Politics of Emancipation: A Feminist Defense of Randomly Selected Political Representatives

References

• Allen, A. 1998. “Rethinking Power.” Hypatia 13 (1): 21–40. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01350.x.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, A. 2015. “Emancipation without Utopia: Subjection, Modernity, and the Normative Claims of Feminist Critical Theory.” Hypatia 30 (3): 513–529. doi:10.1111/hypa.12160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, A. 2021. “Feminist Perspectives on Power.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/feminist-power/.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2000. “Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. 1961. Between past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. London: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Azmanova, A. 2016. “Empowerment as Surrender: How Women Lost the Battle for Emancipation as They Won Equality and Inclusion.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 83 (3): 749–776. doi:10.1353/sor.2016.0052.
   Google Scholar
• Baltrunaite, A., P. Bello, A. Casarico, and P. Profeta. 2014. “Gender Quotas and the Quality of Politicians.” Journal of Public Economics 118 (118): 62–74. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.008.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. 2003. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beauvais, E., and M.E. Warren. 2019. “What Can Deliberative mini-publics Contribute to Democratic Systems?” European Journal of Political Research 58 (3): 893–914. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S., J. Butler, D. Cornell, and N. Fraser. 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, T., O. Folke, T. Persson, and J. Rickne. 2017. “Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden.” American Economic Review 107 (8): 2204–2242. doi:10.1257/aer.20160080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjarnegård, E. 2013. Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, R. 2002. “Engineering Democracy.” Political Studies 50 (1): 102–116. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böker, M. 2017. “Justification, Critique and Deliberative Legitimacy: The Limits of mini-publics.” Contemporary Political Theory 16 (1): 19–40. doi:10.1057/cpt.2016.11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchstein, H., and M. Hein. 2009. “Randomizing Europe: The Lottery as a Decision-Making Procedure for Policy Creation in the EU.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (1): 29–57. doi:10.1080/19460170903158081.
   Google Scholar
• Burnheim, J. 2006. Is Democracy Possible?: The Alternative to Electoral Democracy. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callenbach, E., M. Phillips, and K. Sutherland. 2008. A People’s Parliament/A Citizen Legislature. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Celis, K., and S. Childs. 2019. “A feminist reading of Rethinking Democracy.” Soundings: A journal of politics and culture Vol. 73 (73): 149–152. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/742559
   Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, R., and E. Duflo. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72 (5): 1409–1443. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, S., and M.L. Krook. 2006. “Should Feminists Give up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes.” Politics & Gender 2 (4): 522–530. doi:10.1017/S1743923X06251146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, S., and M.L. Krook. 2009. “Analysing Women’s Substantive Representation: From Critical Mass to Critical Actors.” Government and Opposition 44 (2): 125–145. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01279.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton, A., C. Josefsson, and V. Wang. 2017. “Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Evidence from a Content Analysis of Ugandan Plenary Debates.” Politics & Gender 13 (2): 276–304. doi:10.1017/S1743923X16000453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton, A., and P. Zetterberg. 2018. “Quota Shocks: Electoral Gender Quotas and Government Spending Priorities Worldwide.” The Journal of Politics 80 (3): 916–932. doi:10.1086/697251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., and A. Fung. 2004. “Radical Democracy.” Swiss Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 23–34.
   Google Scholar
• Colley, L. 2004. “Merit Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Barriers to Female Employment in the Queensland Public Service from 1859-1959.” Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 9 (1): 62.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, P. H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A., and A.M. Goetz. 2005. “Democratizing Democracy: Feminist Perspectives.” Democratisation 12 (5): 783–800. doi:10.1080/13510340500322181.
   Google Scholar
• Crouch, C. 2004. Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, L., and E. Siapera. 2007. Radical Democracy and the Internet: Interrogating Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Delannoi, G., O. Dowlen, and P. Stone. 2013. “The Lottery as a Democratic Institution.” Policy Institute, University of Dublin Trinity College.
   Google Scholar
• Dowlen, O. 2008. The Political Potential of Sortition. A Study of the Random Selection of Citizens for Public Office. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S., and O. Escobar. 2019. Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S., and Z. Khoban. forthcoming. “Citizens’ Assemblies: A Critical Perspective .” In Handbook of Citizens’ Assemblies, edited by M. Reuchamps, J. Vrydagh, and Y. Welp. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text 25: 56–80. doi:10.2307/466240.
