This article uncovers anthropological silence on popular sovereignty, suggesting its importance for democracy.
Popular sovereignty is the common denominator that links populism to democracy and modern politics more generally. It would be hard to dream up a more exotic political first principle or one better suited to anthropological inquiry, but with a few notable exceptions, anthropologists have been silent on the subject. This silence is one facet of a larger democracy problem that haunts the discipline. The following article attempts to recover popular sovereignty as an object of anthropological investigation. Doing so means provincializing a Cold War problematic that tacitly orients much of contemporary scholarship. A key element of this Cold War problematic is what I call “the sovereign equivocation,” which assumes that all sovereignties are created equal and that they are all equally bad. Such undifferentiated treatment of sovereignty puts anthropologists in a bind because it forsakes popular sovereignty and political self-determination, which are foundational principles of democratic politics. I argue that unraveling anthropology’s democracy problem means digging into the intellectual history of the second half of the twentieth century and that a good place to start is with the concept of “populism.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert Samet (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: