Jürgen Habermas likens modern bureaucracies and markets. In both “systems,” true communicative action is unnecessary: market decisions can be “steered” by anonymous price signals, while bureaucratic decisions are steered by power. Were this true, there would be little space for the non-binary policy analysis advocated in this book. But Habermas’s depiction is overly simple. In practice, while the consistent pursuit of a non-binary approach can lead to tensions, this will not always be the case. The “forms of care” exercised in a non-binary policy in fact characterize any thoughtful analyst. In many contexts, this will be greatly appreciated. In other cases, the analyst is not so fortunate. In trying to improve the quality of their particular decision-contexts, analysts need to be lay anthropologists and sociologists, seeking to grasp the folkways of the strange culture in which they have landed, and its structures of power and influence. A healthy society also needs alternative spaces of reflection, in which analysis is addressed not to official decision-makers, but to citizens as a whole. By producing well-founded and “usable” knowledge, such civil society spaces can support and improve the health of the official decision process.