Post-Weberian Manifesto: Refounding the Ethics of Responsibility in the Digital Age – A Historical, Philosophical, and Multidisciplinary Analysis

Preamble: The Paradox of Freedom – The Cage of Reason in the Digital Age

This manifesto seeks to highlight the supreme contradiction of our era: an apparent freedom of choice that, paradoxically, imprisons us within systems that turn choices into algorithms. This lament, however, acquires a deeper dimension when placed in historical context. The idea that rationalization—once seen as a promise of emancipation during the Age of Enlightenment, when thinkers such as Immanuel Kant (2005) urged humankind to “dare to know” (Sapere aude!) [1] and to break free from tutelage—has turned into an “iron cage,” as Max Weber (1991) [2] foresaw, and has now morphed into a “liquid surveillance network.”

Philosophically, this transition brings us to the pessimism of the Frankfurt School, notably Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1985) in Dialectic of Enlightenment [3]. They argued that reason, rather than liberating us, had become instrumental: a means to purely technical ends and domination, losing its critical and emancipatory potential.

Sartre’s notion of radical freedom—where individuals are burdened with total responsibility for their choices—is here confronted by systems that pre-shape our decisions, making individual agency a carefully orchestrated illusion. As the manifesto suggests, every like, every purchase, every screen scroll feeds machines that know us better than we know ourselves. This digital capture of life evokes Michel Foucault (2014) [4] and his concept of the panopticon in Discipline and Punish, where constant visibility creates internalized coercion. What Foucault described as disciplinary power within enclosed institutions, Gilles Deleuze (1992), in his essay Postscript on the Societies of Control [5], updated to describe an open and continuous society of control, where constant modulation replaces confinement. The iron cage, once rigid and visible, gives way to a flexible and ubiquitous network — one that remains invisible until its cracks allow us to perceive it.

It is imperative, therefore, to go beyond mere lament. This manifesto, by calling for a refounding of the ethics of responsibility, invites a multidisciplinary reflection that spans the sociology of technology, cultural critique, and existential philosophy—seeking to understand how technique has supplanted politics, and how calculation has anesthetized utopia.

1 Diagnosis: The Glass Cage – Between the Steel Bureaucracy and the Crystal Network

1.1 Algorithmic Bureaucracy

The Weberian legacy of classical bureaucracy, described by Max Weber (1991) in Economy and Society [2] as the ideal type of rational-legal organization—characterized by impersonality, hierarchy, explicit rules, and efficiency—was a product of industrial modernity. It emerged to manage large populations and complex market economies, aiming to ensure predictability and objectivity. However, this text points to its evolution into a new despotism: that of digital platforms.

Historically, the quest for efficiency can be traced back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution, with Taylorism and Fordism aiming to optimize every worker’s movement to maximize productivity. Today's algorithmic bureaucracy is the pinnacle of this logic: it replaces human supervisors with unappealable code, turning workers into Uber drivers or Amazon couriers monitored by sensors and evaluated by opaque algorithms.

Philosophically, this transition raises disturbing questions about autonomy and human dignity. The impersonality of classical bureaucracy, which Weber viewed as progress against favoritism, has in the algorithmic age become radical dehumanization. Martin Heidegger’s (2001) critique of Gestell (enframing) in his philosophy of technology resonates here: modern technology frames the world — including the human being — as a “standing-reserve” (Bestand) to be optimized and exploited [6]. In the context of algorithmic decision-making, we may invoke Hannah Arendt’s (1999) [7] notion of the "banality of evil"— no longer tied to bureaucrats merely "following orders," but to systems that execute decisions with deep social consequences without any explicit human agent to assume moral responsibility. The absence of accountability renders the system immune to traditional ethical critique.

From a multidisciplinary standpoint, organizational sociology examines how power structures are reproduced—and often amplified—within digital bureaucracy. Cognitive psychology warns of the "automation bias," where humans tend to overly trust automated systems even in the face of evidence to the contrary, leading to a disqualification of human critical judgment. AI ethics and critical data studies reveal how social biases are encoded into algorithms via skewed datasets, perpetuating and exacerbating racial and gender inequalities—such as in credit scoring algorithms or facial recognition systems that discriminate against minorities, as revealed by institutions like ProPublica.

