{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052576235541535225, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010515247108307046, 'mean_word_length': 5.102564102564102, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
This Disagreement is Not One: The Populisms of Laclau, Rancière and Arditi

Consider this disagreement. First, Ernesto Laclau, the arch-theorist of culture and politics as hegemony, has taken to arguing that all politics is basically populism (Laclau 2005). Second, Jacques Rancière has recently declared that populism is nothing more than ‘‘the convenient name under which is dissimulated [ . . .] the difficulty [of] government’’: ‘‘The hope is that under this name they will be able to lump together every form of dissent in relation to the prevailing consensus, whether it involves democratic affirmation or religious and racial fanaticism’’ (Rancière 2006, 80). In other words, for Rancière, ‘‘populism’’, here, is really just a pejorative term for a situation in which a people will not be governed ‘‘properly’’, without division or remainder. Third, however, Benjamin Arditi’s new book both takes issue with Laclau’s reduction of all species of