Towards a concept of inefficiency in performance and dialogue practice

References

• Auslander, P. 1986/1995. ““Just Be Your Self”: Logocentrism and Difference in Performance Theory.” In Acting (Re)Considered, edited by P. Zarrilli, 59–68. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 1996. “Critical Theory and Postmodernism: On the Interplay of Ethics, Aesthetics, and Utopia in Critical Theory.” In Handbook of Critical Theory, edited by D. M. Ramussen, 337–339. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 1995. “The Debate Over Women and Moral Theory Revisited.” In Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, edited by J. Meehan, 181–203. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boal, A. 1985. Theatre of the Oppressed. Translated by Charles A. and Maria-Odilia Leal McBride. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Boal, A. 1992. Games for Actors and Non-actors. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. 2005. “Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy.” In Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, W. 2016. “Sacrificial Citizenship: Neoliberalism, Human Capital, and Austerity Politics.” Constellations (oxford, England) 23 (1): 3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, J. 2015. Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1985. “What's Critical About Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender.” New German Critique 35: 97–131. doi: 10.2307/488202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text 25/26: 56–80. doi: 10.2307/466240
   Google Scholar
• Gill, R., and N. Donaghue. 2016, January. “Resilience, Apps and Reluctant Individualism: Technologies of Self in the Neoliberal Academy.” In Women's Studies International Forum 54: 91–99. Pergamon. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Volume One. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action Volume Two. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1992. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere”. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by C. Calhoun, 421–461. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1995. Justification and Application. Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Heyne, P. T., P. J. Boettke, and D. L. Prychitko. 1994. The Economic Way of Thinking. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Karppinen, K., H. Moe, and J. Svensson. 2008. “Habermas, Mouffe and Political Communication: A Case for Theoretical Eclecticism.” Javnost-the Public 15 (3): 5–21. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2008.11008973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, C. 2012. “If You're so Smart, why are you Under Surveillance? Universities, Neoliberalism, and new Public Management.” Critical Inquiry 38 (3): 599–629. doi: 10.1086/664553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso Books.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, S. (2017). Zombie University. London: Repeater Books.
   Google Scholar
• Peseta, T., J. Fyffe, and F. Salisbury. 2019. Interrogating the “Idea of the University” Through the Pleasures of Reading Together. In Resisting Neoliberalism in Higher Education Volume II (pp. 199-217). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. 2014. The Emancipated Spectator. London: Verso Books.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, J. 2017. The Toxic University: Zombie Leadership, Academic Rock Stars and Neoliberal Ideology. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Wetherell, M. 2013. “Affect and Discourse–What’s the Problem? From Affect as Excess to Affective/Discursive Practice.” Subjectivity 6 (4): 349–368. doi: 10.1057/sub.2013.13
   Google Scholar