1.2 Charisma as Commodity

Weber, in conceptualizing charisma, viewed it as a revolutionary force capable of breaking routine and established structures, based on followers’ belief in the extraordinary qualities of a leader. Historically, figures like Joan of Arc or Gandhi embodied this capacity to mobilize the masses toward rupture. However, the 20th century—with the rise of mass media (radio, cinema) and the work of figures like Edward Bernays, the father of "public relations"—demonstrated how charisma could be systematically manufactured and manipulated. The digital era, with its social networks and big data, represents a qualitative leap in this fabrication. Politicians like Donald Trump and influencers like Kim Kardashian don’t merely use social media—they inhabit it, crafting personas meticulously calibrated to maximize engagement.

Philosophically, Jean Baudrillard (1991), with his theory of the “simulacrum” and “hyperreality,” offers a lens through which to understand this 2.0 form of domination. For Baudrillard, the distinction between the real and its simulation disappears, and the mediated image becomes more “real” than reality itself [8]. The influencer is the perfect simulacrum: a constructed persona whose “authenticity” is a product of digital engineering, measured in likes and shares. What was once a “disruptive force” in Weberian terms is now a commodity subject to the logic of the attention economy. Michel Foucault (2014), in his analysis of discourse and power [4], helps us understand how the “truth” of charisma is produced and legitimized through specific media practices and the technological affordances of platforms.

Multidisciplinary approaches — from media studies to social psychology — explore the political economy of attention and how theories like social comparison drive engagement with media figures. Phenomena like “parasocial relationships”— the illusion of intimate connection with public figures — are examined to understand follower loyalty. In political science, the fabrication of digital charisma contributes to affective polarization and post-truth politics, where emotional appeal and perceived authenticity often outweigh rational and factual debate. The “death of the prophet,” as this manifesto claims, is not the death of impact—but the death of its disruptive nature, now subordinated to a single cause: engagement.

1.3 The Protestant Ethic in the Digital Century

Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (2004) [9] that Calvinist asceticism—the belief that worldly success and hard work were signs of divine predestination and ways to glorify God—unknowingly provided the moral foundation for modern capitalism. With secularization, the “spirit of capitalism” remained, even as religious faith declined—internalized as an imperative toward productivity and accumulation.

Philosophically, Friedrich Nietzsche (1998) had already critiqued ascetic ideals and “herd morality,” viewing self-denial and the relentless pursuit of external goals as forms of self-oppression [10]. In the digital age, this asceticism returns “without transcendence”: we work 12-hour days not for the glory of God, but for productivity scores and metrics.

Herbert Marcuse (2015), in One-Dimensional Man [11], described how technological rationality and consumerism absorb critical thought, creating a society in which the potential for liberation is contained, and the individual becomes an extension of the production and consumption system.

South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han (2017), in The Burnout Society and Psychopolitics [12], deepens this critique, arguing that we live in a “performance society” (Leistungsgesellschaft) where the individual—free of explicit external coercion—becomes their own exploiter, driven by an internal imperative to self-optimize. The “hustle culture,” which glorifies exhaustion, and the anxiety that replaces Calvinist guilt, are manifestations of this self-exploitation.

From a multidisciplinary perspective, occupational psychology and mental health studies document the rise of burnout and performance-related anxiety. Labor economics analyzes the precarization and deregulation of work under the gig economy, where the line between personal and professional life dissolves. The psychology of gamification reveals how wellness apps like Headspace or Calm, while promising relief, paradoxically reinforce the idea that happiness is a metric to be optimized—turning self-care into yet another productivity task. Guilt is now a bug, but the proposed fix is just another self-improvement algorithm — not a structural change.

2 Principles for Post‑Weberian Action – Rebuilding Humanity Amid Fragmentation

In view of this diagnosis, the manifesto proposes paths for action, seeking to remake the social and ethical fabric which digital rationalization has fragmented.

2.1 Reclaiming Ambiguity

Philosophically, this principle resonates with critical phenomenology, which values the complexity and richness of lived experience over abstract categorizations and quantifications. Emmanuel Lévinas’s ethics (1988) [13], which insists on the irreducible Otherness of the Other and resists any totalizing system that reduces the Other to a concept or metric, inspires this valuation of what cannot be captured by utilitarian logic. The “unproductive, the slow, the ritual” are spheres of resistance to uniformity and commodification—spaces where meaning arises from non‑finality.

