Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Critical fantasy analysis explores the pro-‘expert’ anti-populist discourse in UK and US politics, revealing implications for public engagement.
Anti-populist discourse often presents ‘populism’ as a threat to ‘expertise’, taking the side of ‘experts’ against their ‘populist’ opponents. However, the role of enjoyment in inciting identification with this pro-‘expert’ anti-populist position remains under-explored. This paper analyses the construction of ‘experts’ and ‘expertise’ in a corpus of anti-populist political commentary from the UK and USA to identify the enjoyment that pro-‘expert’ anti-populism promises to its adherents. Guided by the research agenda of Critical Fantasy Studies (CFS), I argue that anti-populism’s pro-‘expert’ stance can be understood as a fantasy in which ‘experts’ act as hero-guarantors of enjoyment and are portrayed as playing a central role in maximising public welfare. Unlike (‘populist’) politicians, ‘experts’ are presented as nobly standing above the cut and thrust of politics. This enjoyment is threatened by two thieves: ‘the populists’ and the people, whose irrationality is seen as disrupting an otherwise beatific, rational order. I conclude by discussing two political effects of anti-populism’s pro-‘expert’ fantasy. First, the discursive depoliticisation of policy areas which anti-populist discourse presents as the domain of ‘experts’, thus insulating them from democratic contestation. Second, the epistemic snobbery of pro-‘expert’ anti-populism, which marginalises popular knowledges in favour of credentialed ‘expertise.’
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alex Yates (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: