Abstract This article explores the interplay between crisis definition and governmental legitimacy. It proposes a constructivist framework that conceptualizes crisis as a political trial of delegitimization and re-legitimation. Challenging the conventional dichotomy between crisis definition and crisis management, the article argues that crises inherently involve discursive and political acts through which governments experience and respond to delegitimization. Drawing on the sociology of trials (épreuves) and discourse analysis, it identifies three distinct forms of crisis government—governing during crisis, governing the crisis, and governing by crisis—and examines their emergence through an empirical analysis of the French government’s management of the subprime crisis (2007–2009). Each mode corresponds to a specific form of delegitimization trials: epistemic, policymaking, or political, and to a distinct strategy of re-legitimation. By analyzing three key events, the study reveals how policymakers discursively redefine crises to legitimize various governmental strategies, ranging from inaction and targeted emergency interventions to long-term structural reform. Ultimately, the article highlights the role of crises as political junctures where governments negotiate legitimacy, redefine policy frameworks, and transform systemic vulnerabilities into opportunities for political and legitimacy renewal.
Zittoun et al. (Tue,) studied this question.