Why is democracy desirable? Neo-Aristotelian, critical realist, and psychodynamic approaches

References

• Aristotle. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by T. Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. 2013a. Eudemian Ethics. Translated by B. Inwood & R. Woolf. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. 2013b. Politics. Translated by C. Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aron, L. 1996. A Meeting of Minds: Mutuality in Psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Aron, L., and A. Harris. 2012. Relational Psychoanalysis, Volume 4: Expansion of Theory. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Auerbach, C. 2020. “How is Democracy Possible? Critical Realist, Social Psychological and Psychodynamic Approaches.” Journal of Critical Realism, 1–17. doi:10.1080/14767430.2020.1758987 doi: 10.1080/14767430.2020.1802211
   Google Scholar
• Auerbach, C. 2019, August. The Virtues of the Democratic Citizen: Neo-Aristotelian, Psychoanalytic and Critical Realist Views. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Critical Realism. Southampton, U.K.
   Google Scholar
• Augustine, S. 397/2009. The Confessions. Translated by H. Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Batalha, L., S. Niemeyer, N. Curato, J. Dryzek, and J. Gastil. 2012. Group Dynamics and Deliberative Processes: Cognitive and Affective Aspects. http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/working_papers/2012 2 Luisa Batalha et al.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., and B. J. Bushman. 2016. Social Psychology and Human Nature. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Beachtiger, A., J. S. Dryzek, J. J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, J. 1988. The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, J. 1995. Like Subjects, Love Objects: Essays on Recognition and Sexual Difference. Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, J. 1998. Shadow of the Other: Intersubjectivity and Gender in Psychoanalysis. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, J. 2018. Beyond Doer and Done to: Recognition Theory, Intersubjectivity and the Third. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. B., B. Danermark, and L. Price. 2017. Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing: a Critical Realist General Theory of Interdisciplinarity. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 2011. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christiano, Tom. 2018. “Democracy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/.
   Google Scholar
• Coelho Junior, N. E. 2016. “The Origins and Destinies of the Idea of Thirdness in Contemporary Psychoanalysis.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 97 (4): 1105–1127. doi:10.1111/1745-8315.12433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Tocqueville, A. 2002. Democracy in America. Translated by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L. 2004. What Is Democracy? January 21. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/∼ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Donati, P., and M. Archer. 2015. The Relational Subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engster, D. 2007. The Heart of Justice: Care Ethics and Political Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. 2011. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fredrickson, B. 2013. Love 2.0: How our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Think, Feel, do and Become. New York: Hudson Street Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallie, W. B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., and D. F. Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, S. R. C. 2004. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism From Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, AZ: Scholargy Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jebb, A. T., L. Tay, E. Diener, and S. Oishi. 2018. “Happiness, Income Satiation and Turning Points Around the World.” Nature Human Behavior 2: 33–38. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraut, R. 2002. Aristotle: Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kraut, R. 2007. What is Good and Why. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kraut, R. 2018. The Quality of Life: Aristotle Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenz, K. 2002. On Aggression. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A. 1999. Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A. 2016. Ethics in the Conflicts of: Modernity: An Essay on Desire, Practical Reasoning, and Narrative. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muran, J. C., and J. P. Barber. 2010. The Therapeutic Alliance: An Evidence-Based Guide to Practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., and J. Mansbridge. 2013. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (Theories of Institutional Design). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pena-López, J. A., J. M. Sánchez-Santos, and M. Membiela-Pollán. 2017. “Individual Social Capital and Subjective Wellbeing: The Relational Goods.” Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being 18 (3): 881–901. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9753-x.
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/1968). The Social Contract. Translated by M. Cranston. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, C. 2015. To Flourish or Destruct: A Personalist Theory of Human Goods, Motivations, Failure, and Evil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strickler, R. 2018. “Deliberate with the Enemy? Polarization, Social Identity, and Attitudes toward Disagreement.” Political Research Quarterly 7 (1): 3–18. doi: 10.1177/1065912917721371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheldon, K. M. 2013. Individual Daimon, Universal Needs, and Subjective Well-Being: Happiness as the Natural Consequence of a Life Well Lived The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudemonia, 119–137. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Sroufe, L. A., B. Egeland, E. A. Carlson, and W. A. Collins. 2005. The Development of the Person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation From Birth to Adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tiberius, V. 2013. Recipes for a Good Life: Eudemonism and the Contribution of Philosophy The Best Within us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudemonia, (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Vaillant, G. E. 2015. Triumphs of Experience: The men of the Harvard Grant Study. Cambridge: Mass.: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. 1993. “Can Participatory Democracy Produce Better Selves? Psychological Dimensions of Habermas's Discursive Model of Democracy.” Political Psychology 14 (2): 209–234. doi: 10.2307/3791409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wrangham, R. 2019. The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, E. O. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. New York: Verso.
   Google Scholar