Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 12

Legalization is a façade to increase profits for white people while leaving the prison industrial complex intact

Kunichoff 13

Kunichoff 13 (Yana Kunichoff, independent journalist, “Do new marijuana legalization laws only benefit white people?” June 7, 2013, KB)

Possession of marijuana is not the only drug-related crime that lands people behind bars Distribution charges account for a large portion of drug arrests and will likely continue “Legalizing marijuana is not likely to have much effect on the prison population,” It would probably help at least some people of color who might otherwise get picked up for marijuana possession, but in terms of the dynamics of incarceration, it doesn’t change much.” Way, of Colorado, said some people in Washington and his state are concerned that legalizing some distribution could actually mean an increase in arrests for illegal distribution. “Law enforcement usually find a way to circumvent reforms,” a drop in arrests could hurt police departments’ budgets. states that receive federal funding to fight the war on drugs could see a drop in their overall budget if arrests drop Legalization doesn’t challenge the prison industrial complex legalization movement fails to take up broader issues of criminalization. “The marijuana movement has traditionally been a white movement,” and [people in the movement] have not incorporated racial justice into their politics The racial disparities seen throughout the drug war will not end through the marijuana prohibition ending.” “The marijuana legalization movement … doesn’t really address the problem of mass incarceration in any kind of direct way.”

Possession is not the only drug-related crime that lands people behind bars Distribution charges account for a large portion of arrests Legalizing is not likely to have much effect on the prison population,” it doesn’t change much.” legalizing distribution could mean an increase in arrests for illegal distribution Law enforcement find a way to circumvent reforms,” a drop in arrests could hurt police departments’ budgets. Legalization doesn’t challenge the prison industrial complex “The marijuana movement has traditionally been a white movement,” The racial disparities seen throughout the drug war will not end through the marijuana prohibition ending.”

But possibly more arrests for distribution Possession of marijuana is not the only drug-related crime that lands people behind bars. Distribution charges account for a large portion of drug arrests and will likely continue, according to Marc Mauer, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project, an advocacy group that advocates for reforms in sentencing policy. “Legalizing marijuana is not likely to have much effect on the prison population,” Mauer said. “It would probably help at least some people of color who might otherwise get picked up for marijuana possession, but in terms of the dynamics of incarceration, it doesn’t change much.” Way, of Colorado, said some people in Washington and his state are concerned that legalizing some distribution could actually mean an increase in arrests for illegal distribution. “Law enforcement usually find a way to circumvent reforms,” he said, noting that a drop in arrests could hurt police departments’ budgets. In particular, states that receive federal funding to fight the war on drugs could see a drop in their overall budget if arrests drop, Way said. The Colorado and Washington legislation look to regulate the distribution of marijuana--either through licenses for growing or only allowing growing within designated spaces. Legalization doesn’t challenge the prison industrial complex Mauer and Way do agree with Simon’s argument that the marijuana legalization movement fails to take up broader issues of criminalization. “The marijuana movement has traditionally been a white movement,” Way said, “and [people in the movement] have not incorporated racial justice into their politics. The racial disparities seen throughout the drug war will not end through the marijuana prohibition ending.” Mauer agreed: “The marijuana legalization movement … doesn’t really address the problem of mass incarceration in any kind of direct way.” For Simon, a former reporter who also served as head writer for “The Wire,” drug policy can’t be separated from the larger socioeconomic issues affecting communities that grapple with high incarceration and unemployment rates. “Drugs are the only industry left in places such as Baltimore and East St. Louis, [Ill.]"--an industry that employs "children, old people, people who've been shooting drugs for 20 years, it doesn't matter,” he said at the Observer event. “It's the only factory that's still open.

<h4><u><strong>Legalization is a façade to increase profits for white people while leaving the prison industrial complex intact</h4><p>Kunichoff 13</p><p></u></strong>(Yana Kunichoff, independent journalist, “Do new marijuana legalization laws only benefit white people?” June 7, 2013, KB)</p><p>But possibly more arrests for distribution <u><mark>Possession</mark> of marijuana <mark>is not the only drug-related crime that lands people behind bars</u></mark>. <u><mark>Distribution charges account for a large portion of</mark> drug <mark>arrests</mark> and will likely continue</u>, according to Marc Mauer, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project, an advocacy group that advocates for reforms in sentencing policy. <u><strong>“<mark>Legalizing</mark> marijuana <mark>is not likely to have much effect on the prison population,”</u></strong></mark> Mauer said. “<u>It would probably help at least some people of color who might otherwise get picked up for marijuana possession, but in terms of the dynamics of incarceration, <strong><mark>it doesn’t change much.”</mark> </strong>Way, of Colorado, said some people in Washington and his state are concerned that <strong><mark>legalizing</mark> some <mark>distribution could</mark> actually <mark>mean an increase in arrests for illegal distribution</mark>. “<mark>Law enforcement</mark> usually <mark>find a way to circumvent reforms,”</u></strong></mark> he said, noting that <u><strong><mark>a drop in arrests could hurt police departments’ budgets.</mark> </u></strong>In particular, <u>states that receive federal funding to fight the war on drugs could see a drop in their overall budget if arrests drop</u>, Way said. The Colorado and Washington legislation look to regulate the distribution of marijuana--either through licenses for growing or only allowing growing within designated spaces. <u><strong><mark>Legalization doesn’t challenge the prison industrial complex</mark> </u></strong>Mauer and Way do agree with Simon’s argument that the marijuana <u>legalization movement fails to take up broader issues of criminalization.<strong> <mark>“The marijuana movement has traditionally been a white movement,”</u></strong></mark> Way said, “<u>and [people in the movement] have not incorporated racial justice into their politics</u>. <u><strong><mark>The racial disparities seen throughout the drug war will not end through the marijuana prohibition ending.”</mark> </u></strong>Mauer agreed: <u>“The marijuana legalization movement … doesn’t really address the problem of mass incarceration in any kind of direct way.”</u> For Simon, a former reporter who also served as head writer for “The Wire,” drug policy can’t be separated from the larger socioeconomic issues affecting communities that grapple with high incarceration and unemployment rates. “Drugs are the only industry left in places such as Baltimore and East St. Louis, [Ill.]"--an industry that employs "children, old people, people who've been shooting drugs for 20 years, it doesn't matter,” he said at the Observer event. “It's the only factory that's still open.</p>

1NR

Neolib

Link

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Appeals to experience precludes questioning of ideological systems, locks subjects into static and immutable representational positions without critique

Scott 1992

Scott 1992 (Joan, “Experience”, Feminists Theorize the Political, Ed. Judith Butler and Joan Scott, pp 25, KEL) Ableist language modified.

the evidence of experience assume that the facts of history speak for themselves the project of making experience [known] visible precludes critical examination of the workings of the ideological system itself, its categories of representation (homosexual/heterosexual, man/woman, black/white as fixed immutable identities), its premises about what these categories mean and how they operate, its notions of subjects, origin, and cause.

experience assume history speak for themselves making experience [known precludes examination of the system itself, its categories its premises about what these mean and how they operate

To put it another way, the evidence of experience, whether conceived through a metaphor of visibility or in any other way that takes meaning as transparent, reproduces rather than contests given ideological systems-those that assume that the facts of history speak for themselves and, in the case of histories of gender, those that rest on notions of a natural or established opposition between sexual practices and social conventions, and between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Histories that document the "hidden" world of homosexuality, for example, show the impact of silence and repression on the lives of those affected by it and bring to light the history of their suppression and exploitation. But the project of making experience [known] visible precludes critical examination of the workings of the ideological system itself, its categories of representation (homosexual/heterosexual, man/woman, black/white as fixed immutable identities), its premises about what these categories mean and how they operate, its notions of subjects, origin, and cause.

<h4>Appeals to experience precludes questioning of ideological systems, locks subjects into static and immutable representational positions without critique</h4><p><u><strong>Scott 1992</u></strong> (Joan, “Experience”, Feminists Theorize the Political, Ed. Judith Butler and Joan Scott, pp 25, KEL) Ableist language modified.</p><p>To put it another way, <u>the evidence of <mark>experience</u></mark>, whether conceived through a metaphor of visibility or in any other way that takes meaning as transparent, reproduces rather than contests given ideological systems-those that <u><mark>assume</mark> that the facts of <mark>history speak for themselves</u></mark> and, in the case of histories of gender, those that rest on notions of a natural or established opposition between sexual practices and social conventions, and between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Histories that document the "hidden" world of homosexuality, for example, show the impact of silence and repression on the lives of those affected by it and bring to light the history of their suppression and exploitation. But <u>the project of <mark>making experience [known</mark>] visible <mark>precludes</mark> critical <mark>examination of the</mark> workings of the ideological <mark>system itself, its categories</mark> of representation (homosexual/heterosexual, man/woman, black/white as fixed immutable identities), <mark>its premises about what these</mark> categories <mark>mean and how they operate</mark>, its notions of subjects, origin, and cause.</p></u>

1NC

Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The aff is an unauthentic engagement with Native American culture which commodifies tribes for the New Age - takes out solvency and turns their impact

Sheldon 2006

Sheldon 2006

Indian spirituality is not based on the individual but rather on the community. Spiritual ties are completely dependent on the local culture and taken outside that cultural context, lose their meaning. There is no single "Indian spirituality" but each community would develop its own culturally-dependant ties to the spirit world. In this light, adopting Indian spirituality in a Western culture is not only cultural theft, but also simply nonsensical It would be like stealing a bottle of spice from a master chef and believing that you then had the secret to greatcooking , the fixation on self-discovery and self-healing articulate the very Western ideologies of bourgeois individualism. At the same time, the teacher’s selling of ‘Indian’ knowledge and experiences manifests a profoundly capitalist mindset. . . Because it distorts Native traditions and turns them into consumer goods, the New Age represents another, newer phase in European America’s colonization of Native America It is not surprising, given this information to learn that the predominant market for New Age Indian spirituality is middle class, white and wanting to escape modernity’s ills via individual transformation (rather than political action) and the only way they know how to do this is as Aldred says, “through commercialization and purchase. This cycle does not end their alienation. They are still so removed from any recognition of social relations (much less historical conflict) that they cannot understand why Native American peoples themselves would object to their appropriations”

Indian spirituality is not based on the individual but the community completely dependent on the local culture and taken outside that cultural context, lose their meaning adopting Indian spirituality in a Western culture is not only cultural theft, but also nonsensical the selling of ‘Indian’ knowledge and experiences distorts Native traditions and turns them into consumer goods the New Age represents another phase in European America’s colonization of Native America. the predominant market is middle class, white and wanting to escape modernity’s ills via individual transformation (rather than political action) through commercialization and purchase

(Stacie, Bachelor of Arts, English; Bachelor of Science, Anthropology; Michigan State University, President, Native American Student Organization, Eastern Michigan University, Board of Directors, American Indian Services, Inc."The Invisible Indian", devilspaw.com/stacie/resume/writing/TheInvisibleIndian.pdf) In addition, Snyder's commentary includes a fundamentally Western concept: that spirituality is a universal, objective thing that all humans can experience equally, in an individual fashion. For example, Christianity often speaks of a "personal relationship with Jesus." Since in Western cultures, spirituality is woven almost exclusively into religion, Westerners have the concept of a "one true way." Indeed, if such a thing existed, it would be inhuman to deny that knowledge to all people; however, Indian spirituality is not based on the individual but rather on the community. Spiritual ties are completely dependent on the local culture and taken outside that cultural context, lose their meaning. There is no single "Indian spirituality" but each community would develop its own culturally-dependant ties to the spirit world. In this light, adopting Indian spirituality in a Western culture (or any culture outside of where it was created) is not only cultural theft, but also simply nonsensical. It would be like stealing a bottle of spice from a master chef and believing that you then had the secret to greatcooking. Looking closely at the Western mindset at the root of this issue in Going Native, Huhndorf writes: In New Age practices, ‘Native’ traditions generally reflect a heavily European ethos. In this particular case, the fixation on self-discovery and self-healing 9 articulate the very Western ideologies of bourgeois individualism. At the same time, the teacher’s selling of ‘Indian’ knowledge and experiences manifests a profoundly capitalist mindset. . . Because it distorts Native traditions and turns them into consumer goods, the New Age represents another, newer phase in European America’s colonization of Native America. This is true despite the movement’s claims to have freed itself from this troubling history. In fact, New Agers’ desire to go native reproduces, even as it extends, the history of colonization, shown in this case by the compulsion to own Native cultures and even Native identities (Hundorf 2001). It is not surprising, given this information to learn that the predominant market for New Age Indian spirituality is middle class, white and wanting to escape modernity’s ills via individual transformation (rather than political action) and the only way they know how to do this is as Aldred says, “through commercialization and purchase. This cycle does not end their alienation. They are still so removed from any recognition of social relations (much less historical conflict) that they cannot understand why Native American peoples themselves would object to their appropriations” (Aldred 2000).

<h4><strong>The aff is an unauthentic engagement with Native American culture which commodifies tribes for the New Age - takes out solvency and turns their impact</h4><p><u>Sheldon 2006</u> </p><p></strong>(Stacie, Bachelor of Arts, English; Bachelor of Science, Anthropology; Michigan State University, President, Native American Student Organization, Eastern Michigan University, Board of Directors, American Indian Services, Inc."The Invisible Indian", devilspaw.com/stacie/resume/writing/TheInvisibleIndian.pdf)</p><p>In addition, Snyder's commentary includes a fundamentally Western concept: that spirituality is a universal, objective thing that all humans can experience equally, in an individual fashion. For example, Christianity often speaks of a "personal relationship with Jesus." Since in Western cultures, spirituality is woven almost exclusively into religion, Westerners have the concept of a "one true way." Indeed, if such a thing existed, it would be inhuman to deny that knowledge to all people; however, <u><mark>Indian spirituality is not based on the individual but</mark> rather on <mark>the community</mark>. Spiritual ties are <mark>completely dependent on the local culture</mark> <mark>and</mark> <mark>taken outside that cultural context, lose their meaning</mark>. There is no single "Indian spirituality" but each community would develop its own culturally-dependant ties to the spirit world. In this light, <mark>adopting Indian spirituality in a Western culture</u></mark> (or any culture outside of where it was created) <u><mark>is not only cultural theft, but also</mark> simply <mark>nonsensical</u></mark>. <u>It would be like stealing a bottle of spice from a master chef and believing that you then had the secret to greatcooking</u>. Looking closely at the Western mindset at the root of this issue in Going Native, Huhndorf writes: In New Age practices, ‘Native’ traditions generally reflect a heavily European ethos. In this particular case<u>, the fixation on self-discovery and self-healing</u> 9 <u>articulate the very Western ideologies of bourgeois individualism. At the same time, <mark>the </mark>teacher’s <mark>selling of ‘Indian’ knowledge</mark> <mark>and experiences </mark>manifests a profoundly capitalist mindset. . . Because it <mark>distorts Native traditions <strong>and turns them into consumer goods</strong></mark>, <mark>the New Age represents another</mark>, newer <mark>phase in European America’s colonization of Native America</u>.</mark> This is true despite the movement’s claims to have freed itself from this troubling history. In fact, New Agers’ desire to go native reproduces, even as it extends, the history of colonization, shown in this case by the compulsion to own Native cultures and even Native identities (Hundorf 2001). <u>It is not surprising, given this information to learn that <mark>the predominant market</mark> for New Age Indian spirituality <mark>is middle class, white and wanting to escape</mark> <mark>modernity’s ills via individual transformation (rather than political action)</mark> and the only way they know how to do this is as Aldred says, “<mark>through commercialization and purchase</mark>. This cycle does not end their alienation. They are still so removed from any recognition of social relations (much less historical conflict) that they cannot understand why Native American peoples themselves would object to their appropriations”</u> (Aldred 2000).</p>

1NR

Case

Ballots

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-USC-Round2.docx

N

USC

2

ASU CaRe

Ralph Paone

1ac was online gambling decolonization 1nc was university k decolonization metaphors k and case 2nc was university k 1nr was decolonization metaphors k and case 2nr was university k decolonization metaphors k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-USC-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Suicide as escape is a necessary transgression within the cycle of eternal recurrence. Accepting death through the option for suicide imparts meaning onto life’s suffering.

Loeb 08

Loeb 08

eternal recurrence, which Nietzsche describes as ‘the highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable’ turns out to be the new counter-ideal and the means whereby the human can for the first time will a life-affirming meaning for its past and thereby for its entire existence However, this invocation of eternal recurrence does nothing whatsoever to eliminate the irreversibility of time the human has nostalgically willed the return, and even eternal repetition, of its most treasured and joyous past moments When Nietzsche describes eternal recurrence as the highest formulation of life-affirmation that is at all attainable, his point is not that the human animal should aim to will this eternal recurrence and thereby achieve the highest life-affirmation possible his point is that the human can never will this and that therefore the human can never achieve such life-affirmation. Nietzsche found himself unable to will his life’s eternal recurrence. rather than conferring meaning upon the human animal’s past, the thought of eternal recurrence actually multiplies and intensifies the meaninglessness of this past to a new and devastating degree. Eternal recurrence, he writes, is the most extreme form of nihilism because it is the ‘thought of existence as it is, without meaning or goal, but inevitably recurring, without any finale into nothingness’ everything becomes and recurs eternally— escape is impossible the thought of death as escape keeps humans from giving in to their pre-existing death-wish by imparting meaning to life’s suffering and offering the hope of a different or better life.

eternal recurrence Nietzsche describes as ‘the¶ highest affirmation attainable’ the counter-ideal and means whereby the human can will a life-affirming meaning for its past However, invocation of eternal recurrence does not eliminate the irreversibility of time , the human has willed the eternal repetition, of its most joyous past moments When Nietzsche describes eternal recurrence as the highest¶ formulation of life-affirmation his point is not that¶ the human should aim to will this eternal recurrence his point i the human can never will this and that therefore the human can never achieve such life-affirmation. the thought of eternal recurrence multiplies and intensifies the meaninglessness of this past everything becomes and recurs eternally— escape¶ is impossible the thought of death as escape¶ keeps humans from giving in to their pre-existing death-wish by imparting¶ meaning to life’s suffering and offering the hope of a different or¶ better life.

Paul, Dr. of philosophy at University of Puget Sound, Ph.D from Cal Berkeley, “Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption,” Nietzsche on Time and History, Ed. Manuel Dries, p. 163-189 SJE Although Zarathustra does not explicitly introduce his teaching of eternal¶ recurrence in his redemption speech, he obviously points in this direction¶ when he concludes by asking how the creative will might be taught to will¶ backwards so that it might will something higher than any reconciliation¶ with time. According to the consensus reading I have been concerned to¶ criticize, what Zarathustra means by this is that my affirmation of my present¶ state should teach me how to ‘will backwards’—that is, to will the¶ exact repetition of my entire past. And I would not be able to will in this¶ way unless I had successfully redescribed my past as directed inevitably¶ towards my present state. As Nehamas writes: ‘If I am even for a moment¶ such as I would want to be again, then I would accept all my past actions,¶ which, essential to and constitutive of the self I want to repeat, are now¶ newly redescribed’ (1985, p. 160, my emphasis). Or, as Julian Young¶ writes, the key is to ‘“write” my life so that I not merely like it, but like it¶ so much that I can will its recurrence for ever and ever, down to every last¶ detail’ (2003, p. 91), and to do this we must be able to see the kind of personal¶ providence in things that Nietzsche describes in Gay Science 277.¶ Hence eternal recurrence, which Nietzsche describes in Ecce Homo as ‘the¶ highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable’ (EH III Z 1), turns¶ out to be the new counter-ideal and the means whereby the human animal¶ can for the first time will a life-affirming meaning for its past and thereby¶ for its entire existence.¶ However, this invocation of eternal recurrence does nothing whatsoever¶ to eliminate the kind of self-deception pointed out by Nietzsche himself¶ in Gay Science 277. Saying to my past, ‘Thus I will it to be repeated’,¶ or, ‘Thus I will it to be repeated eternally’, does not add any¶ more meaning to my past than saying to it merely, ‘Thus I will it.’ Just as¶ my present willing can do nothing whatsoever to direct my past inevitably¶ towards my present state, so too my present willing can do nothing whatsoever¶ to ensure the repetition of my vanished past. Indeed, this is precisely¶ Nietzsche’s point about the irreversibility of time: ever since its¶ acquisition of a faculty of memory, the human animal has nostalgically¶ willed the return, and even eternal repetition, of its most treasured and¶ joyous past moments. The problem is not that the human animal has never¶ before willed this, and that it should start doing so now. The problem, rather,¶ is that the human animal has always willed this, and that this willing¶ has been of no avail whatsoever. Indeed, it is precisely this impotence, this¶ confrontation with the immovable stone ‘it was’, that has caused the human¶ animal to find its existence and suffering devoid of meaning, to take revenge on life, to formulate the ascetic ideal, and to live its life against¶ life.¶ When, therefore, Nietzsche describes eternal recurrence as the highest¶ formulation of life-affirmation that is at all attainable, his point is not that¶ the human animal should aim to will this eternal recurrence and thereby¶ achieve the highest life-affirmation possible.12 Instead, his point is that the human animal can never will this and that therefore the human animal can never achieve such life-affirmation. Indeed, no matter how strong and healthy¶ he deemed himself, perhaps the strongest and healthiest of all of his¶ contemporaries, Nietzsche found himself unable to will his life’s eternal¶ recurrence. Writing in his notebooks in 1883, Nietzsche exclaims: ‘I do not¶ want life again. How have I borne it? What has made me endure the sight?¶ the vision of the superhuman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it¶ myself —alas!’ (Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10,¶ 4[81]).13¶ So, rather than conferring meaning upon the human animal’s past, the thought of eternal recurrence actually multiplies and intensifies the meaninglessness of this past to a new and devastating degree. This is why Nietzsche¶ writes in his 1887 notes that the thought of eternal recurrence builds¶ upon the nihilism that follows the demise of the ascetic ideal—that is, upon¶ the most paralysing thought of ‘continuing with an “in vain”, without aim¶ and purpose’. Eternal recurrence, he writes, is the most extreme form of¶ nihilism because it is the ‘thought of existence as it is, without meaning or¶ goal, but inevitably recurring, without any finale into nothingness’ (Nachla߶ Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71], my emphasis). It is not¶ just the thought of meaninglessness, but the thought of meaninglessness¶ eternally. Previously the human animal sought solace in the idea of death¶ and nothingness as an escape from the meaninglessness of its life and suffering.¶ But the thought of eternal recurrence closes off all such escape and¶ condemns the human animal to eternal meaninglessness. As Nietzsche¶ writes in his 1883 notes: ‘everything becomes and recurs eternally— escape¶ is impossible!” (Nachlaß Winter 1883–1884, KSA 10, 24[7]).14¶ Nor can it be replied to this that, because death no longer affords an escape¶ to life’s suffering, there is actually less point to suicide. For in the third essay of the Genealogy Nietzsche argues that the thought of death as escape¶ keeps humans from giving in to their pre-existing death-wish by imparting¶ meaning to life’s suffering and offering the hope of a different or¶ better life. Because eternal recurrence undermines both this meaning and¶ this hope, nothing remains to keep humans from giving in to their inherent¶ suicidal instincts.

