Rethinking (de)politicisation: the case for an anti-moralistic research agenda

The concepts of politicisation and depoliticisation have been extensively studied in both Anglo-Saxon and Francophone literature. In the context of the environmental crisis, politicisation is often seen as a sign of democratic vitality, reflecting an agonistic perspective and the call for systemic transformation (e.g., Kenis, 2015; Pepermans Statham Weitkamp et al., 2024). Across these contexts, (de)politicisation is deeply entangled with moral evaluations, framed as either desirable or undesirable. This paper proposes an alternative to this moralistic lens by distinguishing three analytical stages: (1) empirically analysing conflictualisation to assess the openness or closure of debates (e.g., Maeseele (2) examining strategic effects in terms of fostering change or reinforcing sedimentation (e.g., Comby, 2019; Jacobs, 2020); and (3) engaging in critique based on desirable agendas. This research agenda challenges the limits of moralistic perspectives by introducing three distinctive analytical stages to guide research on (de)politicisation. To articulate this antinormatimoralistic research agenda, we adopt a strategic discursive perspective (Jacobs, 2022) and explore two empirical cases: the imaginaries (Taylor, 2004; Browne & Diehl, 2019) shaped by discourse on civil disobedience in the environmental crisis and those constructed through Belgian government press conferences during the COVID-19 crisis. By decoupling moral interpretations from analytical functions, this approach reveals how (de)politicisation processes contribute to the discursive construction of imaginaries, shaping perceptions of crisis and envisioning futures. Ultimately, this contribution refines the analytical tools of (de)politicisation, demonstrating their relevance in analysing crisis discourse and offering fresh insights into political change.