BIOMETRIC CITIZENS in smart cities

References

1. “it’s 2021. why are public spaces & roads still unsafe for women?” 2021a Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/its-2021-why-are-public-spaces-and-roads-still-unsafe-for-women
   [Google Scholar]
2. “Technology To Improve Citizens’ Lives: The Case of The Montevideo Beaches” 2021b Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/technology-montevideo-beaches
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alonso, Tania
   2020 “Paul Duan, Co-Founder and President of Bayes Impact: ‘We Should Trust in The Power Of The Multitude.’” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/paul-duan-interview-citizen-participation-public-services
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bravo, David
   2019 “Social Score System: A Tool to Oppress or Reward Citizens?” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/social-score-system-a-tool-to-oppress-or-reward-citizens
   [Google Scholar]
5. Euklidiadas, Martínez
   2021 “Coworking Spaces: How Cities Are Adapting to This New Work Concept.” https://tomorrow.city/a/coworking-spaces-how-cities-are-adapting-to-this-new-work-concept
6. Fuldauer, Esther
   2019 “Citizens at The Heart of Smart Cities.” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/citizens-at-the-heart-of-smart-cities-2
   [Google Scholar]
7. Herranz, Arantxa
   2019a “Can We Combat Poverty with An App?” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/can-we-combat-poverty-with-an-app
   [Google Scholar]
8. Herranz, Arantxa
   2019b “Citizens Policing Our Streets: Is It Lawful to Report the Inappropriate Use of Cities?” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/citizens-policing-our-streets
   [Google Scholar]
9. Herranz, Arantxa
   2020 Pontus Westerberg, UN-Habitat: “People Need to Be Allowed To Offer Their Own Solutions To The Problems In The Places In Which They Live.” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/block-by-block-minecraft-for-smart-cities
   [Google Scholar]
10. Liceras, Patricia
    2019 “Technology in Schools with An Impact in And Out of The Classrooms.” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/technology-in-schools-with-an-impact-in-and-out-of-the-classrooms
    [Google Scholar]
11. Liceras, Patricia
    2021 “Helsinki: Opening New Frontiers in Digital Tourism.” Tomorrow City, https://tomorrow.city/a/helsinki-opening-new-frontiers-in-digital-tourism
    [Google Scholar]
12. Martínez, Marcos
    2019a Pablo Soto, regional representative of Transparency and Participation in Madrid: “Technology Should Be Used to Enhance Institutions.” Tomorrow Cityhttps://tomorrow.city/a/pablo-soto-regional-representative-of-transparency-and-participation-in-madrid-technology-should-be-used-to-enhance-institutions
    [Google Scholar]
13. Martínez, Marcos
    2019b Will There Be a Digital Divide Between Smart and Dumb Cities?Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/will-there-be-a-digital-divide-between-smart-and-dumb-cities
    [Google Scholar]
14. Martínez, Marcos
    2021 “Cities Are Aging with Their Population: Challenges And Solutions For An Inverted Pyramid” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/and-what-shall-we-do-with-grandad-smart-cities-tackling-the-challenge-of-an-ageing-population
    [Google Scholar]
15. Ramos, Jaime
    2021a “Surveillance Cameras in Public Spaces: Are They A Good Idea?” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/public-surveillance-cameras
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ramos, Jaime
    2021b “How Can Cities Improve the Quality Of Life Of Disabled People?” Tomorrow City. https://tomorrow.city/a/how-can-cities-improve-the-quality-of-life-of-disabled-people
    [Google Scholar]
17. Ajana, Btihaj
    2012 “Biometric Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies16 (7): 851–870, 10.1080/13621025.2012.669962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.669962 [Google Scholar]