<h4>Suicide as escape is a necessary transgression within the cycle of eternal recurrence. Accepting death through the option for<u><strong> suicide imparts meaning onto life’s suffering.</h4><p>Loeb 08</p><p></u></strong>Paul, Dr. of philosophy at University of Puget Sound, Ph.D from Cal Berkeley, “Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption,” Nietzsche on Time and History, Ed. Manuel Dries, p. 163-189 SJE</p><p>Although Zarathustra does not explicitly introduce his teaching of eternal¶ recurrence in his redemption speech, he obviously points in this direction¶ when he concludes by asking how the creative will might be taught to will¶ backwards so that it might will something higher than any reconciliation¶ with time. According to the consensus reading I have been concerned to¶ criticize, what Zarathustra means by this is that my affirmation of my present¶ state should teach me how to ‘will backwards’—that is, to will the¶ exact repetition of my entire past. And I would not be able to will in this¶ way unless I had successfully redescribed my past as directed inevitably¶ towards my present state. As Nehamas writes: ‘If I am even for a moment¶ such as I would want to be again, then I would accept all my past actions,¶ which, essential to and constitutive of the self I want to repeat, are now¶ newly redescribed’ (1985, p. 160, my emphasis). Or, as Julian Young¶ writes, the key is to ‘“write” my life so that I not merely like it, but like it¶ so much that I can will its recurrence for ever and ever, down to every last¶ detail’ (2003, p. 91), and to do this we must be able to see the kind of personal¶ providence in things that Nietzsche describes in Gay Science 277.¶ Hence <u><mark>eternal recurrence</mark>, which <mark>Nietzsche</u> <u>describes</u></mark> in Ecce Homo <u><mark>as ‘the</u>¶<u> highest</mark> formula of <mark>affirmation</mark> that is at all <mark>attainable’</mark> </u>(EH III Z 1), <u>turns</u>¶<u> out to be <mark>the</mark> <strong>new <mark>counter-ideal</strong> and</mark> the <strong><mark>means whereby the human</strong></mark> </u>animal¶<u> <strong><mark>can</strong></mark> for the first time <strong><mark>will a life-affirming meaning</strong> for its past</mark> and thereby</u>¶<u> for its entire existence</u>.¶ <u><mark>However, <strong></mark>this <mark>invocation of eternal recurrence does not</strong></mark>hing whatsoever</u>¶<u> to <strong><mark>eliminate the</u></strong></mark> kind of self-deception pointed out by Nietzsche himself¶ in Gay Science 277. Saying to my past, ‘Thus I will it to be repeated’,¶ or, ‘Thus I will it to be repeated eternally’, does not add any¶ more meaning to my past than saying to it merely, ‘Thus I will it.’ Just as¶ my present willing can do nothing whatsoever to direct my past inevitably¶ towards my present state, so too my present willing can do nothing whatsoever¶ to ensure the repetition of my vanished past. Indeed, this is precisely¶ Nietzsche’s point about the <u><strong><mark>irreversibility of time</u></strong></mark>: ever since its¶ acquisition of a faculty of memory<mark>, <u>the human</u></mark> animal <u><mark>has</mark> nostalgically</u>¶<u> <mark>willed the</mark> return, and even <mark>eternal repetition, of its most</mark> treasured and</u>¶<u> <mark>joyous past moments</u></mark>. The problem is not that the human animal has never¶ before willed this, and that it should start doing so now. The problem, rather,¶ is that the human animal has always willed this, and that this willing¶ has been of no avail whatsoever. Indeed, it is precisely this impotence, this¶ confrontation with the immovable stone ‘it was’, that has caused the human¶ animal to find its existence and suffering devoid of meaning, to take revenge on life, to formulate the ascetic ideal, and to live its life against¶ life.¶ <u><mark>When</u></mark>, therefore, <u><mark>Nietzsche describes eternal recurrence as the highest</u>¶<u> formulation of life-affirmation</mark> that is at all attainable, <mark>his point is not that</u>¶<u> the human</mark> animal <mark>should aim to will this eternal recurrence</mark> and thereby</u>¶<u> achieve the highest life-affirmation possible</u>.12 Instead, <u><mark>his point i</mark>s that <strong><mark>the human</mark> </u></strong>animal<u><strong> <mark>can never will this and that therefore the human </u></strong></mark>animal<u><strong><mark> can never achieve such life-affirmation.</u></strong></mark> Indeed, no matter how strong and healthy¶ he deemed himself, perhaps the strongest and healthiest of all of his¶ contemporaries, <u>Nietzsche found himself unable to will his life’s eternal</u>¶<u> recurrence.</u> Writing in his notebooks in 1883, Nietzsche exclaims: ‘I do not¶ want life again. How have I borne it? What has made me endure the sight?¶ the vision of the superhuman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it¶ myself —alas!’ (Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10,¶ 4[81]).13¶ So, <u>rather than conferring meaning upon the human animal’s past, <strong><mark>the thought of eternal recurrence</mark> actually <mark>multiplies and intensifies the meaninglessness of this past</strong></mark> to a new and devastating degree.</u> This is why Nietzsche¶ writes in his 1887 notes that the thought of eternal recurrence builds¶ upon the nihilism that follows the demise of the ascetic ideal—that is, upon¶ the most paralysing thought of ‘continuing with an “in vain”, without aim¶ and purpose’. <u>Eternal recurrence, he writes, is the most extreme form of</u>¶<u> nihilism because it is the ‘thought of existence as it is, without meaning or</u>¶<u> goal, but inevitably recurring, without any finale into nothingness’</u> (Nachla߶ Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71], my emphasis). It is not¶ just the thought of meaninglessness, but the thought of meaninglessness¶ eternally. Previously the human animal sought solace in the idea of death¶ and nothingness as an escape from the meaninglessness of its life and suffering.¶ But the thought of eternal recurrence closes off all such escape and¶ condemns the human animal to eternal meaninglessness. As Nietzsche¶ writes in his 1883 notes: ‘<u><mark>everything becomes and recurs eternally— escape</u>¶<u> is impossible</u></mark>!” (Nachlaß Winter 1883–1884, KSA 10, 24[7]).14¶ Nor can it be replied to this that, because death no longer affords an escape¶ to life’s suffering, there is actually less point to suicide. For in the third essay of the Genealogy Nietzsche argues that <u><strong><mark>the thought of death as escape</u></strong>¶<u><strong> keeps humans from giving in to their pre-existing death-wish by imparting</u></strong>¶<u><strong> meaning to life’s suffering and offering the hope of a different or</u></strong>¶<u><strong> better life.</u></strong></mark> Because eternal recurrence undermines both this meaning and¶ this hope, nothing remains to keep humans from giving in to their inherent¶ suicidal instincts.</p>

EZ 1AC 4.0

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-USC-Round1.docx

A

USC

1

OU CY

R Cheek

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-USC-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Third – The perm “solving” impacts is the problem- reform only allows capitalism to promote the belief that it can fix itself.

Luxemburg 99

Luxemburg 99 Rosa, Polish-Jewish-German Marxist theorist, socialist philosopher, and revolutionary. “Reform or Revolution.” Chapter VI. Conquest of Political Power..

Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic developmen Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society.

Legislative reform and revolution are reciprocally exclusive as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat legal constitution is the product of revolution work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms transformation and reform do not differ according to duration but content people who pronounce themselves in favour of legislative reform in place do not choose a more tranquil road to the same goal, but a different goal Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society

Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic development that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. They condition and complement each other, and are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem. It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another. That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.

<h4>Third – The perm “solving” impacts is the problem- reform only allows capitalism to promote the belief that it can fix itself.</h4><p><strong><mark>Luxemburg 99</strong></mark> Rosa, Polish-Jewish-German Marxist theorist, socialist philosopher, and revolutionary. “Reform or Revolution.” Chapter VI. Conquest of Political Power<u>..</p><p>Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic developmen</u>t that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. <u><strong><mark>Legislative reform and revolution</strong></mark> are different <strong>factors</strong> in the development of class society. </u>They condition and complement each other, and<u> <strong><mark>are</strong></mark> at the same time <strong><mark>reciprocally exclusive</strong></mark>,</u> <u><strong><mark>as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat</u></strong></mark>. <u>Every <mark>legal constitution is the product of</mark> a <mark>revolution</u></mark>. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period <u><mark>work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution</mark>.</u> Here is the kernel of the problem. <u><strong><mark>It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms</mark>. </strong>A social <mark>transformation and</mark> a legislative <mark>reform do not differ according to</mark> their <mark>duration but</mark> according to their <mark>content</mark>. </u>The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.<u> That is why <mark>people who pronounce themselves in favour of</mark> the method of <mark>legislative reform</mark> <strong><mark>in place</mark> and in contradistinction to</strong> the conquest of political power and social revolution, <mark>do not</mark> really <mark>choose a more tranquil</mark>, calmer and slower <mark>road to the <strong>same</strong> goal, but a <strong>different</strong> goal</mark>. <strong><mark>Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society</strong></mark>. </u>If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.</p>

1NR

Neolib

Perm

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

This takes out the whole aff by continuing an endless process of exchange which destroys the possibility of politics

Baudrillard 92

Jean Baudrillard 1992 (Jean, Pataphysics of Year 2000)

Every atom dissolves in space. This is what we are living occupied with the acceleration of all bodies, all messages, all processes each event, each narrative, each image gets endowed with the simulation of an infinite trajectory Every political fact is invested with a kinetic energy which spreads over its own space and thrusts these facts into a hyperspace where they lose all meaning by way of an inability to attain their meaning. the narrative has become impossible it is the potential re-narrativization No meaning stands a chance once offered the means of its own acceleration. history slows down as it brushes up against the astral body of the "silent majorities". Our societies are governed by a "critical mass going beyond a point of no-return. This inert matter of the social is not due to a lack of exchanges, of information or of communication; it is the result of the multiplication and saturation of exchanges the hyperdensity of messages Successive events attain their annihilation in indifference. Neutralized and bullet-sprayed by information, the masses neutralise history retrospect and act as a screen of absorption. no meaning, no conscience, no desire. All social, historical and temporal transcendence is absorbed via this mass's silent immanence. We are obsessed with high fidelity the console of our channels subjected to factual sophistication, history ceases to exist interference of an event with its diffusion short-circuit cause and effect, as of a certain point", nothing is true anymore.

occupied with the acceleration of all bodies, all messages, all processes each event, each narrative, each image gets endowed with the simulation of an infinite trajectory Every political fact is invested with a kinetic energy which spreads over its own space and thrusts these facts into a hyperspace where they lose all meaning by way of an inability to attain their meaning. the narrative has become impossible it is the potential re-narrativization No meaning stands a chance once offered the means of its own acceleration. Our societies are governed by a "critical mass going beyond a point of no-return. This inert matter of the social is not due to a lack of exchanges, information or communication; it is the result of the multiplication and saturation of exchanges the hyperdensity of messages events attain their annihilation in indifference. Neutralized and bullet-sprayed by information, the masses neutralise history retrospect and act as a screen of absorption. no meaning, no conscience, no desire. All social, historical and temporal transcendence is absorbed via this mass's silent immanence. subjected to factual sophistication, history ceases to exist interference of an event with its diffusion short-circuit cause and effect, as of a certain point", nothing is true anymore.

Outside of this gravitational pull which keeps bodies in orbit, all the atoms of meaning lose themselves or self-absolve in space. Every single atom follows its own trajectory towards infinity and dissolves in space. This is precisely what we are living in our present societies occupied with the acceleration of all bodies, all messages, all processes in all possible senses and wherein, via modern media, each event, each narrative, each image gets endowed with the simulation of an infinite trajectory. Every political, historical, cultural fact is invested with a kinetic energy which spreads over its own space and thrusts these facts into a hyperspace where they lose all meaning by way of an inability to attain their meaning. It is useless to turn to science-fiction: from this point on, from the here and now, through our computer science, our circuits and our channels, this particle accelerator has definitively disrupted and broken the referential orbit of things. With respect to history, the narrative has become impossible since by definition it is the potential re-narrativization of a sequence of meaning. Through the impulse of total diffusion and circulation each event is liberated for itself only — each event becomes atomized and nuclear as it follows its trajectory into the void. In order to diffuse itself ad infinitum, it has to be fragmented like a particle. This is the way it attains a speed of no-return, distancing it from history once and for all. Every cultural, eventual group needs to be fragmented, disarticulated to allow for its entry into the circuits, each language must be absolved into a binary mechanism or device to allow for its circulation to take place — not in our memory, but in the electronic and luminous memory of the computers. There is no human language or speech (langage) that could compete with the speed of light. There is no event that could withstand its own diffusion across the planet. No meaning stands a chance once offered the means of its own acceleration. There is no history that will resist the centrifugal pull of facts or its short-circuiting in real time (in the same order of ideas: no sexuality will resist its own liberation, not a single culture will foreclose its own advancement, no truth will defy its own verification, etc.). Even theory is no longer in the state of "reflecting" on anything anymore. All it can do is to snatch concepts from their critical zone of reference and transpose them to the point of no return, in the process of which theory itself too, passes into the hyperspace of simulation as it loses all "objective" validity, while it makes significant gains by acquiring real affinity with the current system. The second hypothesis, with respect to the vanishing of history, is the opposite of the first, i.e., it pertains not to the acceleration but to the slowing down of processes. This too is derived directly from physics. Matter slows the passage of time. More precisely, time seems to pass very slowly upon the surface of a very dense body of matter. The phenomenon increases in proportion to growth in density. The effect of this slowing down (ralentissement) will raise the wavelength of light emitted by this body in a way that will allow the observer to record this phenomenon. Beyond a certain limit, time stops, the length of the wave becomes infinite. The wave no longer exists. Light extinguishes itself. The analogy is apparent in the way history slows down as it brushes up against the astral body of the "silent majorities". Our societies are governed by this process of the mass, and not only in the sociological or demographical sense of the word, but also in the sense of a "critical mass", of going beyond a certain point of no-return. That is where the crucially significant event of these societies is to be found: the advent of their revolutionary process along the lines of their mobility, (they are all revolutionary with respect to the centuries gone by), of their equivalent force of inertia, of an immense indifference, and of the silent power of this indifference. This inert matter of the social is not due to a lack of exchanges, of information or of communication; on the contrary, it is the result of the multiplication and saturation of exchanges. It is borne of the hyperdensity of cities, of merchandise, messages and circuits. It is the cold star of the social, a mass at the peripheries of which history cools out. Successive events attain their annihilation in indifference. Neutralized and bullet-sprayed by information, the masses neutralise history retrospect and act as a screen of absorption. They themselves have no history, no meaning, no conscience, no desire. They are potential residues of all history, of all meaning, of all desire. By inserting themselves into modernity, all these wonderful things managed to invoke a mysterious counterpart, the misappreciation of which has unleashed all current political and social strategies. This time, it's the opposite: history, meaning, progress are no longer able to find their speed or tempo of liberation. They can no longer pull themselves out of this much too dense body which slows down their trajectory, slows down their time to the point from whereon perception and imagination of the future escapes us. All social, historical and temporal transcendence is absorbed via this mass's silent immanence. Already, political events no longer conduct sufficient autonomous energy to rouse us and can only run their course as a silent movie in front of which we all sit collectively irresponsible. That is where history reaches its end, not because of the lack of actors or participants, not due to a lack of violence (with respect to violence, there is always an increasing amount), not due to a lack of events (as for events, there will always be more of them thanks to the role of the media and information!) — but because of a slowing down or deceleration, because of indifference and stupefaction. History can no longer go beyond itself, it can no longer envisage its own finality or dream of its own end, it shrouds or buries itself in its immediate effect, it self-exhausts in special effects, it implodes in current events. Essentially, one can no longer speak of the end of history since it has no time to rejoin its own end. As its effects accelerate, its meaning inexorably decelerates. It will end up stopping and extinguishing itself like light and time at the peripheries of an infinitely dense mass... Humanity too, had its big-bang: a certain critical density, a certain concentration of people and exchanges that compel this explosion we call history and which is none other than the dispersal of dense and hieratic cores of earlier civilizations. Today, we are living an effect of reversal: we have overstepped the threshold of critical mass with respect to populations, events, information, control of the inverse process of inertia of history and politics. At the cosmic level of things, we don't know anymore whether we have reached this speed of liberation wherein we would be partaking of a permanent or final expansion (this, no doubt, will remain forever uncertain). At the human level, where prospects are more limited, it is possible that the energy itself employed for the liberation of the species (acceleration of birthrates, of techniques and exchanges in the course of the centuries) have contributed to an excess of mass and resistance that bear on the initial energy as it drags us along a ruthless movement of contraction and inertia. Whether the universe infinitely expands or retracts to an infinitely dense and infinitely small core will hinge upon its critical mass (with respect to which speculation itself is infinite in view of the discovery of newer particles). Following the analogy, whether our human history will be evolutionary or involuted will presumably depend upon the critical mass of humanity. Are we to see ourselves, like the galaxies, on a definitive orbit that distances us from each other under the impact of a tremendous speed, or is this dispersal to infinity itself destined to reach an end, and the human molecules bound to draw closer to each other by way of an inverse effect of gravitation? The question is whether a human mass that grows day by day is able to control a pulsation of this genre? Third hypothesis, third analogy. But we are still dealing with a point of disappearance, a point of evanescence, a vanishing-point, this time however along the lines of music. This is what I call the stereophonic effect. We are all obsessed with high fidelity, with the quality of musical "transmission" (rendu). On the console of our channels, equipped with our tuners, our amplifiers and our baffles, we mix, regulate and multiply soundtracks in search of an infallible or unerring music. Is this, though, still music? Where is the threshold of high fidelity beyond the point of which music as such would disappear? Disappearance would not be due to the lack of music, it would disappear for having stepped beyond this boundary, it would disappear into the perfection of its materiality, into its own special effect. Beyond this point, neither judgement nor aesthetic pleasure could be found anymore. Ecstasy of musicality procures its own end. The disappearance of history is of the same order: there too, we have gone beyond this limit or boundary where, subjected to factual and informational sophistication, history as such ceases to exist. Large doses of immediate diffusion, of special effects, of secondary effects, of fading — and this famous Larsen effect produced in acoustics by an excessive proximity between source and receiver, in history via an excessive proximity, and therefore the disastrous interference of an event with its diffusion — create a short-circuit between cause and effect, similarly to what takes place between the object and the experimenting subject in microphysics (and in the human sciences!). All things entailing a certain radical uncertainty of the event, like excessive high fidelity, lead to a radical uncertainty with respect to music. Elias Canetti says it well: "as of a certain point", nothing is true anymore. This is also why the soft music of history escapes us, it disappears under the microscope or into the stereophony of information.

<h4>This takes out the whole aff by continuing an endless process of exchange which destroys the possibility of politics</h4><p>Jean <u><strong>Baudrillard</u> </strong>19<u><strong>92</u></strong> (Jean, Pataphysics of Year 2000)</p><p>Outside of this gravitational pull which keeps bodies in orbit, all the atoms of meaning lose themselves or self-absolve in space. <u><strong>Every</u></strong> single <u><strong>atom</u></strong> follows its own trajectory towards infinity and <u><strong>dissolves in space.</u></strong> <u><strong>This is</u></strong> precisely <u><strong>what we are living</u></strong> in our present societies <u><strong><mark>occupied with the acceleration of all bodies, all messages, all processes</mark> </u></strong>in all possible senses and wherein, via modern media, <u><strong><mark>each event, each narrative, each image gets endowed with the simulation of an infinite trajectory</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Every political</u></strong></mark>, historical, cultural <u><strong><mark>fact is invested with a kinetic energy which spreads over its own space and thrusts these facts into a hyperspace where they lose all meaning by way of an inability to attain their meaning.</u></strong></mark> It is useless to turn to science-fiction: from this point on, from the here and now, through our computer science, our circuits and our channels, this particle accelerator has definitively disrupted and broken the referential orbit of things. With respect to history, <u><strong><mark>the narrative has become impossible</u></strong></mark> since by definition <u><strong><mark>it is the potential re-narrativization</mark> </u></strong>of a sequence of meaning. Through the impulse of total diffusion and circulation each event is liberated for itself only — each event becomes atomized and nuclear as it follows its trajectory into the void. In order to diffuse itself ad infinitum, it has to be fragmented like a particle. This is the way it attains a speed of no-return, distancing it from history once and for all. Every cultural, eventual group needs to be fragmented, disarticulated to allow for its entry into the circuits, each language must be absolved into a binary mechanism or device to allow for its circulation to take place — not in our memory, but in the electronic and luminous memory of the computers. There is no human language or speech (langage) that could compete with the speed of light. There is no event that could withstand its own diffusion across the planet. <u><strong><mark>No meaning stands a chance once offered the means of its own acceleration.</u></strong></mark> There is no history that will resist the centrifugal pull of facts or its short-circuiting in real time (in the same order of ideas: no sexuality will resist its own liberation, not a single culture will foreclose its own advancement, no truth will defy its own verification, etc.). Even theory is no longer in the state of "reflecting" on anything anymore. All it can do is to snatch concepts from their critical zone of reference and transpose them to the point of no return, in the process of which theory itself too, passes into the hyperspace of simulation as it loses all "objective" validity, while it makes significant gains by acquiring real affinity with the current system. The second hypothesis, with respect to the vanishing of history, is the opposite of the first, i.e., it pertains not to the acceleration but to the slowing down of processes. This too is derived directly from physics. Matter slows the passage of time. More precisely, time seems to pass very slowly upon the surface of a very dense body of matter. The phenomenon increases in proportion to growth in density. The effect of this slowing down (ralentissement) will raise the wavelength of light emitted by this body in a way that will allow the observer to record this phenomenon. Beyond a certain limit, time stops, the length of the wave becomes infinite. The wave no longer exists. Light extinguishes itself. The analogy is apparent in the way <u><strong>history slows down as it brushes up against the astral body of the "silent majorities". <mark>Our societies are governed by</u></strong></mark> this process of the mass, and not only in the sociological or demographical sense of the word, but also in the sense of <u><strong><mark>a "critical mass</u></strong></mark>", of <u><strong><mark>going beyond a</mark> </u></strong>certain <u><strong><mark>point of no-return.</mark> </u></strong>That is where the crucially significant event of these societies is to be found: the advent of their revolutionary process along the lines of their mobility, (they are all revolutionary with respect to the centuries gone by), of their equivalent force of inertia, of an immense indifference, and of the silent power of this indifference. <u><strong><mark>This inert matter of the social is not due to a lack of exchanges, </mark>of <mark>information or </mark>of <mark>communication;</u></strong></mark> on the contrary, <u><strong><mark>it is the result of the multiplication and saturation of exchanges</u></strong></mark>. It is borne of <u><strong><mark>the hyperdensity</u></strong></mark> of cities, <u><strong><mark>of</u></strong></mark> merchandise, <u><strong><mark>messages</u></strong></mark> and circuits. It is the cold star of the social, a mass at the peripheries of which history cools out. <u><strong>Successive <mark>events attain their annihilation in indifference.</mark> <mark>Neutralized and bullet-sprayed by information, the masses neutralise history retrospect and act as a screen of absorption.</mark> </u></strong>They themselves have no history, <u><strong><mark>no meaning, no conscience, no desire.</u></strong></mark> They are potential residues of all history, of all meaning, of all desire. By inserting themselves into modernity, all these wonderful things managed to invoke a mysterious counterpart, the misappreciation of which has unleashed all current political and social strategies. This time, it's the opposite: history, meaning, progress are no longer able to find their speed or tempo of liberation. They can no longer pull themselves out of this much too dense body which slows down their trajectory, slows down their time to the point from whereon perception and imagination of the future escapes us. <u><strong><mark>All social, historical and temporal transcendence is absorbed via this mass's silent immanence.</u></strong></mark> Already, political events no longer conduct sufficient autonomous energy to rouse us and can only run their course as a silent movie in front of which we all sit collectively irresponsible. That is where history reaches its end, not because of the lack of actors or participants, not due to a lack of violence (with respect to violence, there is always an increasing amount), not due to a lack of events (as for events, there will always be more of them thanks to the role of the media and information!) — but because of a slowing down or deceleration, because of indifference and stupefaction. History can no longer go beyond itself, it can no longer envisage its own finality or dream of its own end, it shrouds or buries itself in its immediate effect, it self-exhausts in special effects, it implodes in current events. Essentially, one can no longer speak of the end of history since it has no time to rejoin its own end. As its effects accelerate, its meaning inexorably decelerates. It will end up stopping and extinguishing itself like light and time at the peripheries of an infinitely dense mass... Humanity too, had its big-bang: a certain critical density, a certain concentration of people and exchanges that compel this explosion we call history and which is none other than the dispersal of dense and hieratic cores of earlier civilizations. Today, we are living an effect of reversal: we have overstepped the threshold of critical mass with respect to populations, events, information, control of the inverse process of inertia of history and politics. At the cosmic level of things, we don't know anymore whether we have reached this speed of liberation wherein we would be partaking of a permanent or final expansion (this, no doubt, will remain forever uncertain). At the human level, where prospects are more limited, it is possible that the energy itself employed for the liberation of the species (acceleration of birthrates, of techniques and exchanges in the course of the centuries) have contributed to an excess of mass and resistance that bear on the initial energy as it drags us along a ruthless movement of contraction and inertia. Whether the universe infinitely expands or retracts to an infinitely dense and infinitely small core will hinge upon its critical mass (with respect to which speculation itself is infinite in view of the discovery of newer particles). Following the analogy, whether our human history will be evolutionary or involuted will presumably depend upon the critical mass of humanity. Are we to see ourselves, like the galaxies, on a definitive orbit that distances us from each other under the impact of a tremendous speed, or is this dispersal to infinity itself destined to reach an end, and the human molecules bound to draw closer to each other by way of an inverse effect of gravitation? The question is whether a human mass that grows day by day is able to control a pulsation of this genre? Third hypothesis, third analogy. But we are still dealing with a point of disappearance, a point of evanescence, a vanishing-point, this time however along the lines of music. This is what I call the stereophonic effect. <u><strong>We are</u></strong> all <u><strong>obsessed with high fidelity</u></strong>, with the quality of musical "transmission" (rendu). On <u><strong>the console of our channels</u></strong>, equipped with our tuners, our amplifiers and our baffles, we mix, regulate and multiply soundtracks in search of an infallible or unerring music. Is this, though, still music? Where is the threshold of high fidelity beyond the point of which music as such would disappear? Disappearance would not be due to the lack of music, it would disappear for having stepped beyond this boundary, it would disappear into the perfection of its materiality, into its own special effect. Beyond this point, neither judgement nor aesthetic pleasure could be found anymore. Ecstasy of musicality procures its own end. The disappearance of history is of the same order: there too, we have gone beyond this limit or boundary where, <u><strong><mark>subjected to factual </u></strong></mark>and informational <u><strong><mark>sophistication, history</u></strong></mark> as such <u><strong><mark>ceases to exist</u></strong></mark>. Large doses of immediate diffusion, of special effects, of secondary effects, of fading — and this famous Larsen effect produced in acoustics by an excessive proximity between source and receiver, in history via an excessive proximity, and therefore the disastrous <u><strong><mark>interference of an event with its diffusion</u></strong></mark> — create a <u><strong><mark>short-circuit</u></strong></mark> between <u><strong><mark>cause and effect,</mark> </u></strong>similarly to what takes place between the object and the experimenting subject in microphysics (and in the human sciences!). All things entailing a certain radical uncertainty of the event, like excessive high fidelity, lead to a radical uncertainty with respect to music. Elias Canetti says it well: "<u><strong><mark>as of a certain point", nothing is true anymore.</u></strong></mark> This is also why the soft music of history escapes us, it disappears under the microscope or into the stereophony of information. </p>

