{"word_count": 466, "character_count": 3429}
Andrea Mennicken and Wendy Nelson Espeland (2019)Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), pp. 223-245Abstract. Calculation and quantification have been critical features of modern societies, closely linked to science, markets, and administration. In the past thirty years, the pace, purpose, and scope of quantification have greatly expanded, and there has been a corresponding increase in scholarship on quantification. We offer an assessment of the widely dispersed literature on quantification across four domains where quantification and quantification scholarship have particularly flourished: administration, democratic rule, economics, and personal life. In doing so, we seek to stimulate more cross-disciplinary debate and exchange. We caution against unifying accounts of quantification and highlight the importance of tracking quantification across different sites in order to appreciate its essential ambiguity and conduct more systematic investigations of interactions between different quantification regimes. Excerpt. “Alain  Desrosières and Laurent Thévenot were administrators at the French  National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), the  French census bureau, when they were charged with  updating the social and professional categories the agency used. This  &#160;prompted their interest in the social history of those classifications  and the statistics they made possible. The French school of  quantification was launched by Desrosières and a group  of like-minded researchers, including Laurent Thévenot, Robert Salais  (also of INSEE), and the sociologist Luc Boltanski. Their work  interrogated the concepts and classifications undergirding  quantification and the production, use, and consequences of statistics,  always with an eye toward their implications for reflexivity and how  power is exercised (Bardet 2014, Bruno  et al. 2016, Diaz-Bone 2016, Didier 2016). Key contributions of this  group related to their emphasis on the practice of statistics, including  the crucial work of creating and coding concepts  and categories, and recovering the decisions that these entail  (Boltanski 1987); the refusal to privilege realist over constructivist  approaches to quantification (Desrosières 1998); and the development of a  conventionalist approach that examines how multiple  shared interpretive schemes, or conventions, are used by actors in  uncertain situations to  coordinate action, evaluate worth and value, and make things equivalent.  Some prominent contributors include Boltanski &#38; Thévenot (2006) and  Storper &#38; Salais (1997) [useful overviews are  provided by Diaz-Bone &#38; Didier (2016), Diaz-Bone &#38; Salais  (2011)]. Today, the French school is central in studies of relations  between quantification and valuation, and measure and worth […]. It has  also been influential in studies that examine how forms of  quantification have proliferated under financial capitalism and various  neoliberal regimes (Chiapello  &#38;Walter 2016, Lengwiler 2016, Supiot 2015), including crime  statistics (Didier 2018), benchmarking (Bruno &#38; Didier 2013), and  political activism (Bruno et al. 2014). Where earlier  scholarship emphasized the depiction of features of the state (e.g.,  crime statistics), new scholarship examines how numbers are used to  manage the state (e.g., deploy police based on current crime locations)  (Didier 2018).” p. 4Link to the review