18. Aligica, Paul D.
    2018 Citizenship. In Public Entrepreneurship, Citizenship, and Self-Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316888728
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316888728 [Google Scholar]
19. Alonso, R. Garcia, and Sebastian Castro
    2016 “Technology Helps, People Make: A Smart City Governance Framework Grounded in Deliberative Democracy”. InSmarter as the New Urban Agenda, edited byRamon, J. Gil-Garcia, 333–347. Springer Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑17620‑8_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8_18 [Google Scholar]
20. Barnden, John
    2016 “Communicating Flexibly with Metaphor: A Complex of Strengthening, Elaboration, Replacement, Compounding and Unrealism.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics14 (2): 442–473. 10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar [Google Scholar]
21. Barad, Karen
    2003 “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs28 (2): 801–831. 10.1086/345321
    https://doi.org/10.1086/345321 [Google Scholar]
22. Berntzen, Lasse, and Marius Johannessen
    2016 “The Role of Citizen Participation in Municipal Smart City Projects: Lessons Learned from Norway.” InSmarter as the New Urban Agenda, edited byRamon, J. Gil-Garcia, 299–314. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑17620‑8_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8_16 [Google Scholar]
23. Brenner, Neil and Nik Theodore
    2005 “Neoliberalism and the Urban Condition.” City9(1): 101–107. 10.1080/13604810500092106
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810500092106 [Google Scholar]
24. Braun, Bruce
    2014 “A New Urban Dispositif? Governing Life in an Age of Climate Change.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space321: 49–64. 10.1068/d4313
    https://doi.org/10.1068/d4313 [Google Scholar]
25. Brunn, Alison
    2017 “Subaltern Bodies in the Digital Urban Imaginary.” InArchitecture and Feminisms: Ecologies, Economies, Technologies, edited byHélène Frichot, Catharina Gabrielsson, Helen Runting, 106–111. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203729717‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203729717-12 [Google Scholar]
26. Cardullo, Paolo
    2020 Citizens in the ’Smart City: Participation, Co – Production, Governance. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429438806
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429438806 [Google Scholar]
27. Cardullo, Paolo and Rob Kitchin
    2019 “Smart Urbanism and Smart Citizenship: The Neoliberal Logic of ‘Citizen-Focused’ Smart Cities in Europe.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space37(5): 813–830. 10.1177/0263774X18806508
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508 [Google Scholar]
28. Craig, Robert T.
    2019 “Models of Communication in and as Metadiscourse.” InModels of Communication: Theoretical and Philosophical Approaches, edited byMats Bergman, Kęstas Kirtiklis, and Johan Siebers. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315231402‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231402-2 [Google Scholar]
29. Deleuze, Gilles
    1992 “Post-Script on Societies of Control.” October591: 3–7.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Dobbins, Michel
    2009 “Urban Design and People.” Journal of the American Planning Association77(4): 386–387.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Estlund, David
    2021 “Epistocratic Paternalism.” InPolitical Epistemology, edited byElizabeth Edenberg and Michael Hannon, 97–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192893338.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192893338.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
32. Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough
    2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A Method of Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Fairclough, Norman
    . Working paper. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Change in Management Discourse and Ideology: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Strategic Critique.” Available online at: www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/norman/paper5.doc
34. Fors, Anna
    2012 “The Ontology of the Subject in Digitalization.” InHandbook of Research on Technoself: Identity in a Technological Society, edited byRocci Luppicini. 45–63. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑2211‑1.ch003
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2211-1.ch003 [Google Scholar]
35. Foucault, Michel
    2007 Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Grossi, Giuseppe and Daniela Pianezzi
    2017 “Smart Cities: Utopia or Neoliberal Ideology?” Cities691: 79–85. 10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.07.012 [Google Scholar]
37. Guillem, Susana M.
    2009 “Argumentation, Metadiscourse and Social Cognition: Organizing Knowledge in Political Communication.” Discourse & Society20 (6): 727–746. 10.1177/0957926509342368
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509342368 [Google Scholar]
38. Haggerty, Kevin and Richard Ericson
    2000 “The Surveillant Assemblage.” The British Journal of Sociology511, 605–622. 10.1080/00071310020015280
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280 [Google Scholar]
39. Haraway, Donna
    1991 Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Haraway, Donna
    2017 “Symbiogenesis, Sympoiesis, and Art Science Activisms for Staying with the Trouble.” InArts of Living on a Damaged Planet, edited byAnna Tsing, Elaine Gan, Nils Bubandt, and Heather Swanson, M25–M50. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Harrison, Colin, Barbara Eckman, Rick Hamilton, Perry Hartswick, Jayant Kalagnanam, Jurij Paraszczak, and Peter Williams
    2010 “Foundations for Smarter Cities.” IBM Journal of Research and Development54 (4): 1–16. 10.1147/JRD.2010.2048257
    https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2010.2048257 [Google Scholar]
42. Hudson, Richard
    1975 “The Meaning of Questions.” Languages511: 17–18.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Hughes, James J.