2NC

Undercommons

OV

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Political subjects under the state are ahistorical fabrications of being – our praxis of counter-memory exposes the illusion of subjectivity and, through a process of cutting, opens up space for radical becoming. Michael Clifford explains

ondon, Great Britain. pp. 134-7

Michael, Associate Professor of Philosophy with the Institute for the Humanities and the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Mississippi State University, 2001, “Political Genealogy After Foucault”. Routledge, London, Great Britain. pp. 134-7

counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness” Counter-memory consists of essentially forgetting who we are. It is a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of the moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity. Counter-memory holds us at a remove, a distance, from ourselves; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of wrenching the self—this identity—apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference. The self, as a coherent identity, becomes foreign through counter-memory. We cannot remember what it was that compelled us to act, believe, be a given way. Counter-memory dissolves this compulsion, this determination, this subjection. The power of identity is suspended through a forgetfulness of its necessity—a freedom is opened within the space of a difference that no identity can constrain. Counter-memory bears directly on processes of subjectivation “Counter-discourses” anticipate a subjectival freedom of open possibilities by opposing themselves to the discourses of truth through which we recognize ourselves as subjects. These counter-discourses, the discourses of genealogy, lift the burdensome obligations imposed on us by such a recognition. counter-memory always takes the form of a transgression. Yet there is freedom in this refusal, Counter-memory counters, or suspends, the power of identity through genealogical accounts of its constitution. Genealogy effects “the systematic dissociation of identity” by revealing its radical contingency, its historicality and utter lack of essentiality. The purpose of genealogy is not to discover the roots of our identity, but to commit itself to its dissipation.” Genealogical critique is an exposition of our history as subjects that has the effect of disposing subjectival constraints by exposing the contingency of their imposition Wherever “the self fabricates a coherent identity,” genealogy puts into play a subversive counter-analysis that “permits the dissociation of the self Genealogy disturbs, fragments, displaces the unity of subjectivity. It cuts through the oppressive, assimilating density of Truth and discovers in this beguiling haze that subjectivity is nothing more than a colorful mask. Behind it there is no essential identity, no unified spirit or will, no naked subject stripped of its colorful dress. there is only a matrix of intersecting lines and heterogenous congruities, an arbitrary and historically contingent complex of discursive and nondiscursive practices. Unity is a mask for an interplay of anonymous forces and historical accidents that permits us to identify subjects identity—is imposed on subjects as the mask of their fabrication. Subjectivity is the carceral and incarcerating expression of this imposition, of the limitations drawn around us by discourses of truth and practices of individualization; but seen through the “differential knowledge” of genealogy, the identity of subjectivity collapses Counter-memory through genealogical critique is a transgression of limits. As such, it opens onto a possibility of freedom. genealogy gives “new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.” It is not a freedom against the office of government, but against governmentality—against a rationality that imprisons us in the cellular space of our own self-government. the freedom of/through counter-memory is a form of mimetic play with the notion of positive freedom whereby citizenship is unwrapped like a cloak from the politicized body. by exposing the nonessentiality of the limits imposed on us through the constitution of a self, it opens the possibility of going beyond those limits. a kind of fracture, at once an open space and a breaking free of the constraining power inherent in identity and identification. Freedom, concrete freedom, is a space of possible transformation. Even the most violent forms of resistance against subjection accomplish nothing if they do not gain this freedom, do not open a space of possible transformation—which means nothing more, and nothing less, than the possibility of being otherwise what is being required here is not a freedom to transform ourselves in accordance with some global or teleological model of a more “genuine” form of subjectivity. Rather, the freedom opened by counter-memory is a freedom of permanent transformation, of always being able to become other than what we are.

Counter-memory consists of forgetting who we are a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity Counter-memory holds us at a distance, from ourselves wrenching the self apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange The self becomes foreign We cannot remember what it was that compelled us to act, believe, be a given way. Counter-memory dissolves this compulsion, this determination, this subjection identity is suspended through forgetfulness of its necessity Counter-discourses” anticipate a subjectival freedom by opposing discourses of truth the discourses of genealogy, lift obligations imposed on us by such a recognition counter-memory takes the form of a transgression there is freedom in refusal Counter-memory suspends identity through genealogical accounts of its constitution The purpose of genealogy is not to discover the roots of our identity, but to commit to its dissipation Genealogical critique is an exposition of our history as subjects disposing subjectival constraints by exposing contingency Genealogy cuts through the oppressive density of Truth and discovers that subjectivity is nothing more than a colorful mask there is no essential identity, no unified spirit or will, no naked subject stripped of its colorful dress only a matrix of intersecting lines and heterogenous congruities Subjectivity is the carceral and incarcerating expression of this imposition but seen through the “differential knowledge” of genealogy, the identity of subjectivity collapses It is not a freedom against the government, but against governmentality a rationality that imprisons us in the cellular space of our own self-government a form of mimetic play with the notion of positive freedom whereby citizenship is unwrapped from the politicized body Even the most violent forms of resistance accomplish nothing if they do not open a space of possible transformation a freedom of permanent transformation, of always being able to become other than what we are

Foucault’s counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness” (aktive Vergesslichkeit).21 Counter-memory consists of essentially forgetting who we are. It is a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of the moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity. There is freedom in forgetfulness. Counter-memory holds us at a remove, a distance, from ourselves; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of wrenching the self—this identity—apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference. Counter-memory dislodges the propriety of our-selves. The self, as a coherent identity, becomes foreign through counter-memory. We cannot remember what it was that compelled us to act, believe, be a given way. Counter-memory dissolves this compulsion, this determination, this subjection. The power of identity is suspended through a forgetfulness of its necessity—a freedom is opened within the space of a difference that no identity can constrain. This difference always plays outside the limits, outside any delimitation of being. Counter-memory thrusts us into this uncharted world, where a memory makes no sense, where play is the order of the day, where lightening and chance disintegrate the heavy and solid, the identical. Counter-memory bears directly on processes of subjectivation, on the techniques of the self through which we constitute for ourselves an identity. “Counter-discourses” anticipate a subjectival freedom of open possibilities by opposing themselves to the discourses of truth through which we recognize ourselves as subjects.22 These counter-discourses, the discourses of genealogy, lift the burdensome obligations imposed on us by such a recognition. As a forgetfulness of these obligations, counter-memory always takes the form of a transgression. It invites condemnation even as it refuses to be held accountable. Yet there is freedom in this refusal, in this transgression—for those who have the stomach for it.23 There is always an essential risk involved in refusing, in forgetting, one’s identity.24 Counter-memory is not a form of consciousness. It is nothing, really, except the effect of a certain kind of description of ourselves, a description of the historical ontology of ourselves as subjects. This description has been closed off and denied by power/knowledge relations, excluded and made peripheral by certain dominant discourses and entrenched scientific-philosophical enterprises that bind us to a conception of what we are in truth. Counter-memory counters, or suspends, the power of identity through genealogical accounts of its constitution. Genealogy effects “the systematic dissociation of identity” by revealing its radical contingency, its historicality and utter lack of essentiality. The purpose of genealogy, says Foucault, “is not to discover the roots of our identity, but to commit itself to its dissipation.”25 Genealogical critique is an exposition of our history as subjects that has the effect of disposing subjectival constraints by exposing the contingency of their imposition. Genealogy turns the firm posture of the self-identical subject into the mere posing of a pretentious display. Genealogy proceeds through “dissension” and “disparity.” Wherever “the self fabricates a coherent identity,” genealogy puts into play a subversive counter-analysis that “permits the dissociation of the self, its recognition and displacement as an empty synthesis.”26 Genealogy disturbs, fragments, displaces the unity of subjectivity. It cuts through the oppressive, assimilating density of Truth and discovers in this beguiling haze that subjectivity is nothing more than a colorful mask. Who we are, what we are, is a mask displayed for public viewing and examination, for person-al subjection and ethical subjugation. Genealogy cuts through this mask, only to make another discovery. Behind it there is no essential identity, no unified spirit or will, no naked subject stripped of its colorful dress. Rather, there is only a matrix of intersecting lines and heterogenous congruities, an arbitrary and historically contingent complex of discursive and nondiscursive practices. Asserts Foucault, “If the genealogist refuses to extend his faith in metaphysics, if he listens to history, he finds that there is ‘something altogether different’ behind things; not a timeless and essential secret, but the secret that they have no essence or that their essence was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms.”27 Contrary to what René Descartes or John Locke would contend, unity (whether of consciousness proper or the continuity of personal experience) is not the essence of subjectivity. Unity is a mask for an interplay of anonymous forces and historical accidents that permits us to identify subjects, to identify ourselves, as specific human beings. Unity—identity—is imposed on subjects as the mask of their fabrication. Subjectivity is the carceral and incarcerating expression of this imposition, of the limitations drawn around us by discourses of truth and practices of individualization; but seen through the “differential knowledge” of genealogy, the identity of subjectivity collapses. Counter-memory through genealogical critique is a transgression of limits. As such, it opens onto a possibility of freedom. Genealogy permits us “to separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, thinking what we are, do, or think.” In this sense, genealogy gives “new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.”28 The freedom offered by counter-memory is a kind of parodic reversal of negative freedom: it is not a freedom from interference, but for it—for disruption, for displacement, for violating those inviolable spheres of liberty that serve as the limits of our subjection. It is not a freedom for individuality, but from it—a freedom from individualization, from the practices and discourses which bind us to our own identity as individuals. It is not a freedom against the office of government, but against governmentality—against a rationality that imprisons us in the cellular space of our own self-government. At the same time, the freedom of/through counter-memory is a form of mimetic play with the notion of positive freedom whereby citizenship is unwrapped like a cloak from the politicized body. In simple terms, it can be said that genealogy “enables one to get free of oneself.”29 That is, by exposing the nonessentiality of the limits imposed on us through the constitution of a self, it opens the possibility of going beyond those limits.30 This opening is a kind of fracture, at once an open space and a breaking free of the constraining power inherent in identity and identification. In this sense, genealogy opens up “a space of concrete freedom, i.e., of possible transformation.”31 This notion of fracture allows us to define freedom more precisely, to gauge whether or not a genuine space of freedom has been opened for us. Freedom, concrete freedom, is a space of possible transformation. Unless we are free to transform ourselves, to be other than the identity dictated for us by some extraneous rationality, we have no freedom. Even the most violent forms of resistance against subjection accomplish nothing if they do not gain this freedom, do not open a space of possible transformation—which means nothing more, and nothing less, than the possibility of being otherwise. Something very like this point is made by Dennis Altman with regard to the Stonewall riots of 1969 and the militant Gay Liberation Front that emerged from them in the early 1970s. In one of the seminal texts of what would later become known as Queer Theory, Altman rails against the limited vision of a political movement that sought for gay and lesbian people little more than an expansion of rights and the “liberal tolerance” of the homophile community: “Homosexuals can win acceptance as distinct from tolerance only by a transformation of society, one that is based on a ‘new human’ who is able to accept the multifaceted and varied nature of his or her sexual identity. That such a society can be founded is the gamble upon which gay and women’s liberation are based; like all radical movements they hold to an optimistic view of human nature, above all to its mutability.”32 This requirement that we are only genuinely free if we able to transform ourselves is recalcitrant.33 It is crucial to understand, however, that what is being required here is not a freedom to transform ourselves in accordance with some global or teleological model of a more “genuine” form of subjectivity. This freedom does not consist (as it does in On Liberty) in replacing one form of subjectivity for another that is supposedly “truer” or more fulfilling to human nature. Not only is this illusory and unobtainable, it would also amount to a cancellation of freedom, a reimposition of subjectival limitations and expectations. Rather, the freedom opened by counter-memory is a freedom of permanent transformation, of always being able to become other than what we are.

<h4>Political subjects under the state are ahistorical fabrications of being – our praxis of counter-memory exposes the illusion of subjectivity and, through a process of cutting, opens up space for radical becoming. Michael Clifford explains</h4><p>Michael, Associate Professor of Philosophy with the Institute for the Humanities and the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Mississippi State University, 2001, “Political Genealogy After Foucault”. Routledge, L<u><strong>ondon, Great Britain. pp. 134-7</p><p></u></strong>Foucault’s <u>counter-memory is very close to the Nietzschean idea of “active forgetfulness”</u> (aktive Vergesslichkeit).21 <u><mark>Counter-memory consists of</mark> essentially <mark>forgetting who we are</mark>. It is <mark>a forgetfulness of essence, of necessity, of</mark> the <mark>moral and ontological obligations that bind us to an identity</mark>.</u> There is freedom in forgetfulness. <u><mark>Counter-memory holds us at</mark> a remove, <mark>a distance, from ourselves</mark>; not in the traditional sense of self reflection, but of <mark>wrenching the self</mark>—this identity—<mark>apart, through an incision, a cutting that makes the self stand naked and strange</mark> before us across an unbridgeable divide, a gap of difference.</u> Counter-memory dislodges the propriety of our-selves. <u><mark>The self</mark>, as a coherent identity, <mark>becomes foreign</mark> through counter-memory. <mark>We cannot remember what it was that compelled us to act, believe, be a given way. Counter-memory dissolves this compulsion, this determination, this subjection</mark>. The power of <mark>identity is suspended through</mark> a <mark>forgetfulness of its necessity</mark>—a freedom is opened within the space of a difference that no identity can constrain.</u> This difference always plays outside the limits, outside any delimitation of being. Counter-memory thrusts us into this uncharted world, where a memory makes no sense, where play is the order of the day, where lightening and chance disintegrate the heavy and solid, the identical. <u>Counter-memory bears directly on processes of subjectivation</u>, on the techniques of the self through which we constitute for ourselves an identity. <u>“<mark>Counter-discourses” anticipate a subjectival freedom</mark> of open possibilities <mark>by opposing</mark> themselves to the <mark>discourses of truth</mark> through which we recognize ourselves as subjects.</u>22 <u>These counter-discourses, <mark>the discourses of genealogy, lift</mark> the burdensome <mark>obligations imposed on us by such a recognition</mark>.</u> As a forgetfulness of these obligations, <u><mark>counter-memory</mark> always <mark>takes the form of a transgression</mark>.</u> It invites condemnation even as it refuses to be held accountable. <u>Yet <mark>there is freedom in</mark> this <mark>refusal</mark>,</u> in this transgression—for those who have the stomach for it.23 There is always an essential risk involved in refusing, in forgetting, one’s identity.24 Counter-memory is not a form of consciousness. It is nothing, really, except the effect of a certain kind of description of ourselves, a description of the historical ontology of ourselves as subjects. This description has been closed off and denied by power/knowledge relations, excluded and made peripheral by certain dominant discourses and entrenched scientific-philosophical enterprises that bind us to a conception of what we are in truth. <u><mark>Counter-memory</mark> counters, or <mark>suspends</mark>, the power of <mark>identity through genealogical accounts of its constitution</mark>. Genealogy effects “the systematic dissociation of identity” by revealing its radical contingency, its historicality and utter lack of essentiality. <mark>The purpose of genealogy</u></mark>, says Foucault, “<u><mark>is not to discover the roots of our identity, but to commit </mark>itself <mark>to its dissipation</mark>.”</u>25 <u><mark>Genealogical critique is</mark> <mark>an exposition of our history as subjects</mark> that has the effect of <mark>disposing subjectival constraints by exposing</mark> the <mark>contingency</mark> of their imposition</u>. Genealogy turns the firm posture of the self-identical subject into the mere posing of a pretentious display. Genealogy proceeds through “dissension” and “disparity.” <u>Wherever “the self fabricates a coherent identity,” genealogy puts into play a subversive counter-analysis that “permits the dissociation of the self</u>, its recognition and displacement as an empty synthesis.”26 <u><mark>Genealogy</mark> disturbs, fragments, displaces the unity of subjectivity. It <mark>cuts through the oppressive</mark>, assimilating <mark>density of Truth and discovers</mark> in this beguiling haze <mark>that subjectivity is nothing more than a colorful mask</mark>.</u> Who we are, what we are, is a mask displayed for public viewing and examination, for person-al subjection and ethical subjugation. Genealogy cuts through this mask, only to make another discovery. <u>Behind it <mark>there is no essential identity, no unified spirit or will, no naked subject stripped of its colorful dress</mark>.</u> Rather, <u>there is <mark>only a matrix of intersecting lines and heterogenous congruities</mark>, an arbitrary and historically contingent complex of discursive and nondiscursive practices.</u> Asserts Foucault, “If the genealogist refuses to extend his faith in metaphysics, if he listens to history, he finds that there is ‘something altogether different’ behind things; not a timeless and essential secret, but the secret that they have no essence or that their essence was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms.”27 Contrary to what René Descartes or John Locke would contend, unity (whether of consciousness proper or the continuity of personal experience) is not the essence of subjectivity. <u>Unity is a mask for an interplay of anonymous forces and historical accidents that permits us to identify subjects</u>, to identify ourselves, as specific human beings. Unity—<u>identity—is imposed on subjects as the mask of their fabrication.</u> <u><mark>Subjectivity is the carceral and incarcerating expression of this imposition</mark>, of the limitations drawn around us by discourses of truth and practices of individualization; <mark>but seen through the “differential knowledge” of genealogy, the identity of subjectivity collapses</u></mark>. <u>Counter-memory through genealogical critique is a transgression of limits. As such, it opens onto a possibility of freedom.</u> Genealogy permits us “to separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, thinking what we are, do, or think.” In this sense, <u>genealogy gives “new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.”</u>28 The freedom offered by counter-memory is a kind of parodic reversal of negative freedom: it is not a freedom from interference, but for it—for disruption, for displacement, for violating those inviolable spheres of liberty that serve as the limits of our subjection. It is not a freedom for individuality, but from it—a freedom from individualization, from the practices and discourses which bind us to our own identity as individuals. <u><mark>It is not a freedom against the</mark> office of <mark>government, but against governmentality</mark>—against <mark>a rationality that imprisons us in the cellular space of our own self-government</mark>.</u> At the same time, <u>the freedom of/through counter-memory is <mark>a form of mimetic play with the notion of positive freedom whereby citizenship is unwrapped</mark> like a cloak <mark>from the politicized body</mark>.</u> In simple terms, it can be said that genealogy “enables one to get free of oneself.”29 That is, <u>by exposing the nonessentiality of the limits imposed on us through the constitution of a self, it opens the possibility of going beyond those limits.</u>30 This opening is <u>a kind of fracture, at once an open space and a breaking free of the constraining power inherent in identity and identification.</u> In this sense, genealogy opens up “a space of concrete freedom, i.e., of possible transformation.”31 This notion of fracture allows us to define freedom more precisely, to gauge whether or not a genuine space of freedom has been opened for us. <u>Freedom, concrete freedom, is a space of possible transformation.</u> Unless we are free to transform ourselves, to be other than the identity dictated for us by some extraneous rationality, we have no freedom. <u><mark>Even the most violent forms of resistance</mark> against subjection <mark>accomplish nothing if they do not</mark> gain this freedom, do not <mark>open a space of possible transformation</mark>—which means nothing more, and nothing less, than the possibility of being otherwise</u>. Something very like this point is made by Dennis Altman with regard to the Stonewall riots of 1969 and the militant Gay Liberation Front that emerged from them in the early 1970s. In one of the seminal texts of what would later become known as Queer Theory, Altman rails against the limited vision of a political movement that sought for gay and lesbian people little more than an expansion of rights and the “liberal tolerance” of the homophile community: “Homosexuals can win acceptance as distinct from tolerance only by a transformation of society, one that is based on a ‘new human’ who is able to accept the multifaceted and varied nature of his or her sexual identity. That such a society can be founded is the gamble upon which gay and women’s liberation are based; like all radical movements they hold to an optimistic view of human nature, above all to its mutability.”32 This requirement that we are only genuinely free if we able to transform ourselves is recalcitrant.33 It is crucial to understand, however, that <u>what is being required here is not a freedom to transform ourselves in accordance with some global or teleological model of a more “genuine” form of subjectivity.</u> This freedom does not consist (as it does in On Liberty) in replacing one form of subjectivity for another that is supposedly “truer” or more fulfilling to human nature. Not only is this illusory and unobtainable, it would also amount to a cancellation of freedom, a reimposition of subjectival limitations and expectations. <u>Rather, the freedom opened by counter-memory is <mark>a freedom of permanent transformation, of always being able to become other than what we are</mark>.</p></u>

EZ 1AC 4.0

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-USC-Round1.docx

A

USC

1

OU CY

R Cheek

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-USC-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

A total negation of capital from outside its epistemological structure is key to solve. relying on the system’s spatial fixes to its own problems causes extinction.

