect and the concomitant
attenuation of intragroup factionalization.

I would like to close this study with two important notes. First, at a meta-theoretical level, my
analysis stresses the overwhelming role of the constructed and contextual nature of political
mobilization. Given that humans are active meaning-seekers (Simon 2004), and language is the
primary domain where political identities are defined and contested (Billig 2003; Reicher &
Hopkins 1996), it should be considered unsurprising that political entrepreneurs manufacture
ingroups and outgroups using linguistic vectors that encourage self-categorization into groups
supportive of their strategic aims (Purdue et al. 1990). As Brubaker & Cooper (2000) stress,
groupist political rhetoric has a performative and constitutive quality exactly because social
reality can be negotiated and contested; instead of criticizing this aspect of political meaning-
making, we should understand it as normal and even necessary. Accordingly, this chapter does
not aim at painting populism in normative terms or presenting populists as taking advantage of
manipulative psychological mechanisms. Rather, it is a study of a particular application of
otherwise universal social psychological principles and their specific repercussions for populist
mobilization.

Secondly, identity construction should not be overstated as the exclusive factor conditioning
support for a political project. This would render the theory overly groupist and deterministic,
swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme compared to reductionist individualistic
approaches. Politicized collective identities may indeed consist unique social psychological
motors of political involvement (Simon & Grabow 2010) but our eventual political preferences
are also owed to cost-benefit assessments. Social self-categorization will usually operate
alongside realistic interest concerns, with context arbitrating whether one of the two additive
pathways will receive priority (Ellemers & Haslam 2012; Sturmer & Simon 2004; Turner &
Reynolds 2001; van Zomeren 2008). Besides, at a practical level, as Reicher & Hopkins (2001:
23) have put it, the success of identity construction “depends upon hiding all traces of
construction and making the definition of identity that is present seem self-evident.”

Given these qualifications, I conclude by suggesting an understanding of populist discourse as a

powerfully inviting wrapper around a set of possibly substantive political claims.
Notwithstanding a perhaps volatile disposition, signals on concrete political issues will inevitably
be provided by populist identity entrepreneurs aiming to make electoral inroads. The nominally
apartisan nature of populist discourse and its ability to entertain multiple social grievances, allows
populists to win at least the initially sympathetic attention for their ideas by a large number of
voters with anti-elitist sentiments or a predilection for the axiom of popular sovereignty.

9 
 
REFERENCES

Ashmore, Richard D., Kay Deaux, and Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. “An Organizing
Framework for Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality.”
Psychological Bulletin 130(1):80–114.

Aslanidis, Paris. 2016a. “Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective.”
Political Studies 64(IS):88–104.

Aslanidis, Paris. 2016b. “Populist Social Movements of the Great Recession.” Mobilization: An
International Journal 21(3):301–21.

Aslanidis, Paris. 2017. “Avoiding Bias in the Study of Populism.” Chinese Political Science
Review 2(3):266–87.

Aslanidis, Paris. 2018. “Populism as a Collective Action Master Frame for Transnational
Mobilization.” Sociological Forum (forthcoming).

Billig, Michael. 2003. “Political Rhetoric.” Pp. 222–50 in Oxford Handbook of Political
Psychology, edited by D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, and R. Jervis. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Billig, Michael and Henri Tajfel. 1973. “Social Categorization and Similarity in Tergroup
Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 3(1):27–52.

Brewer, Marilynn B. 2001. “The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political
Psychology.” Political Psychology 22(1):115–25.

Brewer, Marilynn B. 2007. “The Importance of Being We: Human Nature and Intergroup
Relations.” American Psychologist 62(8):728–38.

Brown, Rupert. 2000. “Social Identity Theory: Past Achievements, Current Problems and Future
Challenges.” European Journal of Social Psychology 30(6):745–78.

Brown, Rupert and Samuel L. Gaertner, eds. 2001. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology:
Intergroup Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper. 2000. “Beyond ‘identity.’” Theory and Society 29(1):1–
47.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren P. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The
American Voter. New York: Wiley.

Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1984. “The Influence of Group Identifications on Political Perception
and Evaluation.” The Journal of Politics 46(3):760–85.

Dalton, Russell J. and Steven Weldon. 2007. “Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization.”
Party Politics 13(2):179–96.

10 
 
Ellemers, Naomi and S.Alexander Haslam. 2012. “Social Identity Theory.” Pp. 379–98 in
Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, edited by P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.
Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins. London: Sage.

Frank, Jason. 2010. Constituent Moments: Enacting the People in Postrevolutionary America.
Durham: Duke University Press.

Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2017. The Mask and the Flag: Populism, Citizenism and Global Protest. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Hogg, Michael A. and Scott A. Reid. 2006. “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the
Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory 16(1):7–30.

Hornsey, Matthew J. 2008. “Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory: A Historical
Review.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(1):204–22.

