Myth and meaning: ‘Corbynism’ and the interpretation of political leadership
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Author | Patrick Diamond,Karl Pike |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148121996252 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148121996252
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2021, Vol. 23(4) 663 –679
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148121996252
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Myth and meaning: ‘Corbynism’
and the interpretation of
political leadership
Karl Pike1 and Patrick Diamond1
Abstract
In its contribution to the study of political leadership, this article provides a distinctive analytical lens:
political myth understood as meanings which animate a leadership project. Heavily constitutive of
political leadership at a particular moment in time, political myths are important for understanding
the resilience of a leadership project and the judgements of its actors. We demonstrate a way of
applying this concept through an analysis of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership from 2015 to 2020 and
the identification of four key elements of the ‘Corbyn myth’: a ‘mould-breaking’ stance on policy,
a return to class politics for Labour, heralding a ‘left wave’ sweeping the world, and the moral
and political repudiation of the Iraq War. Each element clearly emphasises the explicit rejection
of New Labour. Our analysis provides a holistic account of the Corbyn project with greater
specificity about the meanings attached to Corbyn’s leadership by supporters.
Keywords
Corbyn, Corbynism narrative, labour, leadership, myth
Introduction
‘Political leadership’, it has been argued, ‘is about the leadership of meaning as well as
the meaning of leadership’ (Grint, 2016: 242). In other words, in addition to who a leader
is and what they do, and how both of those are judged, we should consider the meanings
that constitute a leadership – meanings that can affect the ‘who’ and ‘what’ of leadership.
Our aim in this article is to consider the meanings that constitute leadership with a focus
on what we term the ‘animating myth’ of political leadership. ‘Myths are not lies’, wrote
the philosopher Mary Midgley, ‘nor are they detached stories. They are imaginative pat-
terns, networks of powerful symbols that suggest particular ways of interpreting the
world. They shape its meaning’ (Midgley, 2011: 1). Both before and since Midgley’s
work, the concept of ‘myth’ has been theorised and the etymology of the term re-exam-
ined. Yet its application within political science has been limited, including within studies
of political leadership. Edelman’s The Symbolic Uses of Politics averred that ‘leadership
1School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Corresponding author:
Karl Pike, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS,
UK.
Email: k.pike@qmul.ac.uk
996252BPI0010.1177/1369148121996252The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsPike and Diamond
research-article2021
Original Article
664 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(4)
is re-created historically by writers and interest groups, as it is created contemporane-
ously by followers’ (Edelman, 1985: 94). Yet while leadership narratives are of course
studied closely in political analysis, rarely is this – to return to Grint’s phrase – about the
leadership of meaning. More typically it is a leadership tool – an important element in
exercising and then remembering leadership.
Political myth, we argue, is different. Building on the philosophical work of Midgley
and of Bottici (2010), we see myths as crucial for understanding claims to relevance and
legitimacy from political leaders at a particular moment in time. ‘What makes a political
myth out of a simple narrative’, Bottici wrote, ‘is the fact that the work on this narrative
can, in a certain context and for certain subjects, come together and produce significance.
Significance is always particularistic in the sense that what is significant for me here and
now is not necessarily so in another context. At the same time, the sphere of significance
always refers to some possibility that what is significant for me here and now can also be
recognised as significant by somebody who shares the same conditions’ (Bottici, 2010:
178). Political myth, then, is distinguished (as a political concept) from narratives or
symbols by the significance produced by, and for, those who create it. It should be noted
that this significance can be shared by some, but also appear irrelevant and insignificant
to others (Bottici, 2010: 243). We argue this is particularly important for the study of
political leadership – with implications for the cohesiveness of a leadership project, its
resilience, and the judgements reached by political actors. Studies of leadership, in the
past focused on either the leader as personality or the art of leadership, now increasingly
understand, ‘leadership as an interactive process between leaders and followers; institu-
tions and their rules of the game; and the broader historical context’ (Rhodes and t’Hart,
2016: 6). The concept of political myth – and the creation of it by people at any given time
– speaks directly to that interaction.
To apply the concept to the study of political leadership, we analyse Jeremy Corbyn’s
leadership of the Labour Party from 2015–2020. In those 5 years, Corbyn won two inter-
nal leadership elections and lost two general elections. Even before his (landslide) leader-
ship mandate was confirmed, Tony Blair’s former press guru, Alastair Campbell, said that
‘with Corbyn, I’m afraid I can see only the route to defeat, and much, much worse . . . it
is horrible to watch’ (Campbell, 2015). The 2015 contest was ‘late-summer delirium’, a
long-standing political commentator wrote (Toynbee, 2015). Metaphors of mindlessness
were interrupted only briefly by the surprise gains Labour made at the 2017 general elec-
tion. Corbyn suffered appalling leadership poll ratings for much of his tenure (Ipsos
MORI, 2019), and moments of real crisis – with mass resignations of colleagues, a long-
running failure to tackle recurrent accusations of antisemitism (Equality and Human
Rights Commission (EHRC), 2020), a vote of no confidence, and constant media criti-
cism. A journalist and supporter of Corbyn, Owen Jones, reflected that over the first
18 months or so of Corbyn’s time as Labour leader he:
had rarely been seen as prime ministerial material – if, that was, you defined ‘prime ministerial’
in the conventional, stuffed-shirt, shiny-suited, PR-friendly sense. It was already clear that if he
was going to stand any chance . . . that definition had to change. (Jones, 2020: 127)
For supporters of Corbyn, new meanings had to be attached to his leadership – meanings
more significant than what they considered ‘conventional’.
In applying the concept of myth to political leadership, this article is structured as fol-
lows. First, we present a distinctive analytical lens for the analysis and evaluation of
To continue reading
Request your trial