Meszaros 8

Meszaros 8 Istvan Meszaros, Professor at the University of Sussex, “The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time.” P 251-252,

introducing significant social changes in order to overcome some major contradictions but also to some partial successes in the originally envisaged direction. The primary reason for such developments was the fateful inertia of structural inequality reproduced in one form or another throughout history, despite some change in personnel from time to time at the apex of society. For structural inequality acted as an anchor, with shorter or longer chains attached to it, invariably dragging the ship back to a position from which there seemed to be no possibility of further progress in the journey, no matter how well intentioned might have been some of the personnel of the ship during a major historical tempest. this historically determinate and humanly alterable predicament of the people dominated by the existing order was on a regular basis conceptualized and ideologically rationalized as a fatality of nature, even when it had to be conceded that the prevailing structural inequality was very far from being an all-round beneficial one. human historical time is not measurable in terms of the permanence of nature) not to mention the fact that the lasting temporality of nature itself on our planet is being catastrophically undermined by the ongoing destructive intervention in nature by perverse socioeconomic forces, the whole reasoning of anti-historical justification collapses. At that point, it becomes imperative to orient our- selves well within the potentialities and limitations of real historical time, with a view to radically overcoming the perilous social antagonisms that point in the direction of putting an end to human history , the elaboration of the required remedies in the form of a sustainable alternative social order, together with appropriate safeguards to make that order irreversible, becomes an unavoidable historical challenge without successfully meeting that challenge, given the urgency of a unique historical time when the survival of humanity is at stake-under the shadow of both the apparently uncontrollable accumulation and deployment of the "real" and not cynically and self-servingly fictionalized weapons of mass destruction, and of capital's devastating encroachment on nature, humankind cannot risk relapsing into an ever more destructive social order, as if we had the infinity of time at our disposal before we have to undertake some corrective action.

structural inequality acted as an anchor, with shorter or longer chains attached to it, invariably dragging the ship back to a position from which there seemed to be no possibility of further progress in the journey, no matter how well intentioned might have been some of the personnel of the ship during a major historical tempest ideologically rationalized as a fatality of nature, even when it had to be conceded that the prevailing structural inequality was very far from being an all-round beneficial one. human historical time is not measurable in terms of the permanence of nature) not to mention the fact that the lasting temporality of nature itself on our planet is being catastrophically undermined by the ongoing destructive intervention in nature by perverse socioeconomic forces it becomes imperative to orient our- selves well within the potentialities and limitations of real historical time, with a view to radically overcoming the perilous social antagonisms that point in the direction of putting an end to human histor without successfully meeting that challenge, given the urgency of a unique historical time when the survival of humanity is at stake-under the shadow of both the apparently uncontrollable accumulation and deployment of the "real weapons of mass destruction, and of capital's devastating encroachment on nature, humankind cannot risk relapsing into an ever more destructive social order, as if we had the infinity of time at our disposal before we have to undertake some corrective action

Past history testifies to many instances of not only noble efforts dedicated to introducing significant social changes in order to overcome some major contradictions but also to some partial successes in the originally envisaged direction. All too often, however) the successes have been sooner or later rolled back by the subsequent restoration of the dependency relations of the earlier status quo. The primary reason for such developments was the fateful inertia of structural inequality reproduced in one form or another throughout history, despite some change in personnel from time to time at the apex of society. For structural inequality acted as an anchor, with shorter or longer chains attached to it, invariably dragging the ship back to a position from which there seemed to be no possibility of further progress in the journey, no matter how well intentioned might have been some of the personnel of the ship during a major historical tempest. And to make things worse, this historically determinate and humanly alterable predicament of the people dominated by the existing order was on a regular basis conceptualized and ideologically rationalized as a fatality of nature, even when it had to be conceded that the prevailing structural inequality was very far from being an all-round beneficial one. The necessary corollary of this kind of rationalization-and justification of the unjustifiable-was that social iniquity as an allegedly unalterable determination of nature (said to be well in tune with "human nature") is permanent and tenable. But what if the notion of permanence as such is put into question by evidence of a clearly identifiable and menacing historical change? For as soon as it must be admitted that human historical time is not measurable in terms of the permanence of nature) not to mention the fact that the lasting temporality of nature itself on our planet is being catastrophically undermined by the ongoing destructive intervention in nature by perverse socioeconomic forces, the whole reasoning of anti-historical justification collapses. At that point, it becomes imperative to orient our- selves well within the potentialities and limitations of real historical time, with a view to radically overcoming the perilous social antagonisms that point in the direction of putting an end to human history. MARKED At that point in time, exactly where we stand today, the elaboration of the required remedies in the form of a sustainable alternative social order, together with appropriate safeguards to make that order irreversible, becomes an unavoidable historical challenge. For without successfully meeting that challenge, given the urgency of a unique historical time when the survival of humanity is at stake-under the shadow of both the apparently uncontrollable accumulation and deployment of the "real" and not cynically and self-servingly fictionalized weapons of mass destruction, and of capital's devastating encroachment on nature, humankind cannot risk relapsing into an ever more destructive social order, as if we had the infinity of time at our disposal before we have to undertake some corrective action.

<h4>A total negation of capital from outside its epistemological structure is key to solve. relying<u><strong> on the system’s spatial fixes to its own problems causes extinction.</h4><p>Meszaros 8</p><p></u></strong>Istvan Meszaros, Professor at the University of Sussex, “The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time.” P 251-252,</p><p>Past history testifies to many instances of not only noble efforts dedicated to <u>introducing significant social changes in order to overcome some major contradictions but also to some partial successes in the originally envisaged direction.</u> All too often, however) the successes have been sooner or later rolled back by the subsequent restoration of the dependency relations of the earlier status quo. <u>The primary reason for such developments was the fateful inertia of structural inequality reproduced in one form or another throughout history, despite some change in personnel from time to time at the apex of society. For <mark>structural inequality acted as an anchor, with shorter or longer chains attached to it, invariably dragging the ship back to a position from which there seemed to be no possibility of further progress in the journey, no matter how well intentioned might have been some of the personnel of the ship during a major historical tempest</mark>.</u> And to make things worse, <u>this historically determinate and humanly alterable predicament of the people dominated by the existing order was on a regular basis conceptualized and <mark>ideologically rationalized as a fatality of nature, even when it had to be conceded that the prevailing structural inequality was very far from being an all-round beneficial one.</u> </mark>The necessary corollary of this kind of rationalization-and justification of the unjustifiable-was that social iniquity as an allegedly unalterable determination of nature (said to be well in tune with "human nature") is permanent and tenable. But what if the notion of permanence as such is put into question by evidence of a clearly identifiable and menacing historical change? For as soon as it must be admitted that <u><mark>human historical time is not measurable in terms of the permanence of nature) not to mention the fact that the lasting temporality of nature itself on our planet is being catastrophically undermined by the ongoing destructive intervention in nature by perverse socioeconomic forces</mark>, the whole reasoning of anti-historical justification collapses. At that point, <mark>it becomes imperative to orient our- selves well within the potentialities and limitations of real historical time, with a view to radically overcoming the perilous social antagonisms that point in the direction of putting an end to human histor</mark>y</u>.</p><p>MARKED</p><p> At that point in time, exactly where we stand today<u>, the elaboration of the required remedies in the form of a sustainable alternative social order, together with appropriate safeguards to make that order irreversible, becomes an unavoidable historical challenge</u>. For <u><mark>without successfully meeting that challenge, given the urgency of a unique historical time when the survival of humanity is at stake-under the shadow of both the apparently uncontrollable accumulation and deployment of the "real</mark>" and not cynically and self-servingly fictionalized <mark>weapons of mass destruction, and of capital's devastating encroachment on nature, humankind cannot risk relapsing into an ever more destructive social order, as if we had the infinity of time at our disposal before we have to undertake some corrective action</mark>. </p></u>

1NR

Neolib

Perm

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Zombies

Sexton ‘11

Sexton ‘11 (Jared, “The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism” http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/pdfs/jaredsextonarticle.pdf) [M Leap]

To speak of black social life and black social death is to find oneself in the midst of an argument that is also a profound agreement Black optimism is not the negation of the negation that is afro-pessimism, just as black social life does not negate black social death by inhabiting it and vitalizing it A living death is as much a death as it is a living. Nothing in afro-pessimism suggests that there is no black (social) life, only that black life is not social life in the universe formed by the codes of state and civil society, of citizen and subject, of nation and culture, of people and place, of history and heritage, of all the things that colonial society has in common with the colonized, of all that capital has in common with labor—the modern world system Black life is not lived in the world that the world lives in, but it is lived underground, in outer space black life is not social black life is lived in social death Double emphasis, on lived and on death. That’s the whole point of the enterprise at some level. It is all about the implications of this agreed-upon point where arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed.

Black optimism is not the negation of the negation that is afro-pessimism, just as black social life does not negate black social death by inhabiting it and vitalizing it. A living death is as much a death as it is a living. Nothing in afro-pessimism suggests that there is no black (social) life, only that black life is not social life in the universe formed by the codes of state and civil society citizen and subject, nation and culture people and place history and heritage the modern world system Black life is not lived in the world that the world lives in, but it is lived underground, in outer space black life is lived in social death Double emphasis, on lived and on death

[24] To speak of black social life and black social death, black social life against black social death, black social life as black social death, black social life in black social death—all of this is to find oneself in the midst of an argument that is also a profound agreement, an agreement that takes shape in (between) meconnaissance and (dis)belief. Black optimism is not the negation of the negation that is afro-pessimism, just as black social life does not negate black social death by inhabiting it and vitalizing it. A living death is as much a death as it is a living. Nothing in afro-pessimism suggests that there is no black (social) life, only that black life is not social life in the universe formed by the codes of state and civil society, of citizen and subject, of nation and culture, of people and place, of history and heritage, of all the things that colonial society has in common with the colonized, of all that capital has in common with labor—the modern world system. Black life is not lived in the world that the world lives in, but it is lived underground, in outer space. This is agreed. That is to say, what Moten asserts against afro-pessimism is a point already affirmed by afro-pessimism, is, in fact, one of the most polemical dimensions of afro-pessimism as a project: namely, that black life is not social, or rather that black life is lived in social death. Double emphasis, on lived and on death. That’s the whole point of the enterprise at some level. It is all about the implications of this agreed-upon point where arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed.

<h4>Zombies</h4><p><u><strong>Sexton ‘11</u></strong> (Jared, “The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism” http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/pdfs/jaredsextonarticle.pdf) [M Leap]</p><p>[24] <u>To speak of black social life and black social death</u>, black social life against black social death, black social life as black social death, black social life in black social death—all of this <u>is to find oneself in the midst of an argument that is also a profound agreement</u>, an agreement that takes shape in (between) meconnaissance and (dis)belief. <u><mark>Black optimism is not the negation of the negation that is afro-pessimism, just as <strong>black social life does not negate black social death by inhabiting it and vitalizing it</u></strong>. <u><strong>A living death is as much a death as it is a living</strong>. <strong>Nothing in afro-pessimism suggests that there is no black (social) life</strong>, only that <strong>black life is not social life in the universe formed by the codes of state and civil society</strong></mark>, of <strong><mark>citizen and subject</strong>, </mark>of <mark>nation and culture</mark>, of <mark>people and place</mark>, of <mark>history and heritage</mark>, of all the things that colonial society has in common with the colonized, of all that capital has in common with labor—<strong><mark>the modern world system</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Black life is not lived in the world that the world lives in, but it is lived underground, in outer space</u></strong></mark>. This is agreed. That is to say, what Moten asserts against afro-pessimism is a point already affirmed by afro-pessimism, is, in fact, one of the most polemical dimensions of afro-pessimism as a project: namely, that <u>black life is not social</u>, or rather that <u><strong><mark>black life is lived in social death</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Double emphasis, on lived and on death</mark>. That’s the whole point of the enterprise at some level. It is all about the implications of this agreed-upon point where arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed.</u> </p>

2NC

Undercommons

Alt

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Neolib is the worst for understanding difference – it’s the root cause of racism

Young 6

Young 6 [Robert, Asst Prof of English at Univ of Alabama, Putting Materialism Back into Race Theory, http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2006/puttingmaterialismbackintoracetheory.htm //liam]

discourse of the subject operates as an ideological strategy for fetishizing the black experience and it positions black subjectivity beyond the reach of Marxism Asante dismisses Marxism because it is Eurocentric (8), but are the core concepts of Marxism, such as class and mode of production, only relevant for European social formations? Are African and African-American social histories/relations unshaped by class structures? this reveals the class politics of Afrocentricity: it makes class invisible. ). In the realm of African-American philosophy McGary Jr deploys the discourse of the (black) subject to mark the limits of Marxism. McGary confuses causes and effects and then misreads Marxism as a descriptive modality. Marxism is not concerned as much with descriptive accounts, the effects, as much as it is with explanatory accounts. it is concerned with the cause of social alienation because such an explanatory account acts as a guide for praxis Social alienation is an historical effect and its explanation does not reside in the experience itself; therefore, it needs explanation and such an explanation emerges from the transpersonal space of concepts. reveals his contradictory ideological coordinates he argues that black alienation results from cultural "beliefs". Then, he suggests that these cultural "norms" and "practices" develop from slavery and Jim Crow, which are fundamentally economic relations If these cultural norms endogenously emerge from the economic systems of slavery and Jim Crow then black alienation is very much rooted in economic relations. McGary remains silent on the contemporary economic system structuring black alienation: capitalism. Apparently, it is legitimate to foreground and critique the historical connection between economics and alienation but any inquiry into the present day connection between economics and alienation is off limits capitalism—remains the unsaid in McGary's discourse, and consequently he provides ideological support for capitalism we see the ideological connection between the superstructure (philosophy) and the base (capitalism). Philosophy provides ideological support for capitalism we can also see how philosophy carries out class politics at the level of theory ). McGary points out "that Black people have been used in ways that white people have not" (91). His observation may be true, but it does not mean that whites have not also been "used"; yes, whites may be "used" differently, but they are still "used" because that is the logic of exploitative regimes This view disconnects black alienation from other social relations; hence, it ultimately reifies race, and, in doing so, suppresses materialist inquiries into the class logic of race If race is the "identity around which whites have usually closed ranks" (138), then why is the case? Without an explanation, it seems as if white solidarity reflects some kind of metaphysical alliance. White racial solidarity is an historical articulation that operates to defuse class antagonism within white society, and it is maintained and reproduced through discourses of ideology. The race contract provides whites with an imaginary resolution of actual social contradictions, which are not caused by blacks, but by an exploitative economic structure. the race contract provides a political cover which ensures the ideological reproduction of the conditions of exploitation

discourse of the subject operates as an ideological fetishizing black experience it positions black subjectivity beyond Marxism Are African American social histories unshaped by class structures? this reveals the class politics of Afrocentricity: it makes class invisible cultural "norms" and "practices" develop from slavery which are fundamentally economic relations If these cultural norms endogenously emerge from the economic systems of slavery black alienation is rooted in economic relations contemporary economic system structuring black alienation: capitalism. Black people have been used in ways that white people have not" but it does not mean that whites have not also been "used whites may be "used" differently, but they are still "used This view disconnects black alienation from other social relations it ultimately reifies race and suppresses materialist inquiries into the class logic of race the race contract provides a political cover which ensures the ideological reproduction of the conditions of exploitation

Indeed, the discourse of the subject operates as an ideological strategy for fetishizing the black experience and, consequently, it positions black subjectivity beyond the reach of Marxism. For example, in the Afrocentric Idea, Asante dismisses Marxism because it is Eurocentric (8), but are the core concepts of Marxism, such as class and mode of production, only relevant for European social formations? Are African and African-American social histories/relations unshaped by class structures? Asante assumes that class hierarchies do not structure African or the African-American social experiences, and this reveals the class politics of Afrocentricity: it makes class invisible. Asante's assumption, which erases materialism, enables him to offer the idealist formulation that the "word creates reality" (70). The political translation of such idealism is not surprisingly very conservative. Asante directs us away from critiquing capitalist institutions, in a manner similar to the ideological protocol of the Million Man March, and calls for vigilance against symbolic oppression. As Asante tellingly puts it, "symbol imperialism, rather than institutional racism, is the major social problem facing multicultural societies" (56). In the realm of African-American philosophy, Howard McGary Jr. also deploys the discourse of the (black) subject to mark the limits of Marxism. For instance, in a recent interview, McGary offers this humanist rejection of Marxism: "I don't think that the levels of alienation experienced by Black people are rooted primarily in economic relations" (Interview 90). For McGary, black alienation exceeds the logic of Marxist theory and thus McGary's idealist assertion that "the sense of alienation experienced by Black people in the US is also rooted in the whole idea of what it means to be a human being and how that has been understood" (Interview 90). McGary confuses causes and effects and then misreads Marxism as a descriptive modality. Marxism is not concerned as much with descriptive accounts, the effects, as much as it is with explanatory accounts. That is, it is concerned with the cause of social alienation because such an explanatory account acts as a guide for praxis. Social alienation is an historical effect and its explanation does not reside in the experience itself; therefore, it needs explanation and such an explanation emerges from the transpersonal space of concepts. In theorizing the specificity of black alienation, McGary reveals his contradictory ideological coordinates. First, he argues that black alienation results from cultural "beliefs". Then, he suggests that these cultural "norms" and "practices" develop from slavery and Jim Crow, which are fundamentally economic relations for the historically specific exploitation of black people. If these cultural norms endogenously emerge from the economic systems of slavery and Jim Crow, as McGary correctly suggests, then and contrary to McGary's expressed position, black alienation is very much rooted in economic relations. McGary's desire to place black subjectivity beyond Marxism creates contradictions in his text. McGary asserts that the economic structures of slavery and Jim Crow shape cultural norms. Thus in a post-slavery, post-Jim Crow era, there would still be an economic structure maintaining contemporary oppressive norms—from McGary's logic this must be the case. However, McGary remains silent on the contemporary economic system structuring black alienation: capitalism. MARKED Apparently, it is legitimate to foreground and critique the historical connection between economics and alienation but any inquiry into the present day connection between economics and alienation is off limits. This other economic structure—capitalism—remains the unsaid in McGary's discourse, and consequently he provides ideological support for capitalism—the exploitative infrastructure which produces and maintains alienation for blacks as well as for all working people. In a very revealing moment, a moment that confirms my reading of McGary's pro-capitalist position, he asserts that "it is possible for African-Americans to combat or overcome this form of alienation described by recent writers without overthrowing capitalism" (20). Here, in a most lucid way, we see the ideological connection between the superstructure (philosophy) and the base (capitalism). Philosophy provides ideological support for capitalism, and, in this instance, we can also see how philosophy carries out class politics at the level of theory (Althusser Lenin 18). McGary points out "that Black people have been used in ways that white people have not" (91). His observation may be true, but it does not mean that whites have not also been "used"; yes, whites may be "used" differently, but they are still "used" because that is the logic of exploitative regimes—people are "used", that is to say, their labor is commodified and exchanged for profit. McGary's interview signals what I call an "isolationist" view. This view disconnects black alienation from other social relations; hence, it ultimately reifies race, and, in doing so, suppresses materialist inquiries into the class logic of race. That is to say, the meaning of race is not to be found within its own internal dynamics but rather in dialectical relation to and as an ideological justification of the exploitative wage-labor economy. This isolationist position finds a fuller and, no less problematic, articulation in Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, a text which undermines the possibility for a transracial transformative political project. Mills evinces the ideological assumptions and consequent politics of the isolationist view in a long endnote to chapter 1. Mills privileges race oppression, but, in doing so, he must suppress other forms of oppression, such as gender and class. Mills acknowledges that there are gender and class relations within the white population, but he still privileges race, as if the black community is not similarly divided along gender and class lines. Hence, the ideological necessity for Mills to execute a double move: he must marginalize class difference within the white community and suppress it within the black community. Consequently, Mills removes the possibility of connecting white supremacy, a political-cultural structure, to its underlying economic base. Mills empiricist framework mystifies our understanding of race. If "white racial solidarity has overridden class and gender solidarity" (138), as he proposes, then what is needed is an explanation of this racial formation. If race is the "identity around which whites have usually closed ranks" (138), then why is the case? Without an explanation, it seems as if white solidarity reflects some kind of metaphysical alliance. White racial solidarity is an historical articulation that operates to defuse class antagonism within white society, and it is maintained and reproduced through discourses of ideology. The race contract provides whites with an imaginary resolution of actual social contradictions, which are not caused by blacks, but by an exploitative economic structure. The race contract enables whites to scapegoat blacks and such an ideological operation displaces any understanding of the exploitative machinery. Hence, the race contract provides a political cover which ensures the ideological reproduction of the conditions of exploitation, and this reproduction further deepens the social contradictions—the economic position of whites becomes more and more depressed by the very same economic system that they help to ideologically reproduce.

<h4>Neolib is the worst for understanding difference – it’s the root cause of racism</h4><p><u><strong><mark>Young 6</u></strong></mark> [Robert, Asst Prof of English at Univ of Alabama, Putting Materialism Back into Race Theory, http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2006/puttingmaterialismbackintoracetheory.htm //liam]</p><p>Indeed, the <u><strong><mark>discourse of the subject operates as an ideological</mark> strategy for <mark>fetishizing</mark> the <mark>black experience</mark> and</u></strong>, consequently, <u><strong><mark>it positions black subjectivity beyond</mark> the reach of <mark>Marxism</u></strong></mark>. For example, in the Afrocentric Idea,<u><strong> Asante dismisses Marxism because it is Eurocentric (8), but are the core concepts of Marxism, such as class and mode of production, only relevant for European social formations? <mark>Are African </mark>and African-<mark>American</mark> <mark>social histories</mark>/relations <mark>unshaped by class structures?</mark> </u></strong>Asante assumes that class hierarchies do not structure African or the African-American social experiences, and <u><strong><mark>this reveals the class politics of Afrocentricity: it makes class invisible</mark>.</u></strong> Asante's assumption, which erases materialism, enables him to offer the idealist formulation that the "word creates reality" (70). The political translation of such idealism is not surprisingly very conservative. Asante directs us away from critiquing capitalist institutions, in a manner similar to the ideological protocol of the Million Man March, and calls for vigilance against symbolic oppression. As Asante tellingly puts it, "symbol imperialism, rather than institutional racism, is the major social problem facing multicultural societies" (56<u><strong>). In the realm of African-American philosophy</u></strong>, Howard <u><strong>McGary Jr</u></strong>. also <u><strong>deploys the discourse of the (black) subject to mark the limits of Marxism.</u></strong> For instance, in a recent interview, McGary offers this humanist rejection of Marxism: "I don't think that the levels of alienation experienced by Black people are rooted primarily in economic relations" (Interview 90). For McGary, black alienation exceeds the logic of Marxist theory and thus McGary's idealist assertion that "the sense of alienation experienced by Black people in the US is also rooted in the whole idea of what it means to be a human being and how that has been understood" (Interview 90). <u><strong>McGary confuses causes and effects and then misreads Marxism as a descriptive modality. Marxism is not concerned as much with descriptive accounts, the effects, as much as it is with explanatory accounts.</u></strong> That is, <u><strong>it is concerned with the cause of social alienation because such an explanatory account acts as a guide for praxis</u></strong>. <u><strong>Social alienation is an historical effect and its explanation does not reside in the experience itself; therefore, it needs explanation and such an explanation emerges from the transpersonal space of concepts.</u></strong> In theorizing the specificity of black alienation, McGary <u><strong>reveals his contradictory ideological coordinates</u></strong>. First, <u><strong>he argues that black alienation results from cultural "beliefs". Then, he suggests that these <mark>cultural "norms" and "practices" develop from slavery</mark> and Jim Crow, <mark>which are fundamentally economic relations</u></strong></mark> for the historically specific exploitation of black people. <u><strong><mark>If these cultural norms endogenously emerge from the economic systems of slavery</mark> and Jim Crow</u></strong>, as McGary correctly suggests, <u><strong>then</u></strong> and contrary to McGary's expressed position, <u><strong><mark>black alienation is</mark> very much <mark>rooted in economic relations</mark>. </u></strong>McGary's desire to place black subjectivity beyond Marxism creates contradictions in his text. McGary asserts that the economic structures of slavery and Jim Crow shape cultural norms. Thus in a post-slavery, post-Jim Crow era, there would still be an economic structure maintaining contemporary oppressive norms—from McGary's logic this must be the case. However, <u><strong>McGary remains silent on the <mark>contemporary economic system structuring black alienation: capitalism.</mark> </p><p></u></strong>MARKED</p><p><u><strong>Apparently, it is legitimate to foreground and critique the historical connection between economics and alienation but any inquiry into the present day connection between economics and alienation is off limits</u></strong>. This other economic structure—<u><strong>capitalism—remains the unsaid in McGary's discourse, and consequently he provides ideological support for capitalism</u></strong>—the exploitative infrastructure which produces and maintains alienation for blacks as well as for all working people. In a very revealing moment, a moment that confirms my reading of McGary's pro-capitalist position, he asserts that "it is possible for African-Americans to combat or overcome this form of alienation described by recent writers without overthrowing capitalism" (20). Here, in a most lucid way, <u><strong>we see the ideological connection between the superstructure (philosophy) and the base (capitalism). Philosophy provides ideological support for capitalism</u></strong>, and, in this instance, <u><strong>we can also see how philosophy carries out class politics at the level of theory</u></strong> (Althusser Lenin 18<u><strong>). McGary points out "that <mark>Black people have been used in ways that white people have not"</mark> (91). His observation may be true, <mark>but it does not mean that whites have not also been "used</mark>"; yes, <mark>whites</mark> <mark>may be "used" differently, but they are still "used</mark>" because that is the logic of exploitative regimes</u></strong>—people are "used", that is to say, their labor is commodified and exchanged for profit. McGary's interview signals what I call an "isolationist" view. <u><strong><mark>This view disconnects black alienation from other social relations</mark>; hence, <mark>it ultimately reifies race</mark>, <mark>and</mark>, in doing so, <mark>suppresses materialist inquiries into the class logic of race</u></strong></mark>. That is to say, the meaning of race is not to be found within its own internal dynamics but rather in dialectical relation to and as an ideological justification of the exploitative wage-labor economy. This isolationist position finds a fuller and, no less problematic, articulation in Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, a text which undermines the possibility for a transracial transformative political project. Mills evinces the ideological assumptions and consequent politics of the isolationist view in a long endnote to chapter 1. Mills privileges race oppression, but, in doing so, he must suppress other forms of oppression, such as gender and class. Mills acknowledges that there are gender and class relations within the white population, but he still privileges race, as if the black community is not similarly divided along gender and class lines. Hence, the ideological necessity for Mills to execute a double move: he must marginalize class difference within the white community and suppress it within the black community. Consequently, Mills removes the possibility of connecting white supremacy, a political-cultural structure, to its underlying economic base. Mills empiricist framework mystifies our understanding of race. If "white racial solidarity has overridden class and gender solidarity" (138), as he proposes, then what is needed is an explanation of this racial formation. <u><strong>If race is the "identity around which whites have usually closed ranks" (138), then why is the case? Without an explanation, it seems as if white solidarity reflects some kind of metaphysical alliance. White racial solidarity is an historical articulation that operates to defuse class antagonism within white society, and it is maintained and reproduced through discourses of ideology.</u></strong> <u><strong>The race contract provides whites with an imaginary resolution of actual social contradictions, which are not caused by blacks, but by an exploitative economic structure.</u></strong> The race contract enables whites to scapegoat blacks and such an ideological operation displaces any understanding of the exploitative machinery. Hence, <u><strong><mark>the race contract provides a political cover which ensures the ideological reproduction</mark> <mark>of the conditions of exploitation</u></strong></mark>, and this reproduction further deepens the social contradictions—the economic position of whites becomes more and more depressed by the very same economic system that they help to ideologically reproduce.</p>