Huddy, Leonie. 2013. “From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment.” Pp. 738–
773 in The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2 ed.), edited by L. Huddy, D. O.
Sears, and J. S. Levy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign
Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review
109(1):1–17.

Jenkins, Richard. 2008. Rethinking Ethnicity (Second Edition). Los Angeles: Sage.

Kinder, Donald R. and Cindy D. Kam. 2010. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of
American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Klandermans, Bert. 1984. “Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of

Resource Mobilization Theory.” American Sociological Review 49(5):583–600.

Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1981. “Group
Consciousness and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science
25(3):494.

Morgan, Edmund S. 1988. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and
America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Mummendey, Amélle and Hans-Joachim Schreiber. 1983. “Better or Just Different? Positive
Social Identity by Discrimination Against, or by Differentiation from Outgroups.” European
Journal of Social Psychology 13(4):389–97.

Oakes, Penelope. 2001. “The Root of All Evil in Intergroup Relations? Unearthing the
Categorization Process.” Pp. 3–21 in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup
Processes, edited by R. Brown and S. L. Gaertner. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

11 
 
Purdue, Charles W., Michael B. Gurtman, John F. Dovidio, and Richard B. Tyler. 1990. “Us and
Them: Social Categorization and the Process of Intergroup Bias.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 59(3):475–86.

Reicher, Stephen and John Drury. 2011. “Collective Identity, Political Participation, and the
Making of the Social Self.” Pp. 158–75 in Identity and Participation in Culturally Diverse
Societies: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by A. E. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B.
Klandermans, and B. Simon. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Reicher, Stephen and Nick Hopkins. 2001. Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and
Mobilization. London: Sage.

Reicher, Stephen and Nicolas Hopkins. 1996. “Self-Category Constructions in Political Rhetoric;
an Analysis of Thatcher’s and Kinnock’s Speeches Concerning the British Miners’ Strike
(1984-5).” European Journal of Social Psychology 26(3):353–71.

Rooduijn, Matthijs. 2017. “What Unites the Voter Bases of Populist Parties? Comparing the
Electorates of 15 Populist Parties.” European Political Science Review 1–18.

Sherif, Muzafer, O. J. Harvey, B.Jack White, William R. Hood, and Carolyn W. Sherif. 1961.
Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Simon, Bernd. 2004. Identity in Modern Society: A Social Psychological Perspective. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Simon, Bernd and Olga Grabow. 2010. “The Politicization of Migrants: Further Evidence That
Politicized Collective Identity Is a Dual Identity.” Political Psychology 31(5):717–38.

Simon, Bernd and Bert Klandermans. 2001. “Politicized Collective Identity: A Social
Psychological Analysis.” American Psychologist 56(4):319–31.

Simon, Bernd et al. 1998. “Collective Identification and Social Movement Participation.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3):646–58.

Sturmer, Stefan and Bernd Simon. 2004. Collective Action: Towards a Dual-Pathway Model.

Tajfel, Henri. 1974. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour.” Social Science Information
13(2):65–93.

Tajfel, Henri, ed. 1978. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology
of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. 1971. “Social Categorization and
Intergroup Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1(2):149–78.

Tajfel, Henri and John Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” Pp. 33–47
in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W. G. Austin.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

12 
 
 Thoits, Peggy A. and Lauren K. Virshup. 1997. “Me’s and We’s: Forms and Functions of Social
Identities.” Pp. 106–33 in Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues, edited by R. D. Ashmore
and L. Jussim. New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner, John C. 1999. “Some Current Issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-
Categorization Theories.” Pp. 6–34 in Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content,
edited by N. Ellemers, R. Spears, and B. Doosje. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher, and Margaret S.
Wetherell. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Turner, John C., Penelope J. Oakes, S. Alexander Haslam, and Craig McGarty. 1994. “Self and
Collective: Cognition and Social Context.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
20(5):454–63.

Turner, John C. and Katherine J. Reynolds. 2001. “The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup
Relations: Theories, Themes, and Controversies.” Pp. 133–52 in Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, edited by R. Brown and S. L. Gaertner. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Turner, John C., Katherine J. Reynolds, S.Alexander Haslam, and Kristine E. Veenstra. 2006.
“Reconceptualizing Personality: Producing Individuality by Defining the Personal Self.” Pp.
11–36 in Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity, edited by T. Postmes and
J. Jetten. London: Sage.

van Zomeren, Martijn, Tom Postmes, and Russell Spears. 2008. “Toward an Integrative Social
Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-
Psychological Perspectives.” Psychological Bulletin 134(4):504–35.

Welzel, Christian and Russell J. Dalton. 2014. “From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens.” Pp. 282–
306 in The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens, edited by R. J.
Dalton and C. Welzel. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilder, David A. and Peter Shapiro. 1991. “Facilitation of Outgroup Stereotypes by Enhanced
Ingroup Identity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27(5):431–52.

13 
 

View publication stats