Uneven Development and the Origins of Contemporary Populism in the Global South: Hindutva and the Milli Görüs Movement in Comparative Perspective

最近对右翼民粹主义政治运动的分析主要集中在西方的社会形态上，解释集中在最近的复兴的近因上。通过比较两个执政的政治运动--印度人民党（BJP）和土耳其正义与发展党（AKP）--我的研究旨在从国际历史社会学的角度来解决这一差距，分析了当代民粹主义在这两个全球南方关键国家的发展轨迹。我这样做特别是指在20世纪世纪早期在孟买和伊斯坦布尔港口城市的政治动员的独特形式的发展，在我看来，这是关键的理解当代保守的民粹主义在印度和土耳其。当代写作印度强调的独特性“印度文化”-框架作为一个例外，标准的社会学解释，and thus requires要求an appreciation升值of postcolonialdifference差异.我建议通过比较殖民地和非殖民地融入世界市场来挑战这一观点。反过来，这表明当代印度政治经济不应被理解为后殖民差异，而应被理解为资本主义社会关系的国际扩张。这种解释方法突出了资本主义发展不平衡的地理与民族认同和政治主体性形成之间的关系。此外，它着眼于确定集体机构的形式是如何在国际体系中带来社会历史变化的。

Recent analyses of right-wing populist political movements have predominantly centred on westernsocial formations, with explanation focusing on the most recent proximate causes for this resurgence.Through a comparison of the experience of two ruling political movements - the Indian BharatiyaJanta Party (BJP) and the Turkish Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP) - my research aims to addressthis gap, from an international historical-sociological perspective, analysing the trajectory ofcontemporary populism in these two pivotal countries of the Global South. I do this with particularreference to the development of distinctive forms of political mobilisation in the port-cities of Bombayand Istanbul during the early part of the twentieth century, which in my view are critical tounderstanding contemporary conservative populism in India and Turkey.Contemporary writing on India has emphasised the uniqueness of 'Indian culture' - framing it as anexception to standard sociological explanation, and thus requiring an appreciation of postcolonialdifference. I propose to challenge this idea through a comparison of colonial and non-colonialintegration into the world market. In turn, suggesting that the contemporary Indian political economy isto be understood not in reference to postcolonial difference, but with reference to the internationalexpansion of capitalist social relations. This method of explanation highlights the relationship betweenthe geography of uneven capitalist development and the formation of national identities and politicalsubjectivities. Further, it looks to identify how forms of collective agency have brought about sociohistoricalchange in the international system.