1NR

Neolib

A2: Liberalism good

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Stealing

Hartman ‘97

Hartman ‘97 (Saidiya, Scenes of Subjection, p. 65-7) [m leap]

When the enslaved slipped away to have secret meetings, they would call it "stealing the meeting Just as runaway slaves were described as "stealing themselves," so, too, even shortlived "flights" from captivity were referred to as "stealing away." "Stealing away" designated a wide range of activities It encompassed an assortment of popular illegalities focused on contesting the authority of the slave-owning class and contravening the status of the enslaved as possession. The very phrase "stealing away" played upon the paradox of property's agency and the idea of property as theft, thus alluding to the captive's condition as a legal form of unlawful or amoral seizure, what Spillers describes as ''the violent seizing of the captive body from its motive will, its active desire.'' "property is theft," Bibb put the matter simply: "Property can't steal property." It is the play upon this originary act of theft that yields the possibilities of transport, as one was literally and figuratively carried away by one's desire. The appropriation of dominant space in itinerant acts of defiance contests the spatial confinement and surveillance of slave life and, ironically, reconsiders the meaning of property, theft, and agency.

When the enslaved slipped away to have secret meetings, they would call it "stealing the meeting Just as runaway slaves were described as "stealing themselves," so, too, even shortlived "flights" from captivity were referred to as "stealing away." "Stealing away" designated a wide range of activities It encompassed an assortment of illegalities focused on contesting the authority of the slave-owning class and contravening the status of the enslaved as possession. The very phrase "stealing away" played upon the paradox of property's agency and the idea of property as theft, thus alluding to the captive's condition as a legal form of unlawful or amoral seizure, what Spillers describes as ''the violent seizing of the captive body from its motive will, its active desire "property is theft," "Property can't steal property." The appropriation of dominant space in itinerant acts of defiance contests the spatial confinement and surveillance of slave life and, ironically, reconsiders the meaning of property, theft, and agency.

When the enslaved slipped away to have secret meetings, they would call it "stealing the meeting," as if to highlight the appropriation of space and the expropriation of the object of property necessary to make these meetings possible. Just as runaway slaves were described as "stealing themselves," so, too, even shortlived "flights" from captivity were referred to as "stealing away." "Stealing away" designated a wide range of activities, from praise meetings, quilting parties, and dances to illicit visits with lovers and family on neighboring plantations. It encompassed an assortment of popular illegalities focused on contesting the authority of the slave-owning class and contravening the status of the enslaved as possession. The very phrase "stealing away" played upon the paradox of property's agency and the idea of property as theft, thus alluding to the captive's condition as a legal form of unlawful or amoral seizure, what Hortense Spillers describes as ''the violent seizing of the captive body from its motive will, its active desire.'' 49 Echoing Proudhon's "property is theft," Henry Bibb put the matter simply: "Property can't steal property." It is the play upon this originary act of theft that yields the possibilities of transport, as one was literally and figuratively carried away by one's desire.5o The appropriation of dominant space in itinerant acts of defiance contests the spatial confinement and surveillance of slave life and, ironically, reconsiders the meaning of property, theft, and agency.

<h4>Stealing</h4><p><u><strong>Hartman ‘97</u></strong> (Saidiya, Scenes of Subjection, p. 65-7) [m leap]</p><p><u><mark>When the enslaved slipped away to have secret meetings, they would call it "stealing the meeting</u></mark>," as if to highlight the appropriation of space and the expropriation of the object of property necessary to make these meetings possible. <u><mark>Just as runaway slaves were described as "stealing themselves," so, too, even shortlived "flights" from captivity were referred to as "stealing away." "Stealing away" designated a <strong>wide range of activities</u></strong></mark>, from praise meetings, quilting parties, and dances to illicit visits with lovers and family on neighboring plantations. <u><mark>It encompassed an <strong>assortment of</strong> </mark>popular<mark> <strong>illegalities</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>focused on contesting the authority of the slave-owning class and contravening the status of the enslaved as possession. The very phrase "stealing away" played upon the paradox of property's agency and the idea of property as theft, thus alluding to the captive's condition as a legal form of unlawful or amoral seizure, what</u></strong> </mark>Hortense<mark> <u><strong>Spillers describes as ''the violent seizing of the captive body from its motive will, its active desire</mark>.''</u></strong> 49 Echoing Proudhon's <u><strong><mark>"property is theft,"</u></strong></mark> Henry <u>Bibb put the matter simply: <strong><mark>"Property can't steal property."</u></strong> <u></mark>It is the play upon this originary act of theft that yields the possibilities of transport, as one was literally and figuratively carried away by one's desire.</u>5o <u><strong><mark>The appropriation of dominant space in itinerant acts of defiance contests the spatial confinement and surveillance of slave life and, ironically, reconsiders the meaning of property, theft, and agency.</u></strong></mark> </p>

2NC

Undercommons

Alt

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Empirically not true and no way that aff can change corporate calculus

Sethi ‘3 xdi

Sethi ‘3 S. Prakash, University Distinguished Professor of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, CUNY “Globalization and the Good Corporation: A Need for Proactive Co-existence” Journal of Business Ethics 43: 21–31, 2003, xdi

the editors of Business and Society Review, a leading scholarly journal in the area of corporate social responsibility, solicited the views of a selected group of scholars, activists and government leaders on the future good corporation most of them characterized the good corporation as doing more for its workers, consumers, and other groups representing a variety of community interests good business conduct cannot be examined and evaluated outside the context of prevailing competitive economic structures and inter- and intra-institutional corporate and industry frameworks forces of globalization have delinked, to a large extent, the connection between market imperfections, the ethnocentric notions of inter-dependent communities, and their connection to corporate social responsibility and good corporate citizenship Nothing can make this situation more apparent than the co-existence of sweatshop like working conditions with enormous power and profitability of multinational corporations The inconsistencies of conduct on the part of large corporations – whether in their home countries or in overseas operations – and their treatment of workers and shareholders as against corporate managers, makes it all too apparent that our hitherto socially responsible corporations are no longer willing or able to provide the wherewithal of a good life to their various constituencies how might one explain the conduct of the managers of some of our largest corporations over the last three years where they have cumulatively laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, unilaterally reduced their pensions and health care benefits, while at the same time managing to increase their salaries and stock options The real reasons for the historical conduct of the good corporations are to be found in imperfect markets that yield above-normal profits to corporations under conditions of oligopolistic market power What should one then make of this new bad corporation, which has been surfacing all over the world during the last few years? The increasing globalization and resulting competition in the marketplace makes the re-emergence of the older version of the benevolent good corporation highly improbable.

The inconsistencies of conduct on the part of large corporations – whether in their home countries or in overseas operations – and their treatment of workers and shareholders as against corporate managers, makes it all too apparent that our hitherto socially responsible corporations are no longer willing or able to provide the wherewithal of a good life to their various constituencies The real reasons for the historical conduct of the good corporations are to be found in imperfect markets under conditions of oligopolistic market power globalization and resulting competition in the marketplace makes the re-emergence of the older version of the benevolent good corporation highly improbable.

To go even a step further, the boundaries of corporate citizenship appear constrained only by the proclivities of various stakeholders who seek ever-larger share of corporate resources because they are deserving of this largesse, and that the corporation can afford it. Sometime ago, the editors of Business and Society Review, a leading scholarly journal in the area of corporate social responsibility, solicited the views of a selected group of scholars, activists and government leaders on the future good corporation (Chappell, 1993; Kanter, 1993; Moskowitz, 1993; Reich, 1993). The views of these commentators ranged all over the map. However, most of them characterized the good corporation as doing more for its workers, consumers, and other groups representing a variety of community interests, e.g., animal rights, environment, and the poor, to name a few. Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School describes a good corporation that is committed to its workers, investing in human resources via a continuous process of training and development, and, developing a pool of skilled workers to support future activities of the firm. Moving from employees to customers, Tom Chappell, president of Tom’s of Maine and author of The Soul of a Business: Managing for Profit and the Common Good, suggests that respect for customers generates needed feedback on company products and services, and that competition should be balanced by goodness, which he defines as a demonstration of care and concern for people, nature and the community. Another contributor, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich, emphasizes the long-term benefits of good corporate citizenship, particularly vis a vis employees, over the shorter-term payoffs of downsizing strategies. The above-mentioned description of a good corporation that tries to help all deserving groups and social needs is quite unsatisfactory because the corporation cannot possibly serve all groups and all causes that seek its support. This description also fails to provide us with a cogent rationale with which to determine the deservedness of various groups and the adequacy of corporate response. An alternate approach is presented in this paper. We assert that good business conduct cannot be examined and evaluated outside the context of prevailing competitive economic structures and inter- and intra-institutional corporate and industry frameworks. One has only to look at the current trends in globalization that have drastically changed these historical assertions. The new forces of globalization have delinked, to a large extent, the connection between market imperfections, the ethnocentric notions of inter-dependent communities, and their connection to corporate social responsibility and good corporate citizenship (Sethi, 2002a). Nothing can make this situation more apparent than the co-existence of sweatshop like working conditions with enormous power and profitability of multinational corporations (Sethi, 2003). The inconsistencies of conduct on the part of large corporations – whether in their home countries or in overseas operations – and their treatment of workers and shareholders as against corporate managers, makes it all too apparent that our hitherto socially responsible corporations are no longer willing or able to provide the wherewithal of a good life to their various constituencies. Otherwise, how might one explain the conduct of the managers of some of our largest corporations over the last three years where they have cumulatively laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, unilaterally reduced their pensions and health care benefits, while at the same time managing to increase their salaries and stock options (Sethi, 2002a). An historical analysis of economic and competitive market conditions would suggest a radically different rationale for good corporate behavior where ethical values of individuals and social norms of institutions play only a small part. The real reasons for the historical conduct of the good corporations are to be found in imperfect markets that yield above-normal profits to corporations under conditions of oligopolistic market power, and market domination created through government regulations, patent laws, brand loyalty, and other means by which corporations can insulate themselves from the rigors of market-based competition (Sethi, 1994). Although, at the micro level, it is the individual conduct acting in a business context that gets reflected in the adverse social impact of the business institution, this conduct is seriously circumscribed by its macro-structural context. As economic activity increases in complexity and technological orientation, it requires collective action where each individual and institution contributes but a tiny fraction to the whole. The corporation can be either good or bad depending on who is making the trade-offs, at whose expense these trade-offs are being made, and the extent of discretionary resources available to the corporation and its managers to voluntarily (a) ameliorate some of the second-order effects, i.e., externalities, of their normal business activities; and, (b) to meet other societal needs (Sethi, 1996). What should one then make of this new bad corporation, which has been surfacing all over the world during the last few years? The increasing globalization and resulting competition in the marketplace makes the re-emergence of the older version of the benevolent good corporation highly improbable.

<h4>Empirically not true and no way that aff can change corporate calculus</h4><p><u><strong>Sethi ‘3</u></strong> S. Prakash, University Distinguished Professor of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, CUNY “Globalization and the Good Corporation: A Need for Proactive Co-existence” Journal of Business Ethics 43: 21–31, 2003, <u><strong>xdi</p><p></u></strong>To go even a step further, the boundaries of corporate citizenship appear constrained only by the proclivities of various stakeholders who seek ever-larger share of corporate resources because they are deserving of this largesse, and that the corporation can afford it. Sometime ago, <u><strong>the editors of Business and Society Review, a leading scholarly journal in the area of corporate social responsibility, solicited the views of a selected group of scholars, activists and government leaders on the future good corporation</u></strong> (Chappell, 1993; Kanter, 1993; Moskowitz, 1993; Reich, 1993). The views of these commentators ranged all over the map. However, <u><strong>most of them characterized the good corporation as doing more for its workers, consumers, and other groups representing a variety of community interests</u></strong>, e.g., animal rights, environment, and the poor, to name a few. Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School describes a good corporation that is committed to its workers, investing in human resources via a continuous process of training and development, and, developing a pool of skilled workers to support future activities of the firm. Moving from employees to customers, Tom Chappell, president of Tom’s of Maine and author of The Soul of a Business: Managing for Profit and the Common Good, suggests that respect for customers generates needed feedback on company products and services, and that competition should be balanced by goodness, which he defines as a demonstration of care and concern for people, nature and the community. Another contributor, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich, emphasizes the long-term benefits of good corporate citizenship, particularly vis a vis employees, over the shorter-term payoffs of downsizing strategies. The above-mentioned description of a good corporation that tries to help all deserving groups and social needs is quite unsatisfactory because the corporation cannot possibly serve all groups and all causes that seek its support. This description also fails to provide us with a cogent rationale with which to determine the deservedness of various groups and the adequacy of corporate response. An alternate approach is presented in this paper. We assert that <u><strong>good business conduct cannot be examined and evaluated outside the context of prevailing competitive economic structures and inter- and intra-institutional corporate and industry frameworks</u></strong>. One has only to look at the current trends in globalization that have drastically changed these historical assertions. The new <u><strong>forces of globalization have delinked, to a large extent, the connection between market imperfections, the ethnocentric notions of inter-dependent communities, and their connection to corporate social responsibility and good corporate citizenship</u></strong> (Sethi, 2002a). <u><strong>Nothing can make this situation more apparent than the co-existence of sweatshop like working conditions with enormous power and profitability of multinational corporations</u></strong> (Sethi, 2003). <u><strong><mark>The inconsistencies of conduct on the part of large corporations – whether in their home countries or in overseas operations – and their treatment of workers and shareholders as against corporate managers, makes it all too apparent that our hitherto socially responsible corporations are no longer willing or able to provide the wherewithal of a good life to their various constituencies</u></strong></mark>. Otherwise, <u><strong>how might one explain the conduct of the managers of some of our largest corporations over the last three years where they have cumulatively laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, unilaterally reduced their pensions and health care benefits, while at the same time managing to increase their salaries and stock options</u></strong> (Sethi, 2002a). An historical analysis of economic and competitive market conditions would suggest a radically different rationale for good corporate behavior where ethical values of individuals and social norms of institutions play only a small part. <u><strong><mark>The real reasons for the historical conduct of the good corporations are to be found in imperfect markets</mark> that yield above-normal profits to corporations <mark>under conditions of oligopolistic market power</u></strong></mark>, and market domination created through government regulations, patent laws, brand loyalty, and other means by which corporations can insulate themselves from the rigors of market-based competition (Sethi, 1994). Although, at the micro level, it is the individual conduct acting in a business context that gets reflected in the adverse social impact of the business institution, this conduct is seriously circumscribed by its macro-structural context. As economic activity increases in complexity and technological orientation, it requires collective action where each individual and institution contributes but a tiny fraction to the whole. The corporation can be either good or bad depending on who is making the trade-offs, at whose expense these trade-offs are being made, and the extent of discretionary resources available to the corporation and its managers to voluntarily (a) ameliorate some of the second-order effects, i.e., externalities, of their normal business activities; and, (b) to meet other societal needs (Sethi, 1996). <u><strong>What should one then make of this new bad corporation, which has been surfacing all over the world during the last few years? The increasing <mark>globalization and resulting competition in the marketplace makes the re-emergence of the older version of the benevolent good corporation highly improbable.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NR

Neolib

A2: Neolib s Violence

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Nope

Isaki ‘13

Isaki ‘13 / Bianca, Lecturer of the Women’s Studies Programme and doctoral student at the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA, where she received her PhD in Political Science. She worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Her forthcoming book is entitled A Decolonial Archive: The History Space of Asian Settler Politics in a Time of Hawaiian Nationhood “Colourblind Colonialism in the ‘50th State of America’” in Deleuze and Race Edited by Arun Saldanha and Jason Michael Adams, Deleuze Connections, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Kindle Edition/

Deleuze points to what is difficult about the ahistorical racist fantasy of colourblindness: it is recalcitrant to the real and the historical-material. Instead of insisting that racists have their history wrong or that they dream the wrong dreams, Deleuze allows that neither racial difference nor the place that it is presumed to inhabit can cross an epistemic gap. In the same way that race is not something to be rediscovered, the Orient is not something to be imitated:it only exists in the construction of a smooth space, just as race only exists in the constitution of a tribe that peoples and traverses a smooth space. (ibid.) I am not suggesting that lived realities of racial identity are not historically constituted, or that racialised spaces are only ideas. I am suggesting that colourblind racism trades on a concept of racial difference as opaque and unknowable in order to propose its own ontology that, in turn, abolishes racefrom public, especially legal, spheres. Put otherwise, while colourblind conservatives abolish what is unruly about race, Deleuze and Guattari turn that same unruliness into evidence of a multiplicity to be cultivated.

<h4>Nope</h4><p><u><strong>Isaki ‘13</u></strong> / Bianca, Lecturer of the Women’s Studies Programme and doctoral student at the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA, where she received her PhD in Political Science. She worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Her forthcoming book is entitled A Decolonial Archive: The History Space of Asian Settler Politics in a Time of Hawaiian Nationhood “Colourblind Colonialism in the ‘50th State of America’” in Deleuze and Race Edited by Arun Saldanha and Jason Michael Adams, Deleuze Connections, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Kindle Edition/</p><p>Deleuze points to what is difficult about the ahistorical racist fantasy of colourblindness: it is recalcitrant to the real and the historical-material. Instead of insisting that racists have their history wrong or that they dream the wrong dreams, Deleuze allows that neither racial difference nor the place that it is presumed to inhabit can cross an epistemic gap. In the same way that race is not something to be rediscovered, the Orient is not something to be imitated:it only exists in the construction of a smooth space, just as race only exists in the constitution of a tribe that peoples and traverses a smooth space. (ibid.) I am not suggesting that lived realities of racial identity are not historically constituted, or that racialised spaces are only ideas. I am suggesting that colourblind racism trades on a concept of racial difference as opaque and unknowable in order to propose its own ontology that, in turn, abolishes racefrom public, especially legal, spheres. Put otherwise, while <strong>colourblind conservatives abolish what is unruly</strong> <strong>about race,</strong> <strong>Deleuze and Guattari turn that</strong> <strong>same</strong> <strong>unruliness into evidence of</strong> <strong>a</strong> <strong>multiplicity</strong> <strong>to be cultivated</strong>.</p>

1NR

Faciality

A2: Colorblind

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Survivalism is slavery to a future of meaningless consumption that we must pay a lifetime of boredom to receive. The logic of the affirmative is the alarmism that authorizes an endless repetition of the same in the name of an abstract freedom, a freedom only to do what we're told. This logic ensures endless global war justified through survival

Vaneigem ‘79

Vaneigem ‘79, Raoul, situationist philosopher, leading thinker in the Situationist International “The Book of Pleasures” trans. John Fullerton, 1983 http://www.scenewash.org/lobbies/chainthinker/situationist/vaneigem/bop/bop.html

The factory has invaded the territory of everyday life Our apparent freedom to do whatever we like shows how whatever we choose serves the economy. Just as bread earned by work tastes acidly of sweat and wages, marketable pleasures are more tedious than the boredom it costs to produce them. The survival pleasures swindle is part of the lie of abstract freedom. The history we lead with every turn of the wheel is not the history of our desires but rather of a lifeless civilization which is about to bury us under its dead weight. The transformation, by constraint and work, of actions and behaviour which have long remained outside the immediate orbit of the economy, shows clearly enough that the mercantile process evolves only by appropriating life, and uncovering only what it can exploit. Nothing will escape its voracious appetite if humanity becomes increasingly strange to itself. We are stricken with survival sickness in a world totally upside down. Man is the only creature capable of realising his desires by changing the world. Yet, until now, all he has realized has been the exchange of his life-force for the production and accumulation of goods.

