This article sets out to examine two claims that have increasingly come to define the dividing lines between the ideational and the post-foundational discursive approaches to populism: namely, that the former is moralistic and the latter is normative in orientation. The article considers the conceptual merits of both critiques while using them to further examine some of the implicit assumptions and pitfalls within Cas Mudde’s and Ernesto Laclau’s paradigmatic conceptualizations of populism. It is argued that ideational scholars’ attribution of a moralistic particularity to populism runs the risk of pathologizing the latter for characteristics that are arguably constitutive of all politics, while the danger of a certain crypto-normativity can be seen in Laclau’s tendency to equate populism with the political and simultaneously emphasize its emancipatory effects. The key difference between the two approaches ultimately consists in the location that they assign to populism within the wider topography of politics itself.

本文着手研究两种说法，它们越来越多地定义了概念性和基础性之后的话语之间的界线民粹主义的方法：即前者是道德主义的，后者是取向的规范。本文考虑了这两种批评的概念优点，同时使用它们进一步检验了卡·穆德（Cas Mudde）和埃内斯托·拉克劳（Ernesto Laclau）的民粹主义范式概念化中的一些隐含假设和陷阱。有人认为，观念主义学者将道德主义特殊性归因于民粹主义，冒着使后者陷入困境的风险，因为后者可能被认为构成了所有政治，而在拉克劳将民粹主义等同于民粹主义的趋势中，可以看出某种秘密规范性的危险。政治上同时强调其解放作用。