{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02620802620802621, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.092269326683292, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Reply to Martin's Response

I want to state at the outset that I appreciate that Edward J. Martin agreed to respond to my critique of the position that he has taken in his essay, “Liberalism, Postmodernism, and Welfare Policy.” Important issues such as welfare policy and human well-being tend to be framed as scientific results rather than as the inherently political debates that they are and Martin’s willingness to engage my criticism is a step toward changing this tendency in the interest of a more public discourse. Unfortunately, in his rejoinder, Martin further confuses liberalism, postmodernity, pragmatism, radicalism, the market, and now Marxism. This matters not because it is important to interpret these terms “correctly,” but because these terms are used by Martin to legitimate what I view as a marketbased conception of human well-being, thus stripping them of their critical potential. To begin with, in the first paragraph of his rejoinder Martin advocates a “postmodern model” based in “radical pragmatism,” which he assumes departs from liberalism, only to later state that my response is sidetracked with terms such as “radical” and “pragmatism” and that my concern is “otiose.” It was Martin who attempted to introduce these terms, which are highly political and contestable, into the debate over welfare policy. It is therefore true that my own discussion attempts to demonstrate how words and phrases such as radical, pragmatism, and productivity implicitly govern as they portray the present moment as one to be stabilized and participation in the market as a necessity. Demonstrating the contestability of these terms is essential to overcoming their predetermination of possibility, which is the first step in the process of imagining a conception of human well-being that is not tied to the market. Language must be critically engaged because, as Timothy W. Luke notes, “Language is clearly a type of action. Speaking organizes activity. And listening, interpreting, and comprehending are all critically significant forms of behavior that shape how countries and corporations interact worldwide.” Those of us concerned with well-being would be remiss if we did not challenge the assumptions at play in Martin’s text while so many live so obviously below an acceptable standard of well-being. My aim in focusing on Martin’s language was therefore to infuse the celebration of the supposedly radical postmodern,