Our apparent freedom to do whatever we like shows how whatever we choose serves the economy. The history we lead with every turn of the wheel is not the history of our desires but rather of a lifeless civilization which is about to bury us under its dead weight The transformation, by constraint and work shows clearly enough that the mercantile process evolves only by appropriating life, and uncovering only what it can exploit. Nothing will escape its voracious appetite if humanity becomes increasingly strange to itself

The factory has invaded the territory of everyday life. For years the privileged zone of alienation, factory walls simultaneously bounded the proletariat's prisons and the bourgeoisie's liberties. Those who escaped at nightfall briefly revived in the merrymaking of love and alcohol that vitality which labour's daily constraints had failed to break. Ten hours a day of noise, exhaustion and humiliation were unable entirely to wear them out. It was society's sinister curse which forced them to match their energies to the rhythms and wear and tear of machines. But the employers' profit-seeking and foetid nets of exploitation did not poison their fundamental welling of desire, their sexual exuberance in life itself and for themselves. The economic crisis still experienced as specifically economic encouraged the proletariat to acquire the means to accede to the pleasures the bourgeoisie had previously reserved for itself. The constant threat of hunger made them overlook the fact that life bought with wealth and power was fundamentally life reduced to economics. The right to pleasure thus appeared as a conquest, although pleasure had just been taken over as an object of trade. Illicit pleasures are banned until they become profitable. Capitalism's need to expand has transformed the world into one gigantic market in which every one of life's myriad manifestations is reduced to just another sales pitch. In so doing, capitalism grows but digs its own grave by killing off the producers who make the expansion possible . We all know in what contempt the aristocracy held the work which guaranteed its survival. Where feudalism cared only to see theomorphic shit the bourgeoisie has erected its nutrition centre out of the basic substance of economics, and the bourgeoisie has forcibly exposed the true excrement in both religion and economics. The bourgeoisie redeem work, thanks to which they seize power, but the right they arrogate to themselves, to rank manual below intellectual work, profitably repeats the hierarchical ritual. Knowledge establishes a new temple of power. Pleasures which over-stepped the limits had previously been expiated with penances, masses and mortification: the bourgeoisie are the first to propose redemption through work. Sin is cheerfully desacralised, given a cash value, and identified with a right to profit. The crime of idleness is absolved when it acts as a stimulus to consume. This ancient antidote to work is here seen transformed back into work what could be more efficient in getting the workers back to the bench than improving access to the factories of "choose your-own-consumer-goods"? Making pleasure democratically accessible coincides - though it is scarcely coincidence - with the conquest of new markets where simple enjoyment is called comfort and happiness possession. In so doing, however, the bourgeoisie crystallise the inexpiable sin: refusal to pay. So enjoyment outside a transaction is the absolute economic crime. Our apparent freedom to do whatever we like shows how whatever we choose serves the economy. Just as bread earned by work tastes acidly of sweat and wages, marketable pleasures are more tedious than the boredom it costs to produce them. The survival pleasures swindle is part of the lie of abstract freedom. The history we lead with every turn of the wheel is not the history of our desires but rather of a lifeless civilization which is about to bury us under its dead weight. For pleasure has only ever existed by default. To begin with it was shoved into the decent obscurity of night, into the cupboard, into your dreams, the inner world which is not abroad in the light of day, which is the measured light of work-time. But production quotas have ended up subjecting the secret world of desire to the scanners of their self-seeking science and, since it is impossible to abolish desire, economic necessity is instructed to obtain maximum profitable usage. The transformation, by constraint and work, of actions and behaviour which have long remained outside the immediate orbit of the economy, shows clearly enough that the mercantile process evolves only by appropriating life, and uncovering only what it can exploit. Nothing will escape its voracious appetite if humanity becomes increasingly strange to itself. We are stricken with survival sickness in a world totally upside down. Man is the only creature capable of realising his desires by changing the world. Yet, until now, all he has realized has been the exchange of his life-force for the production and accumulation of goods. For thousands of years the system governing history has operated on the social need to transform our sexual potential into the energy for work. For as long as there have been kings and priests, in a process as invariable as the inequalities between classes and as progressive as the history of trade, power and economy, like a pair of vampires, have sucked fresh blood to warm their frozen veins. If we are to believe what we're told, the pressure of a hostile natural environment inexorably pushed a fledgling humanity towards exchange, division of labour, class society and mercantile civilization. What a pretty kettle of fish! As far as we are concerned that road stops here, where the killing joke pointing the irony is that amidst all this wealth that could feed every desire for life passion is utterly absent.

<h4>Survivalism is slavery to a future of meaningless consumption that we must pay a lifetime of boredom to receive. The logic of the affirmative is the alarmism that authorizes an endless repetition of the same in the name of an abstract freedom, a freedom only to do what we're told. This logic ensures endless global war justified through survival</h4><p><u><strong>Vaneigem ‘79</u></strong>, Raoul, situationist philosopher, leading thinker in the Situationist International “The Book of Pleasures” trans. John Fullerton, 1983 http://www.scenewash.org/lobbies/chainthinker/situationist/vaneigem/bop/bop.html</p><p><u><strong>The factory has invaded the territory of everyday life</u></strong>. For years the privileged zone of alienation, factory walls simultaneously bounded the proletariat's prisons and the bourgeoisie's liberties. Those who escaped at nightfall briefly revived in the merrymaking of love and alcohol that vitality which labour's daily constraints had failed to break. Ten hours a day of noise, exhaustion and humiliation were unable entirely to wear them out. It was society's sinister curse which forced them to match their energies to the rhythms and wear and tear of machines. But the employers' profit-seeking and foetid nets of exploitation did not poison their fundamental welling of desire, their sexual exuberance in life itself and for themselves. The economic crisis still experienced as specifically economic encouraged the proletariat to acquire the means to accede to the pleasures the bourgeoisie had previously reserved for itself. The constant threat of hunger made them overlook the fact that life bought with wealth and power was fundamentally life reduced to economics. The right to pleasure thus appeared as a conquest, although pleasure had just been taken over as an object of trade. Illicit pleasures are banned until they become profitable. Capitalism's need to expand has transformed the world into one gigantic market in which every one of life's myriad manifestations is reduced to just another sales pitch. In so doing, capitalism grows but digs its own grave by killing off the producers who make the expansion possible . We all know in what contempt the aristocracy held the work which guaranteed its survival. Where feudalism cared only to see theomorphic shit the bourgeoisie has erected its nutrition centre out of the basic substance of economics, and the bourgeoisie has forcibly exposed the true excrement in both religion and economics. The bourgeoisie redeem work, thanks to which they seize power, but the right they arrogate to themselves, to rank manual below intellectual work, profitably repeats the hierarchical ritual. Knowledge establishes a new temple of power. Pleasures which over-stepped the limits had previously been expiated with penances, masses and mortification: the bourgeoisie are the first to propose redemption through work. Sin is cheerfully desacralised, given a cash value, and identified with a right to profit. The crime of idleness is absolved when it acts as a stimulus to consume. This ancient antidote to work is here seen transformed back into work what could be more efficient in getting the workers back to the bench than improving access to the factories of "choose your-own-consumer-goods"? Making pleasure democratically accessible coincides - though it is scarcely coincidence - with the conquest of new markets where simple enjoyment is called comfort and happiness possession. In so doing, however, the bourgeoisie crystallise the inexpiable sin: refusal to pay. So enjoyment outside a transaction is the absolute economic crime. <u><strong><mark>Our apparent freedom to do whatever we like shows how whatever we choose serves the economy.</mark> Just as bread earned by work tastes acidly of sweat and wages, marketable pleasures are more tedious than the boredom it costs to produce them. The survival pleasures swindle is part of the lie of abstract freedom.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>The history we lead with every turn of the wheel is not the history of our desires but rather of a lifeless civilization which is about to bury us under its dead weight</mark>.</u></strong> For pleasure has only ever existed by default. To begin with it was shoved into the decent obscurity of night, into the cupboard, into your dreams, the inner world which is not abroad in the light of day, which is the measured light of work-time. But production quotas have ended up subjecting the secret world of desire to the scanners of their self-seeking science and, since it is impossible to abolish desire, economic necessity is instructed to obtain maximum profitable usage. <u><strong><mark>The transformation, by constraint and work</mark>, of actions and behaviour which have long remained outside the immediate orbit of the economy, <mark>shows clearly enough that the mercantile process evolves only by appropriating life, and uncovering only what it can exploit.</mark> <mark>Nothing will escape its voracious appetite if humanity becomes increasingly strange to itself</mark>. We are stricken with survival sickness in a world totally upside down. Man is the only creature capable of realising his desires by changing the world. Yet, until now, all he has realized has been the exchange of his life-force for the production and accumulation of goods.</u></strong> For thousands of years the system governing history has operated on the social need to transform our sexual potential into the energy for work. For as long as there have been kings and priests, in a process as invariable as the inequalities between classes and as progressive as the history of trade, power and economy, like a pair of vampires, have sucked fresh blood to warm their frozen veins. If we are to believe what we're told, the pressure of a hostile natural environment inexorably pushed a fledgling humanity towards exchange, division of labour, class society and mercantile civilization. What a pretty kettle of fish! As far as we are concerned that road stops here, where the killing joke pointing the irony is that amidst all this wealth that could feed every desire for life passion is utterly absent. </p>

1NR

Neolib

A2: Extinction first

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The affirmative’s radical knowledge will only be funneled into the increasing legitimacy of the contemporary university – that makes regimes of social death inevitable

Occupied UC Berkeley in 2010

Occupied UC Berkeley in 2010 (anonymous graduate student in philosophy, “The University, Social Death and the Inside Joke,” http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100220181610620)

Universities may serve as progressive sites of inquiry in some cases, yet this does not detract from the great deal of military and corporate research, economic planning and, perhaps most importantly, social conditioning occurring within their walls they serve as intense machines for the concentration of privilege; each university is increasingly staffed by overworked professors and adjuncts a hyper educated, stable society along Western lines can only exist by the intense exploitation of labor and resources in the third world Students are taught to be oblivious to this fact; liberal seminars only serve to obfuscate the fact that they are themselves complicit in the death and destruction waged on a daily basis Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning social is as the death of everything sociality entails; it is the failure of communication, the refusal of empathy, the abandonment of autonomy The cemetery no longer exists because modern cities have entirely taken over their function: they are ghost towns, cities of death ours is a culture of death By attempting to excel in a university setting, we are resigning ourselves to enrolling in a cemetery, a necropolis to rival no other herein lies the punch line. We are studying in the cemeteries of a nation which has a cultural fetish for things that refuse to stay dead; an absolute fixation with zombies. The event itself is counter-offensive and comes from a strange source: in every system at its apex, at its point of perfection, it reintroduces negativity and death The University, by totalizing itself and perfecting its critiques, has spontaneously generated its own antithesis. Some element of sociality refuses to stay within the discourse of the social, the dead; it becomes undead, radically potent. zombies mark the dead end or zero degree of capitalism’s logic of endless consumption and ever expanding accumulation, precisely because they embody this logic so literally and to such excess they are almost identical to the mass, the silent majorities that Baudrillard describe as the ideal form of resistance to the socia a system is abolished only by pushing it into hyperlogic, by forcing it into excessive practice which is equivalent to a brutal amortization students emerge from the university in which they have been buried, engaging in random acts of symbolic hyperconsumption and overproduction Liberal student activists fear the incursions the most, as they are in many ways the most invested in the fate of the contemporary university they are insistent on saving the University, on staying ‘alive’, even when their version of life has been stripped of all that makes life worth living, when it is as good as social death human survivors act so repugnantly that we celebrate their infection or demise Zombie Politics are something to be championed, because they are the politics of a multitude seeking to consume brains brains must be seen as a metaphor for what Marx calls “the General Intellect the power of knowledge, objectified the living dead are not radically Other so much as they serve to awaken a passion for otherness and for vertiginous disidentification that is already latent within our own selves at the very core of the 'rationality' of our culture is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death power itself is fundamentally based on the separation and alienation of death from the reality of our existence we risk failing to see that our very lives have been turned into a mechanism for perpetuation of social death: the banal simulation of existence Perhaps the reevaluation of zombie politics will serve as the messianic shift that blasts open the gates of hell, the cemetery-university semiotic insurrectionaries blasted their way out so as to burst into reality like a scream, an interjection, an anti-discourse, as the waste of all syntatic, poetic and political development, as the smallest radical element that cannot be caught by any organized discourse they resist every interpretation and every connotation, no longer denoting anyone or anything

Universities may serve as progressive this does not detract from the military and corporate research and social conditioning within their walls they serve as machines for concentration of privilege a hyper educated society can only exist by the intense exploitation of the third world liberal seminars obfuscate that they are complicit in death and destruction Social death is banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our lack of meaning the refusal of empathy, the abandonment of autonomy modern cities are ghost towns, cities of death ours is a culture of death By attempting to excel in a university setting, we are enrolling in a cemetery the cemeteries of a nation which has an absolute fixation with zombies The event is counter-offensive it reintroduces negativity and death The University, by perfecting its critiques, has generated its own antithesis zombies mark the dead end of capitalism’s accumulation because they embody this to excess they are the ideal resistance a system is abolished only by pushing it into hyperlogic Liberal student activists are most invested in the fate of the university they are insistent on saving the University when life has been stripped of all that makes life worth living Zombie Politics are the politics of a multitude seeking to consume brains knowledge, objectified the living dead awaken a passion for vertiginous disidentification at the core of our culture is the exclusion of the dead we risk failing to see that our lives have been turned into a mechanism for perpetuation of social death: the banal simulation of existence zombie politics will serve as the messianic shift that blasts open the gates semiotic insurrectionaries burst into reality like a scream an anti-discourse that cannot be caught they resist every interpretation no longer denoting anything

Universities may serve as progressive sites of inquiry in some cases, yet this does not detract from the great deal of military and corporate research, economic planning and, perhaps most importantly, social conditioning occurring within their walls. Furthermore, they serve as intense machines for the concentration of privilege; each university is increasingly staffed by overworked professors and adjuncts, poorly treated maintenance and service staff. This remains only the top of the pyramid, since a hyper educated, stable society along Western lines can only exist by the intense exploitation of labor and resources in the third world. Students are taught to be oblivious to this fact; liberal seminars only serve to obfuscate the fact that they are themselves complicit in the death and destruction waged on a daily basis. They sing the college fight song and wear hooded sweatshirts (in the case of hip liberal arts colleges, flannel serves the same purpose). As the Berkeley rebels observe, “Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning.”[43] Our conception of the social is as the death of everything sociality entails; it is the failure of communication, the refusal of empathy, the abandonment of autonomy. Baudrillard writes that “The cemetery no longer exists because modern cities have entirely taken over their function: they are ghost towns, cities of death. If the great operational metropolis is the final form of an entire culture, then, quite simply, ours is a culture of death.”[44] By attempting to excel in a university setting, we are resigning ourselves to enrolling in what Mark Yudoff so proudly calls a cemetery, a necropolis to rival no other.¶ Yet herein lies the punch line. We are studying in the cemeteries of a nation which has a cultural fetish for things that refuse to stay dead; an absolute fixation with zombies. So perhaps the goal should not be to go “Beyond Zombie Politics” at all. Writes Baudrillard: “The event itself is counter-offensive and comes from a strange source: in every system at its apex, at its point of perfection, it reintroduces negativity and death.”[45] The University, by totalizing itself and perfecting its critiques, has spontaneously generated its own antithesis. Some element of sociality refuses to stay within the discourse of the social, the dead; it becomes undead, radically potent. According to Steven Shaviro’s The Cinematic Body, “zombies mark the dead end or zero degree of capitalism’s logic of endless consumption and ever expanding accumulation, precisely because they embody this logic so literally and to such excess.”[46] In that sense, they are almost identical to the mass, the silent majorities that Baudrillard describe as the ideal form of resistance to the social: “they know that there is no liberation, and that a system is abolished only by pushing it into hyperlogic, by forcing it into excessive practice which is equivalent to a brutal amortization.”[47]¶ ¶ Zombies do not constitute a threat at first, they shamble about their environments in an almost comic manner and are easily dispatched by a shotgun blast to the face. Similarly, students emerge from the university in which they have been buried, engaging in random acts of symbolic hyperconsumption and overproduction; perhaps an overly enthusiastic usage of a classroom or cafeteria here and there, or a particularly moving piece of theatrical composition that is easily suppressed. “Disaster is consumed as cheesy spectacle, complete with incompetent reporting, useless information bulletins, and inane attempts at commentary:”[48] Shaviro is talking about Night of the Living Dead, but he might as well be referring to the press coverage of the first California occupations.¶ Other students respond with horror to the encroachment of dissidents: “the living characters are concerned less about the prospect of being killed than they are about being swept away by mimesis – of returning to existence, after death, transformed into zombies themselves.”[49] Liberal student activists fear the incursions the most, as they are in many ways the most invested in the fate of the contemporary university; in many ways their role is similar to that of the survivalists in Night of the Living Dead, or the military officers in Day. Beyond Zombie Politics claims that defenders of the UC system are promoting a “Zombie Politics”; yet this is difficult to fathom. For they are insistent on saving the University, on staying ‘alive’, even when their version of life has been stripped of all that makes life worth living, when it is as good as social death. Shaviro notes that in many scenes in zombie films, our conceptions of protagonist and antagonist are reversed; in many scenes, human survivors act so repugnantly that we celebrate their infection or demise.[50]¶ In reality, “Zombie Politics are something to be championed, because they are the politics of a multitude, an inclusive mass of political subjects, seeking to consume brains. Yet brains must be seen as a metaphor for what Marx calls “the General Intellect”; in his Fragment on Machines, he describes it as “the power of knowledge, objectified.”[51] Students and faculty have been alienated from their labor, and, angry and zombie-like, they seek to destroy the means of their alienation. Yet, for Shaviro, “the hardest thing to acknowledge is that the living dead are not radically Other so much as they serve to awaken a passion for otherness and for vertiginous disidentification that is already latent within our own selves.”[52] In other words, we have a widespread problem with aspiring to be this other, this powerless mass. We seek a clear protagonist, we cannot avoid associating with those we perceive as ‘still alive’. Yet for Baudrillard, this constitutes a fundamental flaw:¶ "at the very core of the 'rationality' of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death."[53]¶ ¶ In Forget Foucault, we learn the sad reality about biopower: that power itself is fundamentally based on the separation and alienation of death from the reality of our existence. If we are to continue to use this conception, we risk failing to see that our very lives have been turned into a mechanism for perpetuation of social death: the banal simulation of existence. Whereas socialized death is a starting point for Foucault, in Baudrillard and in recent actions from California, we see a return to a reevaluation of society and of death; a possible return to zombie politics. Baudrillard distinguishes himself as a connoisseur of graffiti; in Forget Foucault, he quotes a piece that said “When Jesus arose from the dead, he became a zombie.”[54] Perhaps the reevaluation of zombie politics will serve as the messianic shift that blasts open the gates of hell, the cemetery-university. According to the Berkeley kids, “when we move without return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war.”[55] Baudrillard’s words about semiotic insurrectionaries might suffice:¶ ¶ "They blasted their way out however, so as to burst into reality like a scream, an interjection, an anti-discourse, as the waste of all syntatic, poetic and political development, as the smallest radical element that cannot be caught by any organized discourse. Invincible due to their own poverty, they resist every interpretation and every connotation, no longer denoting anyone or anything."[56]

<h4>The affirmative’s radical knowledge will only be funneled into the increasing legitimacy of the contemporary university – that makes regimes of social death inevitable</h4><p><u><strong>Occupied UC Berkeley in 2010</strong><mark> (anonymous graduate student in philosophy, “The University, Social Death and the Inside Joke,” http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100220181610620) </p><p>Universities may serve as progressive </mark>sites of inquiry in some cases, yet <mark>this does not detract from the</mark> great deal of <strong><mark>military and corporate research</strong></mark>, economic planning <mark>and</mark>, perhaps most importantly, <strong><mark>social conditioning</strong></mark> occurring <mark>within their walls</u></mark>. Furthermore, <u><mark>they serve as</mark> intense <mark>machines for</mark> the <strong><mark>concentration of privilege</strong></mark>; each university is increasingly staffed by overworked professors and adjuncts</u>, poorly treated maintenance and service staff. This remains only the top of the pyramid, since <u><mark>a hyper educated</mark>, stable <mark>society</mark> along Western lines <mark>can only exist by the <strong>intense exploitation of</mark> labor and resources in <mark>the third world</u></strong></mark>. <u>Students are taught to be oblivious to this fact; <mark>liberal seminars</mark> only serve to <mark>obfuscate</mark> the fact <mark>that <strong>they are</mark> themselves <mark>complicit in</mark> the <mark>death and destruction</strong></mark> waged on a daily basis</u>. They sing the college fight song and wear hooded sweatshirts (in the case of hip liberal arts colleges, flannel serves the same purpose). As the Berkeley rebels observe, “<u><strong><mark>Social death</strong> is</mark> our <strong><mark>banal acceptance</strong> of an institution’s meaning for our</mark> own <strong><mark>lack of meaning</u></strong></mark>.”[43] Our conception of the <u>social is as the death of everything sociality entails; it is the failure of communication,</u> <u><strong><mark>the refusal of empathy, the abandonment of autonomy</u></strong></mark>. Baudrillard writes that “<u>The cemetery no longer exists because <strong><mark>modern cities</mark> have entirely taken over their function</strong>: they <mark>are <strong>ghost towns, cities of death</u></strong></mark>. If the great operational metropolis is the final form of an entire culture, then, quite simply, <u><strong><mark>ours is a culture of death</u></strong></mark>.”[44] <u><mark>By attempting to excel in a university setting, we are</mark> resigning ourselves to <mark>enrolling in</u></mark> what Mark Yudoff so proudly calls <u><strong><mark>a cemetery</mark>, a necropolis to rival no other</u></strong>.¶ Yet <u>herein lies the punch line. We are studying in <mark>the cemeteries of a nation which has</mark> a cultural fetish for things that refuse to stay dead; <strong><mark>an absolute fixation with zombies</strong></mark>.</u> So perhaps the goal should not be to go “Beyond Zombie Politics” at all. Writes Baudrillard: “<u><mark>The event</mark> itself <mark>is <strong>counter-offensive</strong></mark> and comes from a strange source: in <strong>every system</strong> at its apex, at its point of perfection, <mark>it <strong>reintroduces negativity and death</u></strong></mark>.”[45] <u><mark>The University, by</mark> totalizing itself and <mark>perfecting its critiques, has</mark> spontaneously <strong><mark>generated its own antithesis</strong></mark>. Some element of sociality refuses to stay within the discourse of the social, the dead; it becomes undead, radically potent.</u> According to Steven Shaviro’s The Cinematic Body, “<u><strong><mark>zombies mark the dead end</mark> or zero degree <mark>of capitalism’s</mark> logic of endless consumption and ever expanding <mark>accumulation</strong></mark>, precisely <mark>because they embody this</mark> logic so literally and <mark>to</mark> such <mark>excess</u></mark>.”[46] In that sense, <u><mark>they are</mark> almost identical to the mass, <strong>the silent majorities</strong> that Baudrillard describe as <mark>the <strong>ideal</mark> form of <mark>resistance</strong></mark> to the socia</u>l: “they know that there is no liberation, and that <u><mark>a system is abolished only by <strong>pushing it into hyperlogic</strong></mark>, by forcing it into excessive practice which is equivalent to a brutal amortization</u>.”[47]¶ ¶ Zombies do not constitute a threat at first, they shamble about their environments in an almost comic manner and are easily dispatched by a shotgun blast to the face. Similarly, <u>students emerge from the university in which they have been buried, engaging in random acts of symbolic hyperconsumption and overproduction</u>; perhaps an overly enthusiastic usage of a classroom or cafeteria here and there, or a particularly moving piece of theatrical composition that is easily suppressed. “Disaster is consumed as cheesy spectacle, complete with incompetent reporting, useless information bulletins, and inane attempts at commentary:”[48] Shaviro is talking about Night of the Living Dead, but he might as well be referring to the press coverage of the first California occupations.¶ Other students respond with horror to the encroachment of dissidents: “the living characters are concerned less about the prospect of being killed than they are about being swept away by mimesis – of returning to existence, after death, transformed into zombies themselves.”[49] <u><strong><mark>Liberal student activists</strong></mark> fear the incursions the most, as they <mark>are</mark> in many ways the <strong><mark>most invested in the fate of the</mark> contemporary <mark>university</u></strong></mark>; in many ways their role is similar to that of the survivalists in Night of the Living Dead, or the military officers in Day. Beyond Zombie Politics claims that defenders of the UC system are promoting a “Zombie Politics”; yet this is difficult to fathom. For <u><mark>they are insistent on <strong>saving the University</mark>, on staying ‘alive’</strong>, even <mark>when</mark> their version of <mark>life has been <strong>stripped of all that makes life worth living</strong></mark>, when it is as good as social death</u>. Shaviro notes that in many scenes in zombie films, our conceptions of protagonist and antagonist are reversed; in many scenes, <u>human survivors act so repugnantly that <strong>we celebrate their infection or demise</u></strong>.[50]¶ In reality, “<u><mark>Zombie Politics</mark> are something to be championed, because <strong>they <mark>are the politics of a multitude</u></strong></mark>, an inclusive mass of political subjects, <u><mark>seeking to <strong>consume brains</u></strong></mark>. Yet <u>brains must be seen as a metaphor for what Marx calls “the General Intellect</u>”; in his Fragment on Machines, he describes it as “<u>the power of <mark>knowledge, objectified</u></mark>.”[51] Students and faculty have been alienated from their labor, and, angry and zombie-like, they seek to destroy the means of their alienation. Yet, for Shaviro, “the hardest thing to acknowledge is that <u><mark>the living dead</mark> are not radically Other so much as they serve to <mark>awaken a passion</mark> for otherness and <mark>for vertiginous disidentification</mark> that is already latent within our own selves</u>.”[52] In other words, we have a widespread problem with aspiring to be this other, this powerless mass. We seek a clear protagonist, we cannot avoid associating with those we perceive as ‘still alive’. Yet for Baudrillard, this constitutes a fundamental flaw:¶ "<u><mark>at the</mark> very <mark>core</mark> of the 'rationality' <mark>of our culture</u></mark>, however, <u><mark>is</mark> an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: <strong><mark>the exclusion of the dead</mark> and of death</u></strong>."[53]¶ ¶ In Forget Foucault, we learn the sad reality about biopower: that <u>power itself is fundamentally based on the separation and alienation of death from the reality of our existence</u>. If we are to continue to use this conception, <u><mark>we risk failing to see that our</mark> very <mark>lives have been turned into a mechanism for perpetuation of social death: <strong>the banal simulation of existence</u></strong></mark>. Whereas socialized death is a starting point for Foucault, in Baudrillard and in recent actions from California, we see a return to a reevaluation of society and of death; a possible return to zombie politics. Baudrillard distinguishes himself as a connoisseur of graffiti; in Forget Foucault, he quotes a piece that said “When Jesus arose from the dead, he became a zombie.”[54] <u>Perhaps the reevaluation of <mark>zombie politics will serve as the <strong>messianic shift that blasts open the gates</mark> of hell, the cemetery-university</u></strong>. According to the Berkeley kids, “when we move without return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war.”[55] Baudrillard’s words about <u><mark>semiotic insurrectionaries</u></mark> might suffice:¶ ¶ "They <u><strong>blasted their way out</u></strong> however, <u>so as to <mark>burst into reality like a scream</mark>, an interjection, <mark>an anti-discourse</mark>, as the waste of all syntatic, poetic and political development, as the smallest radical element <mark>that <strong>cannot be caught</mark> by any organized discourse</u></strong>. Invincible due to their own poverty, <u><mark>they resist every interpretation</mark> and every connotation, <strong><mark>no longer denoting</mark> anyone or <mark>anything</u></strong></mark>."[56]</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Only the alt solves - Thinking blackness through ontology and structural antagonism traps blackness in the prison of history

