Governing against the tide: Populism, power and the party conference
| Author | Thomas Guiney,Stephen Farrall |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13624806221081504 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Governing against the tide:
Populism, power and
the party conference
Thomas Guiney
University of Nottingham, UK
Stephen Farrall
University of Derby, UK
Abstract
In this article we argue that a tendency to treat populism as a ubiquitous, mechanistic
characteristic of contemporary penality has impeded systematic theoretical discussion
of how populist ideologies find contingent expression within national penal systems.
Drawing upon an agonistic perspective we seek to show that the intersection between
populism and punishment must be understood as a structured process that is shaped by
struggle between actors with different types, and amounts, of political power. We illus-
trate these claims with reference to a historical case study of the 1981 British
Conservative Party Conference; a political calendar ritual that facilitated symbolic con-
flict and provided an institutional point of entry for populist movements seeking to dis-
rupt the prevailing liberal consensus on crime and secure substantive policy concessions
from government.
Keywords
agonistic perspective, law and order, party conferences, penal policy, populism
Corresponding author:
Thomas Guiney, Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham University Park Campus, Nottingham,
NG7 2RD, UK.
Email: thomas.guiney@nottingham.ac.uk
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2023, Vol. 27(1) 147–164
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13624806221081504
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Introduction
Populism continues to shape, and reshape, the contemporary penological landscape. It is
closely associated with unprecedented prison expansionism, a performative style of penal
politics and a ‘toughening’of the criminal justice system generally (Bonner, 2019).
Across the globe, state institutions are under increasing strain from populist movements
that are disapproving of legally codified human rights protections and quick to relegate
the careful work of rehabilitation to the imperatives of an all-encompassing public pro-
tection (Moffa et al., 2019). Populism fundamentally alters the voices that ‘really
matter’in the public contestation of crime and its control (Garland, 2021). It presents a
formidable challenge to criminal justice expertise, it has privileged the claims of
certain ‘authentic’victims and continues to amplify public fears over violent, sexual
and foreign ‘others’(Pratt and Miao, 2019a).
Ever since these penal developments have been subject to systematic description and
analysis (see Bottoms, 1995) a rich and varied literature has sought to understand the
determinants of penal populism (Pratt and Miao, 2019b; Sozzo, 2016), its social functions
and implications for the humanity, fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice
system (Roberts et al., 2003). However, as we seek to show here, an associated tendency
to treat populism as a ubiquitous, mechanistic characteristic of contemporary penality—
often reflected in the use of compound nouns such as ‘penal populism’(Pratt, 2007) or
‘populist punitiveness’(Bottoms, 1995)—can impede systematic theoretical engagement
with the inter-related question of how populist ideologies find contingent expression
within national penal systems. For while it is right that research in the sociology of pun-
ishment continues to study the many accomplishments of penal populism (for better or
worse), this should not distract us from its failures, setbacks and political defeats; that
we seek to better understand those periods in time when populism has been in retreat
and alternative ideological perspectives, such as feminism or localism, have prevailed
within the political marketplace of ideas (see, for example, Grzyb, 2021).
In our view greater analytical sensitivity to the how as well as the why of penal change
can open up new avenues for the study of penal populism and the contextual factors that
shape its contemporary manifestations. How do populist movements that are not osten-
sibly ‘of the system’(Taggart, 1996: 32) interact with, disrupt and gain access to the pol-
itical agenda? How do political coalitions organize in opposition to populism and why do
populist movements present such a potent threat to existing power structures? Who were
the winners and losers in these political conflicts and how did the victors seek to institu-
tionalize their advantages? How do these complex political legacies continue to shape the
unique developmental trajectory of penal populism in England and Wales, and
elsewhere?
In seeking to answer this broad constellation of questions we draw upon the ‘agonistic
perspective’developed by Goodman et al. (2015, 2017) to understand ideological debates
over populism as a structured process that has, and will continue to be, shaped by political
conflict. Our central claim is that penal populism did not arrive as a fully formed political
project in England and Wales, nor was its influence felt immediately and uniformly
throughout the penal system. Across time and space, the basic ideological building
blocks of populism have been resisted, with varying degrees of success, by continually
148 Theoretical Criminology 27(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial