Why Populism

Populism is the invention of a less "civilized" and "enlightened age" in the 19th century, where cynics and self-interested elites exploited the masses to do their bidding. We see some of its influence in third world countries during the Cold War (for example, Venezuela), but it supposedly became irrelevant in the broader political scheme: politicians are shamed when labeled populist, political theorists criticize the practice as immoral and barbaric, the people yearned for sophisticated debates and detailed promises such as reducing healthcare costs and promoting human rights.

Yet, we nonetheless see a return of populism in our contemporary times: the rise of National Rally in France (and similar parties in other European countries) that stuff the minds of supporters with empty and false promises that aim to solve non-existent problems created from misinterpreting societal events (such as the immigration problem).

The obvious question is why? Why is this supposedly outdated form of politics returning in the 21st century, the age of enlightenment and information, where people can easily access the knowledge needed to combat it?

Well, maybe we find the answer precisely in this easy access of knowledge, or, more precisely, the corruption of knowledge itself.

Think of pop philosophy. Half the content is harrowing: brutal dumbing down and misinterpretation of philosophies. Yet, this is what's popular, not the torment that is the journey of diving deep into the texts of classics and debates of contemporaries.

The obvious answer would be there's a barrier between serious knowledge and recreational knowledge, and one cannot expect the 9-to-5 worker or a student who just finished homework to have the energy to dive deep into why when Hegel says "science" it means a totally different thing.

Yet, this answer isn't good enough: it doesn't explain why recreational content creators and public intellectuals don't put proper work and effort into their information (such as PhilosophyTube making terrible introductory mistakes when introducing Kant).

Perhaps the more apt answer is the "recreationization" of knowledge itself. Knowledge is conceptualized as identity, as product, no different from Nike. Think of the symbolization of Nietzsche as this emo idol or the ancient Greeks as the sages of the Alpha Male. We learn things not from a need for knowledge, but for pleasure derived from symbolic identity.

Perhaps it is here that we see the reason behind the perversion of stoicism and existentialism: they have been recreationalized by culture, made into fast food-for-thought for those willing to find an identity but lacking any actual drive to learn philosophy.

This recreationization pervades other fields too. For example, the outdated and, quite frankly, ignorant views of economy, social theory, and ethics on YouTube; the shallow and childish confrontation between science and religion in pop "educational" books; or the distorted and hypocritical podcasts of history.

Then it's no surprise that knowledge is corrupted and misinformation and populism find their relevance growing as we progress further into the 21st century.

How did this trend ever occur? Is it a willful perversion by some evil cabal? Is this the result of our own wants? Is this the ramification of living in Baudrillard's world of symbols sublated from material, of a symbolic exchange? Is this the necessary symptom of our 21st century society, a Hegelian negation of our world?

Perhaps we will find our answer in ontology, social theory, or the dialectic, but that is a question that requires more exploration.