   Google Scholar
• Galasso, V., and T. Nannicini. 2011. “Competing on Good Politicians.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 79–99. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., and E. O. Wright. 2018. “Legislature by Lot: Envisioning Sortition within a Bicameral System.” Politics & Society 46 (3): 303–330. doi:10.1177/0032329218789886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, B. 1992. Justice by Lottery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, D. 2013. “Citizens, Representatives, and the Myth of the decision-making Divide.” Political Behavior 35 (2): 261–287. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9191-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrero, A. A. 2014. “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 42 (2): 135–178. doi:10.1111/papa.12029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammond, M. 2019. “Deliberative Democracy as a Critical Theory.” Critical Review of International Social and Political.” Philosophy 22 (7): 787–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599. doi:10.2307/3178066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1992. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is” Strong Objectivity?”.” The Centennial Review 36 (3): 437–470.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, C., D. M. Farrell, J. Suiter, and M. Brennan. 2021. “Women’s Voices in a Deliberative Assembly: An Analysis of Gender Rates of Participation in Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution 2012–2014.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23 (1): 175–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsock, N. C. M. 1997. “Comment on Hekman’s ”Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”: Truth or Justice?” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22 (2): 367–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartsock, N. C. M. 2004. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. . In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, edited by S. Harding, 35-54. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. 2006. “Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 54 (3): 486–508. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heward, C. 1994. “Academic Snakes and Merit Ladders: Reconceptualising the ‘Glass Ceiling’.” Gender and Education 6 (3): 249–262. doi:10.1080/0954025940060302.
   Google Scholar
• hooks, B.2000. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• IPU. 2022. “Women in Parliament in 2021: The Year in Review.” https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2022-03/women-in-parliament-in-2021
   Google Scholar
• Jacquet, V. 2017. “Explaining Non-participation in Deliberative Mini-publics.” European Journal of Political Research 56 (3): 640–659. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquet, V., C. Niessen, and M. Reuchamps. 2022. “Sortition, Its Advocates and Its Critics: An Empirical Analysis of Citizens’ and MPs’ Support for Random Selection as a Democratic Reform Proposal.” International Political Science Review 43 (2): 295–316. doi:10.1177/0192512120949958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., and T. Mendelberg. 2014. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., T. Mendelberg, and L. Shaker. 2012. “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation.” American Political Science Review, no. 3: 533–547. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoban, Z. 2021. “Interpretative Interactions: An Argument for Descriptive Representation in Deliberative Mini-publics.” Representation 57 (4): 497–514. doi:10.1080/00344893.2021.1880471.
   Google Scholar
• Krook, M. L. 2010. Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 2014. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Lafont, C. 2019. Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landa, D., and R. Pevnick. 2021. “Is Random Selection a Cure for the Ills of Electoral Representation?” Journal of Political Philosophy 29 (1): 46–72. doi:10.1111/jopp.12219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2013. “Deliberation, Cognitive Diversity, and Democratic Inclusiveness: An Epistemic Argument for the Random Selection of Representatives.” Synthese 190 (7): 1209. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2020. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawless, J. L., and R. L. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lettow, S. 2015. “Editor’s introduction–emancipation: Rethinking Subjectivity, Power, and Change.” Hypatia 30 (3): 501–512. doi:10.1111/hypa.12163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littler, J. 2017. Against Meritocracy. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lloren, A. 2015. “Women’s Substantive Representation: Defending Feminist Interests or Women’s Electoral Preferences?” The Journal of Legislative Studies 21 (2): 144–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovenduski, J. 2005. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lovenduski, J. 2019. “Feminist Reflections on Representative Democracy.” The Political Quarterly 90: 18–35. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucardie, P. 2014. Democratic Extremism in Theory and Practice: All Power to the People. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Malkopoulou, A. 2015. “The Paradox of Democratic Selection: Is Sortition Better than Voting?” In Parliamentarism and Democratic Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by P. Kari and J. M. Rosales, 229–254. Opladen, Berlin & Toronto: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ”Yes.” The Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–657. doi:10.2307/2647821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, T. 2009. “Democracy Is Where We Make It: The Relevance of Jacques Rancière.” Symposium, 13 (1): 3–21. doi:10.5840/symposium20091311.