Koerner ‘12

Koerner ‘12 /Michelle, Professor of Comparative Literature @ UC-Berkeley, “Line of Escape: Gilles Deleuze’s Encounter with George Jackson” Genre, Vol. 44, No. 2 Summer 2011 DOI 10.1215/00166928-1260183/

What is inadequate to blackness is already given ontologies to think of blackness as a name for an ontology of becoming might transform our understanding of the relation of blackness to history and its specific capacity to “think [its] way out of the exclusionary constructions” of history Existing ontologies tend to reduce blackness to a historical condition, a “lived experience,” and in doing so effectively eradicate its unruly character as a transformative force. Deleuze and Guattari think this unruliness What History grasps of the event is lived experience, but the event in its becoming, in its specific consistency escapes History” To bring this relation between blackness and becoming — toward an affirmation of the unexpected event in its becoming we constantly encounter unexpected injections of ideas lines that appear all of sudden as though propelled by their own force. Many names schizoanalysis micropolitics pragmatics rhizomatics cartography but the crucial issue is to affirm an experimental practice that opposes itself to the interpretation proposing instead that we think of what it functions with or does it not transmit intensities?” This method can be seen as an effort to disrupt the hierarchical opposition between theory and practice to analyze the ways capitalism has developed makes three crucial distinctions with traditional theoretical approaches a “consideration of minorities rather than classes” the study of social “lines of flight” rather than the interpretation and critique of social contradictions the “line of flight” emerges directly in connection with Soledad Brother The concept affirms those social constructions that would neither be determined by preexisting structures nor caught in a dialectical contradiction. It names a force that is radically autonomous from existing ontologies, structures, and historical accounts It is for this reason D and G insist that society be thought of not as a “structure” but as a “machine,” because such a concept enables the thinking of the movements, energies, and intensities the lines of flight) that such machines transmit. The thinking of machines forces us not only to consider the social and historical labor involved in producing society but also the ongoing potentials of constructing new types of assemblages One of the key adversaries of this machinic approach is structuralist interpretations of society in terms of contradictions structuralism persisted in the “submission of the line to the point” and as a result produced a theory of subjectivity, and also an account of language and the unconscious, that could not think in terms of movement and construction Defining lines only in relation to finite points produces a calculable grid, determining structure of subjectivity is the extreme gridlocked position Opposed to this theoretical approach, diagrammatism maps vectors that generate an open space and the potentials rather than tracing the hidden structures of an intolerable system, D and G ’s method aims to map the ways out of it.

What is inadequate to blackness is already given ontologies to think of blackness as a name for an ontology of becoming might transform our understanding of the relation of blackness to history and its specific capacity to “think [its] way out of the exclusionary constructions” of history Existing ontologies tend to reduce blackness to a historical condition and effectively eradicate its unruly character What History grasps of the event is lived experience, but the event in its becoming escapes History” To bring this relation toward an affirmation of the unexpected the crucial issue is to affirm an experimental practice that opposes itself to the interpretation proposing instead that we think of what it functions with or does it not transmit intensities?” to analyze the ways capitalism has developed makes three crucial distinctions with traditional theoretical approaches a “consideration of minorities rather than classes”; the study of social “lines of flight” rather than interpretation The concept affirms those social constructions that would neither be determined by preexisting structures nor caught in a dialectical contradiction. It names a force that is radically autonomous from existing ontologies, structures, and historical accounts. society be thought of not as a “structure” but as a “machine,” because such a concept enables the thinking of movements and intensities that such machines transmit. The thinking forces us not only to consider labor involved in producing society but also ongoing potentials of constructing new assemblages One of the key adversaries is structuralist interpretations of society in terms of contradictions. structuralism produced a theory of subjectivity, and an account of language and unconscious, that could not think in terms of movement and construction. Defining lines only in relation to finite points produces a calculable grid determining structure is the extreme gridlocked position diagrammatism maps vectors that generate an open space rather than tracing the hidden structures of an intolerable system to map the ways out of it.

In “The Case of Blackness” Moten (2008b: 187) perceptively remarks, “What is inadequate to blackness is already given ontologies.” What if we were to think of blackness as a name for an ontology of becoming? How might such a thinking transform our understanding of the relation of blackness to history and its specific capacity to “think [its] way out of the exclusionary constructions” of history and the thinking of history (Moten 2008a: 1744)? Existing ontologies tend to reduce blackness to a historical condition, a “lived experience,” and in doing so effectively eradicate its unruly character as a transformative force. Deleuze and Guattari, I think, offer a compelling way to think of this unruliness when they write, “What History grasps of the event is its effectuation in states of affairs or in lived experience, but the event in its becoming, in its specific consistency, in its self- positing as concept, escapes History” (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 110). To bring this relation between blackness and becoming further into the open — toward an affirmation of the unexpected insinuation of blackness signaled by the use of Jackson’s line as an “event in its becoming” — a few more words need be said about Deleuze’s method. The use of Jackson’s writing is just one instance of a procedure that we find repeated throughout Capitalism and Schizophrenia, where we constantly encounter unexpected injections of quotations, names, and ideas lifted from other texts, lines that appear all of sudden as though propelled by their own force. One might say they are deployed rather than explained or interpreted; as such, they produce textual events that readers may choose to ignore or pick up and run with. Many names are proposed for this method — “schizoanalysis, micropolitics, pragmatics, diagrammatism, rhizomatics, cartography” (Deleuze and Parnet [1977] 2006: 94) — but the crucial issue is to affirm an experimental practice that opposes itself to the interpretation of texts, proposing instead that we think of a book as “a little machine” and ask “what it functions with, in connection with what other things does it or does it not transmit intensities?” (Deleuze and Guattari [1980] 1987: 4).8 Studying how Soledad Brother functions in Deleuze’s books, connecting Jackson’s line to questions and historical issues that are not always explicitly addressed in those books, involves one in this action. And further, it opens new lines where the intensities transmitted in Jackson’s book make a claim on our own practice. This method can be seen as an effort to disrupt the hierarchical opposition between theory and practice and to challenge some of the major assumptions of Western Marxism. In an interview with Antonio Negri in the 1990s, Deleuze (1997: 171) clarifies that he and Guattari have “remained Marxists” in their concern to analyze the ways capitalism has developed but that their political philosophy makes three crucial distinctions with respect to more traditional theoretical approaches: first, a thinking of “war machines” as opposed to state theory; second, a “consideration of minorities rather than classes”; and finally, the study of social “lines of flight” rather than the interpretation and critique of social contradictions. Each of these distinctions, as we will see, resonates with Jackson’s political philosophy, but as the passage from Anti-Oedipus demonstrates, the concept of the “line of flight” emerges directly in connection to Deleuze and Guattari’s encounter with Soledad Brother. The concept affirms those social constructions that would neither be determined by preexisting structures nor caught in a dialectical contradiction. It names a force that is radically autonomous from existing ontologies, structures, and historical accounts. It is above all for this reason that Deleuze and Guattari insist that society be thought of not as a “structure” but as a “machine,” because such a concept enables the thinking of the movements, energies, and intensities (i.e., the lines of flight) that such machines transmit. The thinking of machines forces us not only to consider the social and historical labor involved in producing society but also the ongoing potentials of constructing new types of assemblages (agencement). One of the key adversaries of this machinic approach is “interpretation” and more specifically structuralist interpretations of society in terms of contradictions. According to Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987: 293), structuralism persisted in the “submission of the line to the point” and as a result produced a theory of subjectivity, and also an account of language and the unconscious, that could not think in terms of movement and construction. Defining lines only in relation to finite points (the subject, the signifier) produces a calculable grid, a structure that then appears as the hidden intelligibility of the system and of society generally. Louis Althusser’s account of the “ideological State apparatus” as the determining structure of subjectivity is perhaps the extreme expression of this gridlocked position (an example we will come back to in a later section). Opposed to this theoretical approach, diagrammatism (to invoke one of the terms given for this method) maps vectors that generate an open space and the potentials for giving consistency to the latter.9 In other words, rather than tracing the hidden structures of an intolerable system, Deleuze and Guattari’s method aims to map the ways out of it.

<h4>Only the alt solves - Thinking blackness through ontology and structural antagonism traps blackness in the prison of history</h4><p><u><strong>Koerner ‘12</u></strong> /Michelle, Professor of Comparative Literature @ UC-Berkeley, “Line of Escape: Gilles Deleuze’s Encounter with George Jackson” Genre, Vol. 44, No. 2 Summer 2011 DOI 10.1215/00166928-1260183/</p><p>In “The Case of Blackness” Moten (2008b: 187) perceptively remarks, “<u><mark>What is inadequate to blackness is already given ontologies</u></mark>.” What if we were <u><mark>to think of blackness as a name for an ontology of becoming</u></mark>? How <u><mark>might</u></mark> such a thinking <u><mark>transform our understanding of the relation of blackness to history and its specific capacity to “think [its] way out of the exclusionary constructions” of history</u></mark> and the thinking of history (Moten 2008a: 1744)? <u><mark>Existing ontologies tend to reduce blackness to a historical condition</mark>,</u> <u>a “lived experience,” <mark>and</mark> in doing so <mark>effectively eradicate its unruly character</mark> as a transformative force.</u> <u>Deleuze and Guattari</u>, I think, offer a compelling way to <u>think</u> of <u>this unruliness</u> when they write, “<u><mark>What History grasps of the event is</u></mark> its effectuation in states of affairs or in <u><mark>lived experience, but the event in its becoming</mark>, in its specific consistency</u>, in its self- positing as concept, <u><mark>escapes History”</u></mark> (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 110). <u><mark>To bring this relation</mark> between blackness and becoming</u> further into the open <u>— <mark>toward an affirmation</u> <u>of the unexpected</u></mark> insinuation of blackness signaled by the use of Jackson’s line as an “<u>event in its becoming</u>” — a few more words need be said about Deleuze’s method. The use of Jackson’s writing is just one instance of a procedure that we find repeated throughout Capitalism and Schizophrenia, where <u>we constantly encounter unexpected injections of</u> quotations, names, and <u>ideas</u> lifted from other texts, <u>lines that appear all of sudden as though propelled by their own force.</u> One might say they are deployed rather than explained or interpreted; as such, they produce textual events that readers may choose to ignore or pick up and run with. <u>Many names</u> are proposed for this method — “<u>schizoanalysis</u>, <u>micropolitics</u>, <u>pragmatics</u>, diagrammatism, <u>rhizomatics</u>, <u>cartography</u>” (Deleuze and Parnet [1977] 2006: 94) — <u>but <mark>the crucial issue is to affirm an experimental practice that opposes itself to the interpretation</u></mark> of texts, <u><mark>proposing instead that we think of</u></mark> a book as “a little machine” and ask “<u><mark>what it functions with</u></mark>, in connection with what other things does it <u><mark>or does it not transmit intensities?”</u></mark> (Deleuze and Guattari [1980] 1987: 4).8 Studying how Soledad Brother functions in Deleuze’s books, connecting Jackson’s line to questions and historical issues that are not always explicitly addressed in those books, involves one in this action. And further, it opens new lines where the intensities transmitted in Jackson’s book make a claim on our own practice. <u>This method can be seen as an effort to disrupt the hierarchical opposition between theory and practice</u> and to challenge some of the major assumptions of Western Marxism. In an interview with Antonio Negri in the 1990s, Deleuze (1997: 171) clarifies that he and Guattari have “remained Marxists” in their concern <u><mark>to analyze the ways capitalism has developed</u></mark> but that their political philosophy <u><mark>makes three crucial distinctions with</u></mark> respect to more <u><mark>traditional theoretical approaches</u></mark>: first, a thinking of “war machines” as opposed to state theory; second, <u><mark>a “consideration of minorities rather than classes”</u>;</mark> and finally, <u><mark>the study of social “lines of flight” rather than</mark> the <mark>interpretation</mark> and critique of social contradictions</u>. Each of these distinctions, as we will see, resonates with Jackson’s political philosophy, but as the passage from Anti-Oedipus demonstrates, the concept of <u>the “line of flight” emerges directly in connection</u> to Deleuze and Guattari’s encounter <u>with Soledad Brother</u>. <u><mark>The concept affirms those social constructions that would neither be determined by preexisting structures nor caught in a dialectical contradiction. It names a force that is radically autonomous from existing ontologies, structures, and historical accounts</u>.</mark> <u>It is</u> above all <u>for this reason</u> that <u>D</u>eleuze <u>and G</u>uattari <u>insist that <mark>society be thought of not as a “structure” but as a “machine,”</u> <u>because such a concept enables the thinking of</mark> the <mark>movements</mark>, energies, <mark>and intensities</u></mark> (i.e., <u>the lines of flight) <mark>that such machines transmit. The thinking</mark> of machines <mark>forces us not only to consider</mark> the social and historical <mark>labor involved in producing society but also</mark> the <mark>ongoing potentials of constructing new</mark> types of <mark>assemblages</u></mark> (agencement). <u><mark>One of the key adversaries</mark> of this machinic approach <mark>is</mark> </u>“interpretation” and more specifically <u><mark>structuralist interpretations of society in terms of contradictions</u>.</mark> According to Deleuze and Guattari ([1980] 1987: 293), <u><mark>structuralism</mark> persisted in the “submission of the line to the point” and as a result <mark>produced a theory of subjectivity, and</mark> also <mark>an account of language and</mark> the <mark>unconscious, that could not think in terms of movement and construction</u>.</mark> <u><mark>Defining lines only in relation to finite points</u></mark> (the subject, the signifier) <u><mark>produces a calculable grid</mark>,</u> a structure that then appears as the hidden intelligibility of the system and of society generally. Louis Althusser’s account of the “ideological State apparatus” as the <u><mark>determining structure</mark> of subjectivity</u> <u><mark>is</u></mark> perhaps <u><mark>the extreme</u></mark> expression of this <u><mark>gridlocked position</u></mark> (an example we will come back to in a later section). <u>Opposed to this theoretical approach, <mark>diagrammatism</u></mark> (to invoke one of the terms given for this method) <u><mark>maps vectors that generate an open space</mark> and the potentials</u> for giving consistency to the latter.9 In other words, <u><mark>rather than tracing the hidden structures of an intolerable system</mark>, D</u>eleuze <u>and G</u>uattari<u>’s method aims <mark>to map the ways out of it.</p></u></mark>

1NR

Faciality

Alt

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Iowa KL

Shooter, Jason Russel, Michael Eisenstadt

1ac was black mothering 1nc was damage centrism k faciality k and case 2nc was damage and case 1nr was faciality 2nr was faciality

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

350 ppm is the red-line threshold – fast-forcing and positive feedbacks mean anything above that is catastrophic

McKibben 7

McKibben 7 (Bill McKibben, Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, American environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impact of global warming, no date, but website was founded in 2007 so whatever, http://www.350.org/en/node/48)

The question of what target to aim for against global warming has always been vexed, and for one simple reason: filling the atmosphere with carbon is at base a huge experiment, one we've never conducted before. in the late 1980s we used 550 parts per million CO2—mostly because it was double the pre-Industrial Revolution concentrations and hence easy to model. As time went on, it became clearer that the dangerous thresholds lay somewhere lower, and we began to use 450 parts per million, or 2 degrees Celsius. Science doesn't actually know if 450 ppm and 2 degrees are the same thing these were guesses not based on actual experience In the summer of 2007, though, with the rapid melt of Arctic ice, it became clear that we had already crossed serious thresholds. A number of other signs pointed in the same direction: the spike in methane emissions, likely from thawing permafrost; the melt of high-altitude glacier systems and perennial snowpack in Asia, Europe, South America and North America; the rapid and unexpected acidification of seawater. All of these implied the same thing: wherever the red line for danger was, we were already past it Jim Hansen gave us a new number, verified for the first time by real-time observation (and new paleo-climatic data). They said that 350 parts per million CO2 was the upper limit if we wished to have a planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted." That number is unrefuted; indeed, a constant flow of additional evidence supports it from many directions. Just this week, for instance, oceanographers reported that longterm atmospheric levels above 360 ppm would doom coral reefs worldwide. It is no longer possible to defend higher targets as a bulwark against catastrophic change. climate change was already claiming 300,000 lives per year If the Arctic melts at less than one degree, then two degrees can't be a real target. This is simply how science works. New information drives out the old. targets like 450 implies—to policy makers that we still have atmosphere left in which to put more carbon We don't—not with feedback loops like methane release starting to kick in with a vengeance It's the difference between a doctor telling you that you really should think about changing your diet and a doctor telling you your cholesterol is already too high and a heart attack is imminent. small island nations and less developed country governments have joined leaders like Al Gore in enunciating firmly the 350 target, and equating it with survival. arguing for 350 is not making "the perfect the enemy of the good." It's making the necessary the enemy of the convenient. Physics and chemistry have laid their cards on the table: above 350 the world doesn't work. They are not going to negotiate further. It's up to us to figure out, this year and in the years ahead, how to meet their bottom line.

550 and 450 p p m were guesses the rapid melt of Arctic ice spike in methane emissions melt of high-altitude glacier systems acidification of seawater. All implied a new number, verified by real-time observation (and paleo-climatic data 350 p p m was the upper limit if we wished to have a planet That number is unrefuted a constant flow of additional evidence supports it It is no longer possible to defend higher targets as a bulwark against catastrophic change This is simply how science works. New information drives out the old governments have joined 350 equating it with survival not making "the perfect the enemy of the good." It's making the necessary the enemy of the convenient Physics and chemistry have laid their cards on the table: above 350 the world doesn't work. They are not going to negotiate further

The question of what target to aim for in the fight against global warming has always been vexed, and for one simple reason: filling the atmosphere with carbon is at base a huge experiment, one we've never conducted before. It's always been tough to judge exactly where the danger lies. At first in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number we routinely used was 550 parts per million CO2—mostly because it was double the pre-Industrial Revolution concentrations and hence easy to model. But it became something of a red line through dint of sheer repetition—I remember writing an op-ed for the New York Times excoriating the Clinton administration for hinting that it might be okay to go past a 550 ceiling. As time went on, it became clearer that the dangerous thresholds lay somewhere lower, and we began to use—almost interchangeably—450 parts per million, or 2 degrees Celsius. Science doesn't actually know if 450 ppm and 2 degrees are the same thing, and no one knows how much change they would produce. Again, these were guesses for the point at which catastrophic damage would begin—they were more plausible, but still not based on actual experience. They also reflected guesses of what was politically possible to achieve. They were completely defensible, given the lack of data (though the 2C target was always problematic strategically since Americans don't use centigrade measurements and hence have no real idea what 2 degrees Celsius means.) In the summer of 2007, though, with the rapid melt of Arctic ice, it became clear that we had already crossed serious thresholds. A number of other signs pointed in the same direction: the spike in methane emissions, likely from thawing permafrost; the melt of high-altitude glacier systems and perennial snowpack in Asia, Europe, South America and North America; the rapid and unexpected acidification of seawater. All of these implied the same thing: wherever the red line for danger was, we were already past it, even though the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was only 390 parts per million, and the temperature increase still a shade below 1 degree C. In early 2008, Jim Hansen and a team of researchers gave us a new number, verified for the first time by real-time observation (and also by reams of new paleo-climatic data). They said that 350 parts per million CO2 was the upper limit if we wished to have a planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted." That number is unrefuted; indeed, a constant flow of additional evidence supports it from many directions. Just this week, for instance, oceanographers reported that longterm atmospheric levels above 360 ppm would doom coral reefs worldwide. It is, therefore, no longer possible to defend higher targets as a bulwark against catastrophic change. The Global Humanitarian Forum reported recently that climate change was already claiming 300,000 lives per year—that should qualify as catastrophic. A new Oxfam report makes very clear the degree of suffering caused by the warming we've already seen, and adds "Warming of 2 degrees C entails a devastating future for at least 600 million people," almost all of them innocent of any role in causing this trouble. If the Arctic melts at less than one degree, then two degrees can't be a real target. This is simply how science works. New information drives out the old. You could, logically, defend targets like 450 or 2 degrees C as the best we could hope for politically, especially if you add that they represent absolute upper limits that we must bounce back below as quickly as possible. But even that is politically problematic, because it implies—to policy makers and the general public—that we still have atmosphere left in which to put more carbon, and time to gradually adjust policies. We don't—not with feedback loops like methane release starting to kick in with a vengeance. It is, we think, far wiser to tell people the best science, in part because it motivates action. It's the difference between a doctor telling you that you really should think about changing your diet and a doctor telling you your cholesterol is already too high and a heart attack is imminent. The second scenario is the one that gets your attention. A number of small island nations and less developed country governments have joined leaders like Al Gore in enunciating firmly the 350 target, and equating it with survival. Climate coalition groups like TckTckTck have also endorsed the target, as have a growing coalition of hundreds of organizational allies. Here's the important thing to remember: arguing for 350 is not making "the perfect the enemy of the good." It's making the necessary the enemy of the convenient. We were aware that we wouldn't get an agreement in Copenhagen that rapidly returns us to 350—even if we do everything right it will take decades for the world's oceans and forests to absorb the excess carbon we've already poured into the atmosphere. But that's why we've got to get going now—and at the very least we have a number to explain why the agreement that did emerge is insufficient and needs to be revised quickly and regularly. We can use it to make Copenhagen a real beginning, not an end for years to come the way Kyoto was. In the end, everyone needs to remember that the goal at Copenhagen was not to get a "victory," not to sign an agreement. It's to actually take steps commensurate with the problem. And those steps are dictated, in the end, by science. This negotiation, on the surface, is between America and China and the EU and India and the developing world; between industry and environmentalists; between old and new technology. But at root the real negotiation is between human beings on the one hand, and physics and chemistry on the other. Physics and chemistry have laid their cards on the table: above 350 the world doesn't work. They are not going to negotiate further. It's up to us to figure out, this year and in the years ahead, how to meet their bottom line.