Multidisciplinarily, art and aesthetics offer fertile ground for cultivating non‑utilitarian experiences, challenging the rationalized perspective. The Japanese concept of wabi‑sabi, which celebrates beauty in imperfection, transience, and incompleteness, serves as a powerful contrast to the digital quest for perfection and optimization. Movements like slow food or digital detox are not mere consumption trends but acts of micro‑resistance that reaffirm the primacy of quality of life over quantity of production or engagement. Environmental philosophy also aligns here, valuing ecosystems for their intrinsic worth, not merely for their utility as resources.

2.2 Technodiversity

The idea of “technodiversity” advocates a “pluralism of systems” to counter the “technocratic monopoly.” Historically, colonization and globalization have imposed Western technological and epistemological models, marginalizing and destroying local knowledges and practices. Technodiversity is therefore a call to technological decolonization.

Philosophically, this notion dialogues with Bruno Latour’s (1994) actor‑network theory, which emphasizes the intricate relationships among humans and non‑humans (including technologies) in constructing social reality [14]. Latour suggests that different assemblages of humans and technologies can generate different realities. Bernard Stiegler (2005), in Technics and Time [15], argues that while technology is fundamental to humanity, it can lead to the loss of savoir‑faire (know‑how) and savoir‑vivre (know‑living), advocating for an “epistemological diversity” that preserves and creates multiple modes of being and making.

In multidisciplinary terms, the anthropology of technology studies how different cultures integrate and develop technologies in ways reflecting their values and social structures. Science, Technology, and Society (STS) studies examine the social construction of technology and the politics intrinsic to design choices. Examples include open‑source software movements (Linux, Wikipedia), which offer collaborative, nonproprietary models of technological development, or the resurgence of traditional crafts and sustainable agriculture as forms of resistance to industrial monoculture. Local currencies and cooperative platforms, like Fairbnb, are expressions of this search for ethical and decentralized alternatives.

2.3 The Ethics of Co‑Responsibility

This section proposes an “ethics of co‑responsibility,” shifting focus from “Weberian individual responsibility ethics” toward a collective approach. Weber (2004) [9] was concerned with the predictable consequences of an agent’s actions. Yet in the era of algorithms and global interconnection, the chain of causality is diffuse and the impacts systemic. Philosophically, this shift aligns with the ethics of care, which prioritize relationality, interdependence, and attention to vulnerability (as defended by Carol Gilligan (1982) [16] and Nel Noddings (1984) [17]). It also deeply connects with Hans Jonas’s “Principle of Responsibility” (2006) [18], which argues for an ethics that takes into account the collective and long‑term impact of technology, given its unprecedented capacity to transform life on the planet. An algorithm, as the manifesto rightly emphasizes, “is not neutral; no innovation is apolitical.”

Multidisciplinarily, law and governance are challenged to create legal frameworks to hold opaque algorithmic systems and the corporate entities behind them accountable. The concept of “algorithmic accountability” is central here. Science & Technology Studies show that technology is not a neutral fact but is shaped by social values, power dynamics, and human choices. “Citizen audits of AI systems,” like those promoted by the Algorithmic Justice League (2025) [19], are real‑world examples of this ethics, seeking transparency and justice in automated decisions.

2.4 Re‑enchanting the World Without Illusionism

Weber, in his analysis of rationalization (1991; 2004) [2;9], coined the term Entzauberung der Welt – the “disenchantment of the world” – to describe the loss of magical and mystical meaning, replaced by scientific explanation and instrumental logic. This section calls for “re‑enchanting the world without illusionism,” not as a return to superstition, but as a search for meaning and wonder in a hyper‑rationalized world. Philosophically, this echoes Walter Benjamin (2012) [20] and his concept of the “aura” in works of art, lost in mechanical reproduction – a dimension of experience that transcends mere utility. It is also a call for utopian imagination, as Ernst Bloch (2005) described in The Principle of Hope [21], as a necessary counterpoint to technological dystopias.

Multidisciplinarily, urbanism and architecture can create public spaces that foster connection, beauty, and communal experience, resisting the commodification of every square meter. Environmental philosophy contributes with the search for spiritual connection and reverential respect for nature beyond its instrumental value.

Practical examples include fostering public art and non‑commercial communal spaces, such as community parks or libraries, where people can gather without the pressure of consumption, cultivating “senses that transcend utilitarianism.”

3 Concrete Actions: Tools for Escaping the Cage – Toward Post‑Digital Agency

The transition from principles to concrete actions is crucial, delineating tactics to exercise agency both within and against the digital cage.