   Google Scholar
• Muldoon, J. 2021. “Institutionalizing Radical Democracy: Socialist Republicanism and Democratizing the Economy.” New Political Science 43 (2): 189–207 doi:10.1080/07393148.2021.1886797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, R. 2015. “What Makes a Good Politician? Reassessing the Criteria Used for Political Recruitment.” Politics &; Gender 11 (4): 770–776. doi:10.1017/S1743923X15000513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, S. 2011. “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from mini-publics.” Politics & Society 39 (1): 103–140. doi:10.1177/0032329210395000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, D., and G. Smith. 2018. “Sortition, Rotation, and Mandate: Conditions for Political Equality and Deliberative Reasoning.” Politics & Society 46 (3): 419–434. doi:10.1177/0032329218789892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. 2006. Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. 1992. “Must Feminists Give up on Liberal Democracy?” Political Studies 40 (1_suppl): 68–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01813.x.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. 1998 ”Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?” Feminism and Politics, edited by A. Phillips, 224-240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, A. 1999. Which Equalities Matter? Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piscopo, J. M. 2019. “The Limits of Leaning In: Ambition, Recruitment, and Candidate Training in Comparative Perspective.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (4): 817–828. doi:10.1080/21565503.2018.1532917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puwar, N. 2004. Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. 1991. The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. 2014. Hatred of Democracy. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Setälä, M., and G. Smith. 2018. “Mini-publics and Deliberative Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by A. Bächtiger, J.S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. E. Warren, 300–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sintomer, Y. 2018. “From Deliberative to Radical Democracy? Sortition and Politics in the Twenty-First Century.” Politics & Society 46 (3): 337–357. doi:10.1177/0032329218789888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. 2004 . ”Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology.” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, edited by S. Harding, 21-33. London: Routledge .
   Google Scholar
• Squires, J. 2008. “The Constitutive Representation of Gender: Extra-parliamentary Representations of Gender Relations.” Representation 44 (2): 187–204. doi:10.1080/00344890802080464.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, P. 2011. The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, P. 2016. “Sortition, Voting, and Democratic Equality.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (3): 339–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, P., and A. Malkopoulou. 2022. “Allotted Chambers as Defenders of Democracy.” Constellations 29 (3): 296–309. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S., L. Hayes, D. Newman, and C. Pateman. 2018. “The Sexual Contract 30 Years On: A Conversation with Carole Pateman.” Feminist Legal Studies 26 (1): 93–104. doi:10.1007/s10691-018-9368-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, M. 2007. “Otherness on the Bench: How Merit Is Gendered.” Sydney Law Review 29 (3) : 391–413.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, M. 2013. “The Mirage of Merit: Reconstituting the ‘Ideal Academic’.” Australian Feminist Studies 28 (76): 127–143. doi:10.1080/08164649.2013.789584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandamme, P.E., and A. Verret-Hamelin. 2017. “A Randomly Selected Chamber: Promises and Challenges.” Journal of Public Deliberation 13 (1).
   Google Scholar
• Vick, J. 2015. “Participatory versus Radical Democracy in the 21st Century: Carole Pateman, Jacques Rancière, and Sheldon Wolin.” New Political Science 37 (2): 204–223. doi:10.1080/07393148.2015.1022960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. 2008. “Citizen Representatives.” In Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, edited by M. E. Warren and H. Pearse, 50–69. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. 1958. “Democracy or Meritocracy?” Manchester Guardian 30 (58): 10.
   Google Scholar
• Wolin, S. S. 2018. Fugitive Democracy: And Other Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, E. O. 2018. “Postscript to Gastil and Wright: The Anticapitalist Argument for Sortition.” Politics & Society 46 (3): 331–335. doi:10.1177/0032329218789887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29 (5): 670–690. doi:10.1177/0090591701029005004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakaras, A. 2010. “Lot and Democratic Representation: A Modest Proposal.” Constellations 17 (3): 455–471. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2010.00608.x.
   Google Scholar