Gonçalves, Gil2025-04-102025-04-1020212672-8370PURE: 78893364PURE UUID: 48becfc9-5c5e-468c-99cc-fce717b6150bhttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/182022UIDB/04209/2020 UIDP/04209/2020This paper suggests that the concept of populism can contribute to a renewal of historiographical debates. Often considered too imprecise to offer any analytical value, many historians discard the term or use it in a simplistic and derogatory manner. This dismissal reveals two faults. First, it exposes the lack of dialogue with theoretical contributions from different fields within the “populism studies”. Second, it overlooks the particular ways in which populism engages with history. Summoning two works that seek to give populism a history (Finchelstein, 2017 and Rosanvallon, 2020), this paper argues that the term is not lacking a “manifesto” or a concise definition. The “anexactness”(Panniza, 2005) that makes it adaptable to a plurality of contexts allows for a disturbance of set interpretations and concepts, such as “democracy”, “nation”, or “people”. Populist theory exposes the contingency of history’s normative foundations, while it revitalizes some important discussions within the field.16303742engFinchelsteinPopulismHistoryHistoriographyDemocrac yRosanvallonjournal articlehttps://lawpop.eu/issues/