3.1 Algorithmic Disobedience

“Algorithmic disobedience” emerges as a central tactic. Philosophically, this draws on the tradition of civil disobedience (Henry David Thoreau (2012) [22], Mahatma Gandhi (2001) [23], Martin Luther King Jr. (2018) [24]), transposed into the digital domain. It is an act of individual and collective agency against systemic control, seeking “to destabilize the logic of total predictability.” Algorithmic disobedience aims to make data less reliable and algorithms less effective, introducing noise into surveillance systems. This evokes the Situationist concept of détournement – the appropriation and diversion of existing elements for new purposes, subverting the logic of the spectacle.

From a multidisciplinary viewpoint, this approach sits at the intersection of cybersecurity, digital rights, and social movements. The use of ad blockers, refusal of abusive terms of service, creation of fake profiles to confuse surveillance systems, and adoption of VPNs are tools of digital self‑defense. The development and use of privacy‑focused operating systems (such as GrapheneOS), privacy‑preserving browsers (Brave, Tor), and decentralized social networks (Mastodon) are ways to “escape” dominant platforms, creating alternatives that resist the logic of surveillance capitalism.

3.2 Affective Bureaucracies

The proposal of “affective bureaucracies” is a bold reinjection of empathy and humanity into systems that Weber (1991) [2] conceived as essentially impersonal. This challenges the Weberian premise that impersonality guarantees justice and objectivity. On the contrary, it argues that the absence of affect can lead to brutally unjust and inhumane decisions in structures that have become excessively depersonalized. If Weberian bureaucracy sought efficiency through impersonality and the application of universal rules, “affective bureaucracy” recognizes that blind rule‑application can generate injustice and dehumanization. Historically, social movements and civil rights struggles have always fought against institutional rigidity that ignores human particularities and needs. The creation of “humanized ombudsperson offices and participatory processes” is a direct response to the alienation that classical and algorithmic bureaucracy can produce.

Philosophically, this idea dialogues with the philosophy of praxis, which emphasizes transformative action and the overcoming of the theory‑practice dichotomy. The ethics of alterity from Lévinas (1988) [13], already mentioned, reemerges here as an imperative for recognizing the Other in their singularity, countering the standardization inherent in bureaucratic systems. Design thinking projects in hospitals, such as the Mayo Clinic’s Empathy Lab (2024) [25], exemplify an approach that seeks to embed human sensitivity and the user’s (or patient’s) experience at the core of service design, surpassing mere technical application. In law, “humanization of justice” and “restorative justice” are analogous examples that aim beyond rule‑application, considering human impact and interpersonal relations.

Multidisciplinarily, public service sociology analyzes the importance of the relationship between citizen and State, and how the quality of that interaction affects institutional legitimacy and efficacy. Social psychology offers insights about empathy and interpersonal communication as essential tools for building trust and resolving conflict. Critical pedagogy and andragogy (adult education) advocate active participation of stakeholders in constructing knowledge and decision‑making—principles that can be carried over into the redesign of public services.

3.3 University as a Space of Risk

The call for “University as a Space of Risk” is a direct critique of the “McUniversity,” a pejorative term evoking the logic of McDonaldization, described by George Ritzer (2001) [26]: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control, applied to higher education. Historically, the university, since its medieval origins, was conceived as a locus of critical thought, free debate, and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Yet throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries, pressures of funding, emphasis on productivity metrics (publications in high‑impact journals, citations, patents), and the instrumentalization of research for commercial or market ends have transformed it into a “diploma factory” or a “provider of solutions” for capital.

Philosophically, this critique resonates with the philosophy of education that defends Bildung (formation) as opposed to mere Ausbildung (training) [27]. Thinkers like Wilhelm von Humboldt (1993) [28] idealized the university as a space for the integral formation of the individual, where teaching and research are intrinsically linked, and intellectual autonomy is valued above all. Theodor W. Adorno, in Aesthetic Theory (1998) [29], defended the value of the “non‑useful,” of what resists instrumental appropriation. The university, for him, should be a refuge from the commercial logic. The idea of “labs of uncertainty” and “chairs of creative idleness,” like those at the Institute for Advanced Study, stand as a counterpoint to the pressure for immediate results, reaffirming the value of fundamental, theoretical, and speculative research [30].

Multidisciplinarily, the sociology of science and the economics of education examine the pressures and transformations that higher education institutions have undergone, analyzing the impact of rankings, adjunctification of teaching staff, and privatization. Critical pedagogy argues against the commodification of knowledge and for the valorization of intellectual autonomy and research engaged with social problems. The judiciary also faces the need to foster deeper legal thinking, one that transcends mere precedent‑application and opens itself to philosophical and historical reflections on law.

