The Third Space: The Demise of the Roman Republic

Ahamed Mohammed (KCL)

This paper aims to argue that the idea of a Third Space as the vital factor accounting for the demise of the Roman Republic. It aims to critique misunderstandings of the Roman Republic. It will integrate social and scientific theories to illuminate an old problem.

The notion of a Third Space is meshes several social and ancient historical theories into one, accounting the fall of the republic. It explains the subjective experience of the individual as well as the objective political developments of the late Republic.

In essence, the Reason for Rome’s greatness was also the cause of its decline. Its obsession with the mos maiorum and a peculiar personal morality inculcated a societal blind spot to structural forces causing the Republic’s demise. This led them to address the symptoms of the crisis, not its roots.

This paper argues that this was due to a unique construction of time, a perpetual present or what I call the Third Space. The past and present seemed to seamlessly merge into one split tense. So while objectives conditions changed and subjective expectations adapted to it, because of the Third Space the Romans were unable to address the chronic structural problems, rather only entrench the old order and further exclude an alternative.

There are two issues which will be dealt with: the ‘collective mentality’ of the Roman people and their ‘consensus’. These two issues were synthesized into the Third Space: such knowledge has a prescriptive side, comprising attitudes to and expectations of; it is also related to ‘real life’, providing a set of references for an individual to ‘improvise’ and deal with everyday problems.

The measures to address social change in the Republic had a paradoxical effect. It rendered the tension between the objective conditions and the Third Space more acute, but paradoxically it served only to strengthen the Third Space and thus further preclude a successful resolution to the crisis. The crisis was not about the Republic but the price of it; the Republic was not the subject, but the object of controversy.