2016 Urban Geography Plenary Lecture American Association of Geographers, San Francisco, CA RESPONSE TO COMMENTS: FOR CREATIVE DEMOCRACY Urban Geography (Published on-line January 3, 2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1272198 Robert W. Lake Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA rlake@rutgers.edu Abstract. Emerging commonalities between philosophical pragmatism and contemporary political thought suggest that those who find resonance in recent political theory will find in Deweyan pragmatism a fruitful source of insight and inspiration. Pƌagŵatisŵs ĐoŵŵitŵeŶts share deep affinities with parallel impulses in feminist and post-positivist thought animating engaged, activist scholarship inside and outside of geography. An ethic of radical equality applies equally, for Dewey, as a theory of democratic practice and a mode of being in the world. Keywords. Democracy, pragmatism, John Dewey The point, for pragmatists, is to continue the conversation, not simply for the sake of endless talk but to further the collective project of hammering out answers to the question of how to achieve a better kind of life to be lived. I am grateful to Mark Purcell and Katherine Hankins for their close reading and thoughtful engagement with Deweyan democracy, for keeping the conversation going, and for pushing it in inspiring and constructive directions. As their comments make clear, this simply begins the conversation and, amidst many encouraging signs of progress, much work remains to be done. Deweyan pragmatists would, I believe, strongly endorse PuƌĐells call to suture together insights from many voices, in the spirit of embracing inclusiveness and multiple perspectives. The diverse sources from which Purcell draws inspiration comprise parts of ‘oƌtLJs ǀeƌLJ laƌge, elaďoƌate, polLJĐhƌoŵe Ƌuilt in which a thousaŶd little stitĐhes … invoke a thousand little ĐoŵŵoŶalities ďetǁeeŶ theiƌ ŵeŵďeƌs (Rorty, 1999, pp. 82-87). Of course it is both/and rather than either/or. It would be antithetical to Deweyan pragmatism to close off conversation, especially with those with whom one disagrees. Defining democracy as collective intelligence informs DeǁeLJs admonition to tƌeat those ǁho disagƌee—even profoundly—with us as those fƌoŵ ǁhoŵ ǁe ŵaLJ leaƌŶ, aŶd iŶ so faƌ, as fƌieŶds (Dewey, 1939, p. 228). To find differences among perspectives does not compel a choice of one over another but provides an opportunity to deploLJ the otheƌs peƌspeĐtiǀe as a ŵeaŶs to ƌeĐoŶsideƌ aŶd peƌhaps heighten