3.4 Radical Politics of Care

The proposal of a “Radical Politics of Care” is one of the most innovative and transformative pillars of the manifesto. It seeks to redefine power, replacing the logic of domination with “mutual ethics of care.” Historically, politics has been dominated by narratives of power, competition, and hierarchy, often associated with patriarchal and colonial models. Feminist critique in particular has demonstrated how the sphere of care, traditionally marginalized and associated with unpaid feminine labor, is in fact fundamental for the reproduction of life and society.

Philosophically, this perspective is deeply grounded in the ethics of care already mentioned, but also in decolonial and feminist philosophies. Thinkers such as María Lugones (2014) [31], bell hooks (2019) [32], and Vandana Shiva (2001) [33] argue that domination is not only political or economic but also epistemic, and that indigenous cosmologies and cultures’ care practices offer alternative models of relation with the world and with the Other. “Radical care” implies a complete axiological reorientation, placing life sustainability and collective well‑being at the center of political decision‑making. This requires an “incorporation of feminist and decolonial knowledges,” challenging the Eurocentric and androcentric bases of dominant political thought.

Multidisciplinarily, feminist economics proposes models that recognize and value care work, traditionally invisible to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounting. Political ecology connects the exploitation of nature to social exploitation, arguing that an ethic of care is essential for environmental justice. Participatory political science explores mechanisms such as “participatory budgets with quotas for elders and children, as in Porto Alegre,” ensuring that historically marginalized voices are heard and that priorities are set more inclusively and equitably. This is not just a matter of resource allocation, but of redefining who has the right to participate in the construction of the polis.

4 Conclusion: The Cage Is a Bridge, Not a Prison – Toward an Ethical Becoming in the Digital Age

The manifesto's conclusion, in stating that "the cage is a bridge, not a prison," offers a perspective of hope and agency. Weber (1991) [2], in fact, saw rationalization as ambivalent. His analysis was not a mere lament, but a sober diagnosis of the trends of modernity. He left us the tool of interpretive sociology to understand the structures that surround us—and also the “courage to think in the dark.”

Historically, humanity has always been confronted with technologies that, on one hand, promised liberation, and on the other, imposed new forms of control. The printing press, which democratized knowledge, also enabled mass propaganda.

Nuclear energy, with its unlimited energetic potential, also opened the door to total annihilation. The issue has never been technology per se, but rather the power relations and values that shape and control it. The 21st‑century glass cage has cracks because people, throughout history, have always found ways to resist, adapt, and subvert oppressive systems. “Data strikes,” such as the #DeleteFacebook campaign, platform cooperatives like The Drivers Cooperative in New York, and new forms of community like mutual aid networks during the pandemic, are contemporary examples of this resistance. They represent emerging human agency in an algorithmically controlled landscape—what Slavoj Žižek (1999) [34] would call an “act”, a radical intervention that opens new possibilities.

Philosophically, this conclusion calls us to an engaged existentialism. Rationalization is not an inescapable fate but a human construction—one that can be deconstructed and rebuilt. The phrase “The cage will only be eternal if we forget that we were the ones who welded its bars—and that we can melt them” is an invitation to critical self‑reflection and collective responsibility. Jean‑Paul Sartre (2005) [35], when speaking of the “condemnation to freedom”, emphasized that we are responsible for our choices, and therefore for the world we create. The call to “use reason in service of life, not the other way around” is a return to substantive reason (as opposed to instrumental reason), which seeks human and ethical ends—not just efficient means [36].

Multidisciplinarily, cyberculture and social media studies analyze how digital tools can be appropriated for resistance and social organization, as seen in movements like the Arab Spring (despite its later complexities). Digital anthropology explores the formation of new identities and communities in cyberspace, some of which consciously seek to reintroduce ambiguity, slowness, and care. Human resilience and adaptability, studied by positive psychology and the sociology of social movements, are sources of cautious optimism.

Ultimately, this manifesto is not a blueprint—but a proposal for an ethos. It is a call for all of us, as citizens and thinkers, to reject the “fatalism of technology” and actively seek ways to rehumanize the digital age, re‑enchanting it with meaning and purpose.

This manifesto is signed by:

Those who refuse to be data.

Those who prefer questions to algorithms.

Those who insist on dancing—even under the cold glow of digital spotlights.

