The Epistemic Habits of Danish Populists: Objectivity, Legitimacy and Evidence

ABSTRACT Epistemic conflicts and disagreements characterise our political debates, as consensus surrounding what qualifies as legitimate knowledge in political settings becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. This article examines how right‐wing populist party voters in Denmark produce legitimate political knowledge, based on a series of focus groups conducted in different locations throughout the country. Analysing how the participants discussed migration and climate change, I demonstrate that epistemic habits, or a shared set of beliefs and expectations about how political knowledge is produced and presented, allow participants to transform personal experiences and opinions into legitimate knowledge. I analyse how these voters demonstrate objectivity, claim legitimacy, and provide evidence for their claims, and show that the epistemic habits of this group have distinctly populist characteristics. Furthermore, I examine how the epistemic habits of Danish populists use and transform Danish cultural ideals in their attempts to produce legitimate knowledge and delegitimize knowledge produced in other settings. The article concludes by noting that these epistemic habits may be incommensurable with the epistemic habits of other political groups, and argues that understanding how political groups produce, value, and judge knowledge is vital for understanding current political developments and conflicts.