(Un-)Doing Democracy: Populism, Body Politics, Authenticity, and Gender

This paper draws on various strands of literature (on gender, populism, and political representation) to argue for closer attention to the ways in which the bodies of claim-makers supports, enhances and restrains the performance of political representation. The recent, constructivist turn in studies on political representation has effectively directed scholars’ attention towards the activity of claim-making. Studies, however, predominantly prioritize the analysis of content (i.e. the representative claims advanced) over form (i.e. how claims are performed). Meanwhile, studies on populism signal that the ways in which political actors deliver their representative claims are an important element of their political success. Studies, for instance, demonstrate how populist leaders rely on authenticity appeals and claims. Their performed authenticity supports populist actors’ claims to sincerity (acting in according to their inner core norms and values), strengthens their anti-establishment credentials (being one of the people) and presents them as the people’s champions (knowing and acting on behalf of the latter’s genuine interests). Studies, in addition, reveal that populist performances are highly gendered. The gender ideology propagated by radical right populist movements revere hegemonic (i.e. binary, cisgender, heteronormative) conceptions of femininity and masculinity that obfuscate intersectional differences, that propagate a toxic masculinity and a reactionary conception of femininity. In this paper, we explore the inter-relation between populist actors’ bodily performances and the delivery of their representative claims and argue that their bodily performances are quintessential to their successes. We draw on a case-study of a Flemish right-wing activist to illustrate how actors’ bodily performances matters and which effects these resorts. First, we showcase how actors’ gendered performance (i.e., the use of their body and doing of masculinity) supports their gender performance (i.e., the construction of a binary cisgender heterosexual conception of gender). Second, we illustrate how the mobilisation of their bodies allows them to perform gender in an implicit way. Against their gender discourse, their bodies become politicised and accrue meaning in themselves (as ‘white’, ‘masculine’, ‘heterosexual’, and ‘native’), as strong carriers, or symbols of their views on sex, gender, and sexuality. Their bodies, however, not so much speak for themselves but are mobilized to evoke meanings and build rapport (i.e. representative relationships) with their audiences. The body – as a symbolic carrier of meaning – allows to bypass the need for explicit representative claims. This insight cuts at the heart of our normative concerns. The seemingly unscripted, ‘authentic’ nature of their bodily performances makes it harder to hold populist actors accountable for their constructions of gender. Whilst political actors can be held accountable for what they do. This is less the case for whom they are. These corporeal aspects of radical right populist performances are difficult to counter, and call for closer consideration of the damages accrued by particular modes of representation. What our study illustrates is the ways in which seemingly unscripted, authentic (and thereby, unpolitical) performances may be put to use to legitimize discourses that exclude and silence other-minded citizens.