Tristan Dupas Amory
Amid the ongoing contestation of expertise fueled by populist rhetoric, this paper argues that contemporary discourse on expertise is part of a long-standing discursive struggle shaped by two distinct forms of articulation: populist and hegemonic. While populist articulations are grounded in antagonism toward expertise, hegemonic articulations—traditionally associated with experts—seek to construct a consensual discourse around it. Drawing on critical discourse studies, the paper first outlines theoretically these logics before turning to an empirical examination of “street-level” discursive practices through which business experts articulate their expertise today. What emerges are three distinct discursive practices that rely on micro-insertions, small-scale incorporations of discursive elements, as a recurring means of articulating expertise in relation to ecological and social concerns and, more unexpectedly, of introducing elements of antagonism into otherwise hegemonic discourse. Building on this theoretical framework and empirical analysis, the study advances two key contributions. First, it foregrounds populist rhetoric surrounding expertise by recontextualizing it, through a critical discursive lens, within a broader hegemonic struggle, thus contributing to literature on the entanglements between populism and elitism through the lens of expertise. Second, it offers a micro-level analysis of how contemporary business experts engage in articulatory practices. These micro-discursive activities deepen our understanding of “hegemony-in-practice” by identifying micro-insertion as a privileged discursive mode and revealing how business actors subtly mobilize antagonisms within expert discourse. This points to a latent ambivalence among business experts, who both inhabit and question hegemonic articulations of expertise.