Conclusion
Politics involves distinct social mechanisms, which cannot be ade-
quately captured by the sociological notions of structure and culture,
or by the economic concepts of rational choice and equilibrium. Some
political actions are driven by social norms, and others by utilitarian
calculations, but political life always contains an additional dimen-
sion: communication. Political scientists sometimes convey this dis-
tinction by speaking of a logic of arguing that exists alongside a
sociological logic of appropriateness (norms) and an economic logic
of consequentialism (utility). When they argue, social actors can
challenge prevailing norms and the dominant rationality, and trans-
form society as they communicate and deliberate.^1 Economist Albert
Hirschman once made a similar distinction by contrasting the market,
where one exercised choice through “exit” – by not buying – and pol-
itics, where “voice” and protest were the prevailing modes of oper-
ation.^2 Likewise, Jon Elster distinguished the market, where private
preferences were expressed through purchases, and the forum, where
an open and public conversation brought people to determine together
the common good and the meaning of social justice.^3
This deliberative dimension of politics is perfectly captured by the
left–right opposition. Whereas the core concepts of economics trans-
late into an instrumental rationality that tends to “close off debate,”^4
(^1) Thomas Risse, “Constructivism and International Institutions: Toward
Conversations across Paradigms,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.),
Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York, W. W. Norton, 2002
2 p. 602.
Albert O. Hirschman,Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
3 Organizations, and States, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1970, p. 15.
Jon Elster, “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theories,”
in Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland (eds.),Foundations of Social Choice
Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 103 and 111.
(^4) Theodore Lowi, “The State in Political Science: How We Become What We
Study,” in James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds.),Discipline and
231