Dissertation
Abstract: Colonization of the Normative Realm in the Age of Instrumentality
This dissertation
aims to establish
a contemporary model of why apolitical actors engage in the political realm. The
project will
intersperse practical cases with theoretical concerns. I look
at two cases: the
role of Soccer Hooligans in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution and
the Occupy Austin
Movement (2015). The goal of these juxtapositions is to
provide insights into
the realities behind political theories, as I accommodate
additional strands of
theory that have received little attention to date in studies
of political
motivation. I begin by showing how inadequate Rational Choice
Theory (RCT) has
proven to be in explaining political action and then move onto
employing central
concepts from Heidegger, Arendt, Marcuse, Foucault, Habermas,
and Wendy Brown to
create a richer picture of what choice means for subjects.
With the aid of the categories
these thinkers provide, I then build an analytical heuristic
device called the Three
Realms of Action Model. My claim
is that this model, which explains the relationship between
the normative, political and economic realms
can better explain political choice. The actions of
nonpolitical actors might seem
non-rational when viewed from within a purely economic realm, but switching between the three realms and the rationalites they inhabit,
provides the three-pronged
lens needed to make a more nuanced study of the power
relations between
political actors. To better illustrate how subjects negotiate
the realms, I use
familiar historical sites. Each historical event allows us to
inhabit an
epistemology that describes how the realms bargain for
dominance with each
other. The insight I come away with here is that the economic
realm has
colonized the normative
and political realms in the United States. But despite the
dominance of the economic
realm, political action or
choice is not driven "only" by market rationality but also by
a shifting play
of the power in the three realms where we see new and
competing rationalities.
This allows us not only to see "choice" as a more dynamic and
nuanced category
but also better clues us into how it is manipulated and even
subverted.