P.S. Weber would probably smile, caustically, at our audacity. But that is precisely the legacy he left us: the courage to think in the dark.

References (originally in Portuguese)

1. Kant I. Resposta à pergunta: o que é Esclarecimento?. In: Kant I. Textos Seletos. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2005. p. 63-71.

2. Weber M. Economia e Sociedade: Fundamentos da Sociologia Compreensiva. Brasília: Editora UnB; 1991.

3. Adorno TW, Horkheimer M. Dialética do Esclarecimento: Fragmentos Filosóficos. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Ed.; 1985

4. Foucault M. Vigiar e Punir: Nascimento da Prisão. 42a ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2014.

5. Deleuze G. Post-scriptum sobre as sociedades de controle. In: Deleuze G. Conversações. São Paulo: Editora 34; 1992. p. 219-226.

6. Heidegger M. A questão da técnica. In: Heidegger M. Ensaios e Conferências. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2001. p. 11-39.

7. Arendt H. Eichmann em Jerusalém: um relato sobre a banalidade do mal. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras; 1999.

8. Baudrillard J. Simulacros e simulação. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco; 1991.

9. Weber M. A Ética Protestante e o Espírito do Capitalismo. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras; 2004.

10. Nietzsche F. Genealogia da Moral. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras; 1998.

11. Marcuse H. O Homem Unidimensional. 8a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar; 2015.

12. Han B-C. Sociedade do Cansaço. 2a ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2017.

13. Lévinas E. Totalidade e Infinito: Ensaio sobre a Exterioridade. Lisboa: Edições 70; 1988.

14. Latour B. Nunca Fomos Modernos: Ensaio de Antropologia Simétrica. Rio de Janeiro: Editora 34; 1994.

15. Stiegler B. Técnica e Tempo, 1: A Falha de Epimeteu. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária; 2005.

16. Gilligan C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982.

17. Noddings N. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984.

18. Jonas H. O Princípio Responsabilidade: Ensaio de uma Ética para a Civilização Tecnológica. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto; 2006.

19. Algorithmic Justice League. Algorithmic Justice League [Internet]. [cited 2025 Sep 13]. Available from: www.ajl.org

20. Benjamin W. A obra de arte na era de sua reprodutibilidade técnica. In: Benjamin W. Magia e Técnica, Arte e Política: Ensaios sobre Literatura e História da Cultura. 8a ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense; 2012. p. 19-57.

21. Bloch E. O Princípio Esperança. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto; 2005.

22. Thoreau HD. Desobediência Civil. São Paulo: Penguin Classics Companhia das Letras; 2012. (Originalmente "Resistance to Civil Government" ou "Civil Disobedience", publicado em 1849).

23. Gandhi M. Non-violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New York: Dover Publications; 2001. (Esta é uma compilação de seus escritos e ideias sobre a resistência não-violenta e a desobediência civil).

24. King ML Jr. Carta da prisão de Birmingham. In: King ML Jr. Por que não podemos esperar. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar; 2018. (Originalmente "Letter from Birmingham Jail", escrita em 1963).

25. How Mayo Clinic Applies Empathy to Digital Transformation. Adobe Blog [Internet]. 2024 Feb 28 [cited 2025 Sep 13]. Available from: blog.adobe.com.

26. Ritzer G. A McDonalização da Sociedade. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2001.

27. Gadamer HG. Verdade e Método: Traços Fundamentais de uma Hermenêutica Filosófica. 2a ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1999. p. 17-29.

28. Humboldt W von. On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual Institutions in Berlin. In: The Limits of State Action. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund; 1993. p. 109-123. (Originalmente publicado como "Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin", 1809-1810).

29. Adorno TW. Teoria Estética. Lisboa: Edições 70; 1988.

30. Flexner A. The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2017.

31. Lugones M. Rumo a um feminismo decolonial. Rev Estud Fem. 2014;22(3):935-952.

32. hooks b. Teoria Feminista: Da Margem ao Centro. São Paulo: Elefante; 2019.

33. Shiva V. Biopirataria: A pilhagem da natureza e do conhecimento. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2001.

34. Žižek S. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso Books; 1999.

35. Sartre J-P. O Ser e o Nada: Ensaio de Ontologia Fenomenológica. 11a ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2005.

36. Horkheimer M. Eclipse da Razão. Tradução de Carlos Alberto Pavanelli. 2a ed. São Paulo: Centauro; 2002.