    2004 Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
44. Kitchin, Rob, Claudio Coletta and Cavin McArdle
    2017 Urban Informatics, Governmentality and the Logics of Urban Control. Programmable City Working Paper251. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/27hz8/. 10.31235/osf.io/27hz8
    https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/27hz8 [Google Scholar]
45. Komninos, Nicos
    2009 “Intelligent Cities: Towards Interactive and Global Innovation Environments.” International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development1 (4): 337–355. 10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022726
    https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022726 [Google Scholar]
46. Krzyzanowski, Michal
    2010 The Discursive Construction of European identities: A Multilevel Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Switzerland: Peter Lang Pub.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Landau, Mark J., Lucas A. Keefer and Trevor, J. Swanson
    2017 “‘Undoing’ a Rhetorical Metaphor: Testing the Metaphor Extension Strategy,” Metaphor and Symbol32 (2): 63–83. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619 [Google Scholar]
48. Latawiec, Beata, Richard Anderson, Shufeng Ma, and Kim Nguyen-Jahiel
    2016 “Influence of Collaborative Reasoning Discussions on Metadiscourse in Children’s Essays.” Text & Talk36(10): 2016, 23–46. 10.1515/text‑2016‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
49. Lorimer, Jamie
    2009 “Posthumanism/Posthumanistic Geographies.” International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography81, 344–354. 10.1016/B978‑008044910‑4.00723‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00723-9 [Google Scholar]
50. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Walton, Douglas
    2018 “Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach.” Argumentation32 (4): 519–547. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑9450‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5 [Google Scholar]
51. Macgilchrist, Felicitas
    2021 “Theories of Postdigital Heterogeneity: Implications for Research on Education and Datafication.” Postdigital Science and Education, 31, 660–667. 10.1007/s42438‑021‑00232‑w
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00232-w [Google Scholar]
52. Mayes, Christopher
    2015 The Biopolitics of Lifestyle: Foucault, Ethics and Healthy Choices. Routledge: New York. 10.4324/9781315675503
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675503 [Google Scholar]
53. Morozov, Evgeny
    2014 To Save Everything, Click Here. New York City, NY, USA: Public Affairs.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Mousley, Andy
    2016 “The Posthuman.” InThe Cambridge Companion to Frankenstein, edited byAndrew Smith, 158–72. Cambridge Companions to Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316091203.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316091203.013 [Google Scholar]
55. Nayar, Pramod
    2014 Posthumanism. London and New York: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Nayar, Pramod
    2022 Posthuman Urban Spaces in Dave Eggers’ the Circle. InTechnology, Urban Space and the Networked Community, edited bySaswat Samay Das, Ananya Roy Pratihar, 197–216. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑88809‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88809-1_8 [Google Scholar]
57. Patton, Paul
    1994 “Metamorpho-Logic: Bodies and Powers in A Thousand Plateaus.” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology251: 157–169. 10.1080/00071773.1994.11007058
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.1994.11007058 [Google Scholar]
58. Peck, Jamie, and Nik Theodore
    2012 “Reanimating Neoliberalism: Process Geographies of Neoliberalism. Soc.” Anthropol20 (2): 177–185.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Pietra, John D. and Simon Wang
    2021 “Enough is Enough: This Cycle of Violence Has to Come to an End: Practical Reasoning in The Editorials During the Extraction Bill Crisis of Hong Kong.” Discourse & Communication15 (4). 415–432. 10.1177/17504813211002035
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211002035 [Google Scholar]
60. Pinson, Gilles and Christelle Morel Journel
    2016 “The Neoliberal City – Theory, Evidence, Debates.” Territory, Politics, Governance4(2): 137–153, 10.1080/21622671.2016.1166982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1166982 [Google Scholar]
61. Reigner, Hélène
    2016 “Neoliberal Rationality and Neohygienist Morality. A Foucauldian Analysis of Safe and Sustainable Urban Transport Policies in France.” Territory, Politics, Governance4(2): 1–20. 10.1080/21622671.2015.1123647
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1123647 [Google Scholar]
62. Rose, Gillian
    2017 “Posthuman Agency in the Digitally Mediated City: Exteriorization, Individuation, Reinvention.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers107 (4): 779–793, 10.1080/24694452.2016.1270195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1270195 [Google Scholar]
63. Shaw, Debra Benita
    2017 Posthuman Urbanism: Mapping Bodies in Contemporary City Space. London and New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Sunstein, Cass
    2015 Choosing not to Choose: Understanding the Value of Choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Toulmin, Stephen
    2003 The Uses of Argument. 2nd edn. Cambridge: University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
66. Turner, Rachel
    2008 Neoliberal Ideology: History, Concepts and Policies. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. 10.1515/9780748632350
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748632350 [Google Scholar]
67. Walton, Douglas
    2001 “Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments.” Informal Logic, 211: 141–169. 10.22329/il.v21i2.2241
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2241 [Google Scholar]
68. van Eemeren, Frans
    2012 “The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation in Discussion.” Argumentation26 (4): 439–457. 10.1007/s10503‑012‑9274‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9274-7 [Google Scholar]
69. van Eemeren, Frans, Bart Garssen, Erik Krabbe, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2014 “The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation.” InHandbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_10 [Google Scholar]
70. van Eemeren, Frans, Rob Grootendorst, and Ralph, H. Johnson
    2013 Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9780203811306
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811306 [Google Scholar]
71. Vanolo, Alberto
    2014 “Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy.” Urban Studies51(5): 883–898. 10.1177/0042098013494427
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494427 [Google Scholar]
72. Virilio, Paul
    1995 The Art of the Motor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Visser, Robin
    2018 “Posthuman Policies for Creative, Smart, Eco-cities? Case Studies from China.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space51 (1): 206–225. 10.1177/0308518X18765481
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18765481 [Google Scholar]