From calculation to deliberation: the contemporaneity of Dewey

References

• Anderson, B. 2016. ‘Neoliberal Affects’. Progress in Human Geography 40:6, 734–753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antal, A. B., Hutter, M. and Stark, D. (eds). 2015. Moments of Valuation Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arvidsson, A. 2011. ‘General Sentiment: How Value and Affect Converge in the Information economy’. The Sociological Review 59:Supplement s2, 39–59.
   Google Scholar
• Arvidsson, A., Bauwens, M. and Peitersen, N. 2008. ‘The Crisis of Value and the Ethical economy’. Journal of Future Studies 12, 9–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M. E. 2018. ‘Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction’. In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–35.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, D. W., McAfee, N. and McIvor, D. W. 2012. ‘Introduction: Democratizing Deliberation’. In Democratizing Deliberation: A Political Theory Anthology, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Beer, D. 2016. Metric Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (ed). 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berlin, I. 1990. The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas. London: John Murray.
   Google Scholar
• Berlin, I. 2002. Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. 2006. On Justification. Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., Chiapello, E. and Elliott, G. 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Boyte, H. C. 2017. ‘John Dewey and Citizen Politics: How Democracy Can Survive Artificial Intelligence and the Credo of Efficiency’. Education and Culture 33:2, 13–47.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. and Muniesa, F. 2005. ‘Economic Markets as Calculative Collective devices’. Organization Studies 26:8, 1229–1250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1989. ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’. In A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell, 17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G. 2006. ‘Mapping Deliberation: Calculation, Articulation and Intervention in the Politics of Organ transplantation’. Economy and Society 35:2, 232–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, W. 2014. The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty & The Logic of Competition. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, W. 2017. ‘Elite Power Under Advanced Neoliberalism’. Theory Culture and Society 34:5-6, 227–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, W. 2020. ‘Anti-Equivalence: Pragmatics of Post-Liberal dispute’. European Journal of Social Theory 24:1, 44–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deringer, W. 2018. Calculated Values: Finance, Politics, and the Quantitative age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desrosieres, A. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1991. ‘Psychology of Ethics’. Lecture XXIX, March 18, 1901. In Lectures on Ethics: 1900–1901, edited by D. F. Koch. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 241–245.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1996. The Collected Works of John Dewey: The Electronic Edition. Edited by L. A. Hickman. Charlottesville, VA: Intelex Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz-Bone, R. and Didier, E. 2016. ‘The Sociology of Quantification: Perspectives on an Emerging Field in the Social sciences’. Historical Social Research 2, 7–26.
   Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. and Sauder, M. 2007. ‘Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds’. American Journal of Sociology 113:1, 1–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. and Stevens, M. 1998. ‘Commensuration as a Social Process’. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 313–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. and Stevens, L. 2008. ‘A Sociology of quantification’. European Journal of Sociology 49:3, 401–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1982. ‘The Subject and Power’. Critical Inquiry 8:4, 777–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourcade, M. 2016. ‘Ordinalization: Lewis A. Coser Memorial Award for Theoretical Agenda Setting 2014’. Sociological Theory 34:3, 175–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlitz, C. and Helmond, A. 2013. ‘The Like Economy: Social Buttons and the Data-Intensive Web’. New Media and Society 15:8, 1348–1365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouinlock, J. 1978. ‘Dewey's Theory of Moral Deliberation’. Ethics 88:3, 218–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action – Reason and Rationalization of Society. vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1990. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lecturers. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 2015. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. London: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinich, N. 2020. ‘A Pragmatic Redefinition of Value(s): Toward a General Model of Valuation’. Theory, Culture & Society 37:5, 75–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., Van Den Hoven, J., Zicari, R. V. and Zwitter, A. 2019. ‘Will Democracy Survive big Data and Artificial Intelligence?’ In Towards Digital Enlightenment. Cham: Springer, 73–98.
   Google Scholar
• Huddy, L., Sears, D., Levy, J., Myers, C. and Mendelberg, T. 2013. ‘Political Deliberation’. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 699–734.
   Google Scholar
• Kanigel, R. 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. London: Little, Brown & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kjellberg, H., et al. 2013. ‘Valuation Studies? Our Collective Two Cents’. Valuation Studies 1:1, 11–30.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, P. 2003. ‘Everything is Political’. The New York Times. Available online at https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/everything-is-political.html.
   Google Scholar
• Lamont, M. 2012. ‘Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation’. Annual Review of Sociology 38:21, 201–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2004. ‘Why has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’. Critical Inquiry 30:2, 225–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M. and Gastil, J. 2006. ‘Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study’. Journal of Public Deliberation 2, 7.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, K. 1990 [1867]. Capital. London: Penguin Classics.
   Google Scholar
• Meek, S. 2020. Covid-19: However Good the Science, You Need Good Politics too. University of Nottingham. Available online at Covid-19: However good the science, you need good politics too | Vision | University of Nottingham.
   Google Scholar
• Mirowski, P. and Plehwe, D. (eds). 2009. The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. (Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Institut für Höhere Studien, Abt. Politikwissenschaft, 72). Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien.
   Google Scholar
• O'Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Pasquale, F. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ralston, S. 2010. ‘Dewey's Theory of Moral (and Political) Deliberation Unfiltered’. Education and Culture 26:1, 23–43.
   Google Scholar
• Roháč, D. 2021. ‘The Technocrats are Failing the Vaccine Test’. The Critic. Available online at https://thecritic.co.uk/the-technocrats-are-failing-the-vaccine-test/.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L. M. 1997. ‘Against Deliberation’. Political Theory 25, 347–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shook, J. 2004. ‘Dewey's Rejection of Retributivism and His Moral-Education Theory of Punishment’. Journal of Social Philosophy 35, 66–78.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, D. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. 2005. ‘Opening up or Closing Down: Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of technology’. In M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed, 218–231.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A., et al. 2019. ‘Sustainability and the Politics of Transformations: From Control to Care in Moving Beyond modernity’. In J. Meadowcroft, D. Banister and E. Holden (eds), What Next for Sustainable Development? Our Common Future at Thirty. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 219–238.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, F. W. 2004. Scientific Management. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Thévenot, L. 2009. ‘Governing Life by Standards: A View from Engagements’. Social Studies of Science 39:5, 793–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooze, A. 2021. ‘Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi Have One Last Job’. Foreign Policy. Available online at https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/01/janet-yellen-mario-draghi-italy-united-states-technocrats-capitalist-democracy/.
   Google Scholar
• Vatin, F. 2013. ‘Valuation as Evaluating and Valorizing’. Valuation Studies 1:1, 31–50.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, M. 2020. ‘Maintaining the Lockdown and Saving the Economy are Mutually Compatible’. Financial Times. Available online at https://www.ft.com/content/e486590e-8539-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1978 [1922]. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. I. 1996. ‘Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy’. In S. Benhabib (ed), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 120–137.
   Google Scholar
• Zelizer, V. A. 1994. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zelizer, V. A. 2000. ‘The Purchase of Intimacy’. Law & Social Inquiry 25:3, 817–848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar