UC Irvine

This dissertation identifies tensions within the practice of state sovereignty that have emerged in relation to contemporary democratic practices. Specifically, the dissertation articulates, if not resolves, the tension between the historically constructed, absolute and indivisible sovereign that is the focus of our theoretical understanding of sovereignty, and the amorphous and partial, popular sovereign that is revealed through a detailed analysis of policy construction and execution in the United States.

In the dissertation I argue that characteristics we attribute to popular sovereignty in our intellectual practices are at odds with the institutional practice of sovereignty. The unity, constituent power, and free flow of information that form the cornerstones of popular sovereignty in this intellectual tradition are also, I claim, sources of highly problematic tensions within political practice. These tensions take the form of what I call “antinomies of popular sovereignty.” They are material contradictions within democratic practice that simultaneously limit these practices and give them vital energy. My goal here is to identify several of these antinomies, show how they foil the effective practice of popular sovereignty, and suggest paths to better navigating (though not eliminating) them in the future.