<h4>350 ppm is the red-line threshold – fast-forcing and positive feedbacks mean anything above that is catastrophic</h4><p><u><strong>McKibben 7</u></strong> (Bill McKibben, Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, American environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impact of global warming, no date, but website was founded in 2007 so whatever, http://www.350.org/en/node/48<u>)</p><p>The question of what target to aim for</u> in the fight <u>against global warming has always been vexed, and for one simple reason: filling the atmosphere with carbon is at base a huge experiment, one we've never conducted before.</u> It's always been tough to judge exactly where the danger lies. At first <u>in the late 1980s</u> and early 1990s, the number <u>we</u> routinely <u>used</u> was <u><mark>550 </mark>parts per million CO2—mostly because it was double the pre-Industrial Revolution concentrations and hence easy to model.</u> But it became something of a red line through dint of sheer repetition—I remember writing an op-ed for the New York Times excoriating the Clinton administration for hinting that it might be okay to go past a 550 ceiling. <u>As time went on, it became clearer that the dangerous thresholds lay somewhere lower, <mark>and </mark>we began to use</u>—almost interchangeably—<u><mark>450 p</mark>arts <mark>p</mark>er <mark>m</mark>illion, or 2 degrees Celsius. Science doesn't actually know if 450 ppm and 2 degrees are the same thing</u>, and no one knows how much change they would produce. Again, <u>these <mark>were guesses</u> </mark>for the point at which catastrophic damage would begin—they were more plausible, but still <u>not based on actual experience</u>. They also reflected guesses of what was politically possible to achieve. They were completely defensible, given the lack of data (though the 2C target was always problematic strategically since Americans don't use centigrade measurements and hence have no real idea what 2 degrees Celsius means.) <u>In the summer of 2007, though, with <mark>the rapid melt of Arctic ice</mark>, it became clear that we had already crossed serious thresholds. A number of other signs pointed in the same direction: the <mark>spike in methane emissions</mark>, likely from thawing permafrost; the <mark>melt of high-altitude glacier systems </mark>and perennial snowpack in Asia, Europe, South America and North America; the rapid and unexpected <mark>acidification of seawater. All </mark>of these <mark>implied </mark>the same thing: <strong>wherever the red line for danger was, we were already past it</u></strong>, even though the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was only 390 parts per million, and the temperature increase still a shade below 1 degree C. In early 2008, <u>Jim Hansen </u>and a team of researchers <u>gave us <mark>a new number, <strong>verified </mark>for the first time <mark>by real-time observation (and</u></strong></mark> also by reams of <u><strong>new <mark>paleo-climatic data</mark>). They said that <mark>350 p</mark>arts <mark>p</mark>er <mark>m</mark>illion CO2 <mark>was the upper limit if we wished to have a planet</strong> </mark>"similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted." <strong><mark>That number is unrefuted</mark>; indeed, <mark>a constant flow of additional evidence supports it </mark>from many directions</strong>. Just this week, for instance, oceanographers reported that longterm atmospheric levels above 360 ppm would doom coral reefs worldwide. <mark>It is</u></mark>, therefore, <u><strong><mark>no longer possible to defend higher targets as a bulwark against catastrophic change</mark>. </u></strong>The Global Humanitarian Forum reported recently that <u>climate change was already claiming 300,000 lives per year</u>—that should qualify as catastrophic. A new Oxfam report makes very clear the degree of suffering caused by the warming we've already seen, and adds "Warming of 2 degrees C entails a devastating future for at least 600 million people," almost all of them innocent of any role in causing this trouble. <u>If the Arctic melts at less than one degree, then two degrees can't be a real target. <strong><mark>This is simply how science works</strong>. New information drives out the old</mark>. </u>You could, logically, defend <u>targets like 450</u> or 2 degrees C as the best we could hope for politically, especially if you add that they represent absolute upper limits that we must bounce back below as quickly as possible. But even that is politically problematic, because it <u>implies—to policy makers</u> and the general public—<u>that we still have atmosphere left in which to put more carbon</u>, and time to gradually adjust policies. <u>We don't—not with feedback loops like methane release starting to kick in with a vengeance</u>. It is, we think, far wiser to tell people the best science, in part because it motivates action. <u>It's the difference between a doctor telling you that you really should think about changing your diet and a doctor telling you your cholesterol is already too high and a heart attack is imminent. </u>The second scenario is the one that gets your attention. A number of <u>small island nations and less developed country <mark>governments have joined </mark>leaders like Al Gore in enunciating firmly the <mark>350 </mark>target, and <strong><mark>equating it with survival</mark>.</u></strong> Climate coalition groups like TckTckTck have also endorsed the target, as have a growing coalition of hundreds of organizational allies. Here's the important thing to remember: <u>arguing for 350 is <mark>not making "the perfect the enemy of the good." It's making the necessary the enemy of the convenient</mark>. </u>We were aware that we wouldn't get an agreement in Copenhagen that rapidly returns us to 350—even if we do everything right it will take decades for the world's oceans and forests to absorb the excess carbon we've already poured into the atmosphere. But that's why we've got to get going now—and at the very least we have a number to explain why the agreement that did emerge is insufficient and needs to be revised quickly and regularly. We can use it to make Copenhagen a real beginning, not an end for years to come the way Kyoto was. In the end, everyone needs to remember that the goal at Copenhagen was not to get a "victory," not to sign an agreement. It's to actually take steps commensurate with the problem. And those steps are dictated, in the end, by science. This negotiation, on the surface, is between America and China and the EU and India and the developing world; between industry and environmentalists; between old and new technology. But at root the real negotiation is between human beings on the one hand, and physics and chemistry on the other. <u><strong><mark>Physics and chemistry have laid their cards on the table: above 350 the world doesn't work. They are not going to negotiate further</strong></mark>. It's up to us to figure out, this year and in the years ahead, how to meet their bottom line.</p></u>

1NR

Hemp

Too late sry

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

But actually we’re at 400 ppm

Thompson 6-14

Thompson 6-14

SJE June will be the third month in a row with average carbon dioxide levels above 400 p p m it serves to show how much carbon dioxide has been put into the atmosphere since preindustrial times prominent climate scientists have said that amount of warming will still be too much.

Andrea, Climate Central reporter, “New CO2 Milestone: 3 Months Above 400 PPM” http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-milestone-400-ppm-climate-17692 SJE April fell first. It lasted through May. Now June will be the third month in a row with average carbon dioxide levels above 400 parts per million.¶ Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas, which helps drive global warming, haven’t been this high in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years.¶ Click image to enlarge.¶ And while the 400 ppm mark is somewhat symbolic (as the increase in warming between 399 ppm and 400 ppm is small), it serves to show how much carbon dioxide has been put into the atmosphere since preindustrial times, when concentrations were around 280 ppm. The increase in this and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has warmed Earth’s average temperature by 1.6°F since the beginning of the 20th century. World leaders agreed at a UN summit in 2009 to limit warming to 3.6°F, but prominent climate scientists like James Hansen have said that amount of warming will still be too much.

<h4><u><strong>But actually we’re at 400 ppm</h4><p>Thompson 6-14</p><p></u></strong>Andrea, Climate Central reporter, “New CO2 Milestone: 3 Months Above 400 PPM” http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-milestone-400-ppm-climate-17692<u> SJE</p><p></u>April fell first. It lasted through May. Now <u>June will be the third month in a row with average carbon dioxide levels above 400</u> <u>p</u>arts <u>p</u>er <u>m</u>illion.¶ Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas, which helps drive global warming, haven’t been this high in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years.¶ Click image to enlarge.¶ And while the 400 ppm mark is somewhat symbolic (as the increase in warming between 399 ppm and 400 ppm is small), <u>it serves to show how much carbon dioxide has been put into the atmosphere since preindustrial times</u>, when concentrations were around 280 ppm. The increase in this and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has warmed Earth’s average temperature by 1.6°F since the beginning of the 20th century. World leaders agreed at a UN summit in 2009 to limit warming to 3.6°F, but <u>prominent climate scientists</u> like James Hansen <u>have said that amount of warming will still be too much.</p></u>

1NR

Hemp

Too late sry

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

N

UNLV

1

Whitman DL

Justin Kirk

1ac was marijuana with cartels and hemp 1nc was t legalization spec security k neolib k and case 2nc was security and case 1nr was neolib and case 2nr was neolib and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UNLV-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Damage-centered research produces an affective economy of paternalism that creates a model of personhood for the subaltern where to be human, they must be in pain and they dare not resist or suffer the consequences – such a colonial subjectivity re-inscribes the primacy of state power

Tuck and Yang 14. ) //MD

Tuck and Yang 14. (Eve Tuck – professor of educational studies and coordinator of Native American Studies at the State University of New York at New Paltz, K Wayne Yang – professor of ethnic studies at UC San Diego, “R-Words: Refusing Research,” https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf) //MD Elsewhere, Eve (Tuck, 2009, 2010) has argued that educational research and much of social science research has been concerned with documenting damage, or empirically substantiating the oppression and pain of Native communities, urban communities, and other disenfranchised communities. Damage-centered researchers may operate, even benevolently, within a theory of change in which harm must be recorded or proven in order to convince an outside adjudicator that reparations are deserved. These reparations presumably take the form of additional resources, settlements, affirmative actions, and other material, political, and sovereign adjustments. Eve has described this theory of change1 as both colonial and flawed, because it relies upon Western notions of power as scarce and concentrated, and because it requires disenfranchised communities to position themselves as both singularly defective and powerless to make change (2010). Finally, Eve has observed that “won” reparations rarely become reality, and that in many cases, communities are left with a narrative that tells them that they are broken.

at the center of the analysis in this chapter is a concern with the fixation social science research has exhibited in eliciting pain stories from communities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s demonstrated fascination with telling and retelling narratives of pain is troubling, both for its voyeurism and for its consumptive implacability. Imagining “itself to be a voice, and in some disciplinary iterations, the voice of the colonised” is not just a rare historical occurrence in anthropology and related fields. much of the work of the academy is to reproduce stories of oppression in its own voice. many individual scholars have chosen to pursue other lines of inquiry than the pain narratives typical of their disciplines, novice researchers emerge from doctoral programs eager to launch pain-based inquiry projects because they believe that such approaches embody what it means to do social science. The collection of pain narratives and the theories of change that champion the value of such narratives are so prevalent in the social sciences that one might surmise that they are indeed what the academy is about. No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. social science research is concerned with providing recognition to the presumed voiceless, a recognition that is enamored with knowing through pain. the researcher’s voice is constituted by, legitimated by, animated by the voices on the margins. The researcher-self is made anew by telling back the story of the marginalized/subaltern subject. Hooks works to untangle the almost imperceptible differences between forces that silence and forces that seemingly liberate by inviting those on the margins to speak, to tell their stories. Yet the forces that invite those on the margins to speak also say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. Only speak from that space in the margin that is a sign of deprivation, a wound, an unfulfilled longing. Only speak your pain” The costs of a politics of recognition that is rooted in naming pain have been critiqued by recent decolonizing and feminist scholars Hartman discusses how recognizing the personhood of slaves enhanced the power of the Southern slaveowning class. Supplicating narratives of former slaves were deployed effectively by abolitionists, mainly White, well-to-do, Northern women, to generate portraits of abuse that ergo recognize slaves as human new laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous with injury” while simultaneously authorizing necessary violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection” Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his abjection. You are in pain, therefore you are. “[T]he recognition of humanity require[s] the event of excessive violence, cruelty beyond the limits of the socially tolerable, in order to acknowledge and protect the slave’s person” slave-as-victim as human accordingly establishes slave-as-agent as criminal. agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as outsider violence that humane society must reject while simultaneously upholding the legitimated violence of the state to punish such outsider violence. “Is it possible that such recognition effectively forecloses agency as the object of punishment . . . Or is this limited conferral of humanity merely a reinscription of subjugation and pained existence?”

at the center is the fixation social science research has exhibited in eliciting pain stories from communities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s fascination with retelling pain is troubling, both for its voyeurism and consumptive implacability. . pain narratives are what the academy is about. No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. in such a way that it has become mine, my own. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. the forces say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. Only speak your pain” new laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous with injury” while simultaneously authorizing necessary violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection” Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his abjection. You are in pain, therefore you are. slave-as-victim as human accordingly establishes slave-as-agent as criminal. agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as outsider violence that humane society must reject while simultaneously upholding the legitimated violence of the state to punish such outsider violence.

Similarly, at the center of the analysis in this chapter is a concern with the fixation social science research has exhibited in eliciting pain stories from communities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s demonstrated fascination with telling and retelling narratives of pain is troubling, both for its voyeurism and for its consumptive implacability. Imagining “itself to be a voice, and in some disciplinary iterations, the voice of the colonised” (Simpson, 2007, p. 67, emphasis in the original) is not just a rare historical occurrence in anthropology and related fields. We observe that much of the work of the academy is to reproduce stories of oppression in its own voice. At first, this may read as an intolerant condemnation of the academy, one that refuses to forgive past blunders and see how things have changed in recent decades. However, it is our view that while many individual scholars have chosen to pursue other lines of inquiry than the pain narratives typical of their disciplines, novice researchers emerge from doctoral programs eager to launch pain-based inquiry projects because they believe that such approaches embody what it means to do social science. The collection of pain narratives and the theories of change that champion the value of such narratives are so prevalent in the social sciences that one might surmise that they are indeed what the academy is about. In her examination of the symbolic violence of the academy, bell hooks (1990) portrays the core message from the academy to those on the margins as thus: No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. (p. 343) Hooks’s words resonate with our observation of how much of social science research is concerned with providing recognition to the presumed voiceless, a recognition that is enamored with knowing through pain. Further, this passage describes the ways in which the researcher’s voice is constituted by, legitimated by, animated by the voices on the margins. The researcher-self is made anew by telling back the story of the marginalized/subaltern subject. Hooks works to untangle the almost imperceptible differences between forces that silence and forces that seemingly liberate by inviting those on the margins to speak, to tell their stories. Yet the forces that invite those on the margins to speak also say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. Only speak from that space in the margin that is a sign of deprivation, a wound, an unfulfilled longing. Only speak your pain” (hooks, 1990, p. 343). The costs of a politics of recognition that is rooted in naming pain have been critiqued by recent decolonizing and feminist scholars (Hartman, 1997, 2007; Tuck, 2009). In Scenes of Subjection, Sadiya Hartman (1997) discusses how recognizing the personhood of slaves enhanced the power of the Southern slaveowning class. Supplicating narratives of former slaves were deployed effectively by abolitionists, mainly White, well-to-do, Northern women, to generate portraits of abuse that ergo recognize slaves as human (Hartman, 2007). In response, new laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous with injury” (Hartman, 1997, p. 93), while simultaneously authorizing necessary violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection” (p. 55). Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his abjection. You are in pain, therefore you are. “[T]he recognition of humanity require[s] the event of excessive violence, cruelty beyond the limits of the socially tolerable, in order to acknowledge and protect the slave’s person” (p. 55). Furthermore, Hartman describes how slave-as-victim as human accordingly establishes slave-as-agent as criminal. Applying Hartman’s analysis, we note how the agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as outsider violence that humane society must reject while simultaneously upholding the legitimated violence of the state to punish such outsider violence. Hartman asks, “Is it possible that such recognition effectively forecloses agency as the object of punishment . . . Or is this limited conferral of humanity merely a reinscription of subjugation and pained existence?” (p. 55).

<h4><u>Damage-centered research produces an affective economy of paternalism that creates a model of personhood for the subaltern where to be human, they must be in pain and they dare not resist or suffer the consequences – such a colonial subjectivity re-inscribes the primacy of state power</h4><p><strong>Tuck and Yang 14. </u></strong>(Eve Tuck – professor of educational studies and coordinator of Native American Studies at the State University of New York at New Paltz, K Wayne Yang – professor of ethnic studies at UC San Diego, “R-Words: Refusing Research,” https://faculty.newpaltz.edu/evetuck/files/2013/12/Tuck-and-Yang-R-Words_Refusing-Research.pdf<u><strong>) //MD</p><p></u></strong>Elsewhere, Eve (Tuck, 2009, 2010) has argued that <u><mark>educational </mark>research <mark>and</mark> much of <mark>social science research has been concerned with documenting damage, or empirically substantiating the </mark>oppression and <mark>pain of</mark> Native communities, urban communities, and other <mark>disenfranchised communities. Damage-centered researchers may operate, even benevolently, within a theory of change in which harm must be recorded</mark> or proven <mark>in order to convince an <strong>outside adjudicator</strong> that reparations are deserved. These </mark>reparations presumably <mark>take the form of</mark> additional resources, settlements, affirmative actions, and other material, <mark>political, and sovereign adjustments. Eve has described this </mark>theory of change1 <mark>as</mark> both <mark>colonial </mark>and flawed, <mark>because it relies upon <strong>Western notions of power as scarce and concentrated</strong>, and </mark>because it <mark>requires disenfranchised communities to <strong>position themselves</strong> as</mark> both singularly defective and <mark>powerless to make change</u></mark> (2010). Finally, <u>Eve has observed that “won” <mark>reparations rarely become reality, and</mark> that</u> in many cases, <u><mark>communities are left with a narrative that <strong></mark>tells them that they are broken.</p><p></u></strong>Similarly, <u><mark>at the center </mark>of the analysis in this chapter <mark>is </mark>a concern with <mark>the fixation social science research has exhibited in <strong>eliciting pain stories</strong> from communities that are not White, not wealthy, and not straight. Academe’s </mark>demonstrated <mark>fascination with <strong></mark>telling and <mark>retelling</strong> </mark>narratives of <mark>pain is troubling, both for its <strong>voyeurism</strong> and </mark>for its <strong><mark>consumptive implacability.</strong> </mark>Imagining “itself to be a voice, and in some disciplinary iterations, the voice of the colonised”</u> (Simpson, 2007, p. 67, emphasis in the original) <u>is not just a rare historical occurrence in anthropology and related fields.</u> We observe that <u>much of the work of the academy is to reproduce stories of oppression in its own voice<mark>.</u></mark> At first, this may read as an intolerant condemnation of the academy, one that refuses to forgive past blunders and see how things have changed in recent decades. However, it is our view that while <u>many individual scholars have chosen to pursue other lines of inquiry than the pain narratives typical of their disciplines, novice researchers emerge from doctoral programs eager to launch pain-based inquiry projects because they believe that such approaches embody what it means to do social science. The collection of <mark>pain narratives </mark>and the theories of change that champion the value of such narratives are so prevalent in the social sciences that one might surmise that they <mark>are </mark>indeed <strong><mark>what the academy is about.</p><p></u></strong></mark>In her examination of the symbolic violence of the academy, bell hooks (1990) portrays the core message from the academy to those on the margins as thus: <u><mark>No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself.</mark> <strong>No need to hear your voice.</strong> <strong><mark>Only tell me about your pain.</strong> I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. </mark>Tell it back to you <mark>in such a way that it has become mine, my own. </mark>Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. <mark>I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk.</mark> </u>(p. 343)</p><p>Hooks’s words resonate with our observation of how much of <u>social science research is concerned with providing recognition to the presumed voiceless, a recognition that is enamored with knowing through pain.</u> Further, this passage describes the ways in which <u>the researcher’s voice is constituted by, legitimated by, animated by <strong>the voices on the margins.</u></strong> <u>The researcher-self is made anew by telling back the story of the marginalized/subaltern subject. Hooks works to untangle the almost imperceptible differences between forces that silence and forces that seemingly liberate by inviting those on the margins to speak, to tell their stories. Yet <mark>the forces </mark>that invite those on the margins to speak also <mark>say, “Do not speak in a voice of resistance. </mark>Only speak from that space in the margin that is a sign of deprivation, a wound, an unfulfilled longing. <strong><mark>Only speak your pain”</u></strong></mark> (hooks, 1990, p. 343).</p><p><u>The costs of a politics of recognition that is rooted in naming pain have been critiqued by recent decolonizing and feminist scholars</u> (Hartman, 1997, 2007; Tuck, 2009). In Scenes of Subjection, Sadiya <u>Hartman</u> (1997) <u>discusses how recognizing the personhood of slaves <strong>enhanced the power</strong> of the Southern slaveowning class. Supplicating narratives of former slaves were deployed effectively by abolitionists, mainly White, well-to-do, Northern women, to generate portraits of abuse that ergo recognize slaves as human</u> (Hartman, 2007). In response, <u><mark>new laws afforded minimal standards of existence, “making personhood coterminous with injury”</u></mark> (Hartman, 1997, p. 93), <u><mark>while simultaneously authorizing necessary violence to suppress slave agency. The slave emerges as a legal person only when seen as criminal or “a violated body in need of limited forms of protection”</u></mark> (p. 55). <u><mark>Recognition “humanizes” the slave, but is predicated upon her or his abjection. <strong>You are in pain, therefore you are.</u></strong> <u></mark>“[T]he recognition of humanity require[s] the event of excessive violence, cruelty beyond the limits of the socially tolerable, in order to acknowledge and protect the slave’s person”</u> (p. 55). Furthermore, Hartman describes how <u><strong><mark>slave-as-victim as human accordingly establishes slave-as-agent as criminal.</u></strong></mark> Applying Hartman’s analysis, we note how the <u><mark>agency of Margaret Garner or Nat Turner can only be viewed as <strong>outsider violence</strong> that humane society must <strong>reject</strong> while simultaneously upholding the <strong>legitimated violence</strong> of the state to punish such outsider violence.</u></mark> Hartman asks, <u>“Is it possible that such recognition effectively forecloses agency as the object of punishment . . . Or is this limited conferral of humanity merely a reinscription of subjugation and pained existence?”</u> (p. 55).</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We must exhaust the 1AC through an act of radical passivity which forces the system to commit suicide – such a project is necessary to prevent the absorption of all resistance into the furthering of the sovereign juridical matrix

Bifo 11

Bifo 11 Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Professor of Social History of Communication at the Accademia di Belle Arti of Milan, After the Future, pg. 104-108

Time is in the mind The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level we are here touching upon a crucial point Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as an energetic process: mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions But in our age energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization and financial games the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object Today the whole system is swamped by indeterminacy, and every reality is absorbed by the hyperreality of the code and simulation We must therefore reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system The entire apparatus of the commodity law of value is absorbed and recycled in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra The brain is the market, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely The proliferation of simulacra in the info-sphere has saturated the space of attention and imagination Advertising and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), have submitted the energies of the social psyche to permanent mobilization Exhaustion follows, and exhaustion is the only way of escape Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide So hostages are taken On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity No need for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects. the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it it was party to its own destruction . The West has become suicidal, and declared war on itself In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow movement towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism adopt the mode of passivity A radical passivity would definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years the most powerful weapon has been suicide 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere it is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal The exchange between life and money could be deserted exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic growth The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as energetic mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization The prolif of simulacra has saturated the space of attention and imagination. Advertising have submitted the energies permanent mobilization exhaustion is the only way of escape:¶ Nothing, can avoid the symbolic obligation, The system must itself commit suicide in response to the challenge of death and suicide. So hostages are taken , from which every moral consideration victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial ac No need for a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects The West has become suicidal exhaustion is seen as the inability body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: exhaustion could become a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon activism, and adopt the mode of passivity. A radical passivity would threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed the work bubble, would finally deflate. We have been working too much , and outrageously too much during the last thirty years is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawa The exchange between life and money could be deserted, exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out economic growth the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth

Time is in the mind. The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level. I think that we are here touching upon a crucial point. The process of re-composition, of conscious and collective subjectivation, finds here a new – paradoxical – way. Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as an energetic process: mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions. But in our age energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization and financial games, as Jean Baudrillard (1993a) argues in his book Symbolic Exchange and Death, first published in 1976. In this book Baudrillard analyzes the hyper-realistic stage of capitalism, and the instauration of the logic of simulation.¶ Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction. It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal. [...]¶ The reality principle corresponds to a certain stage of the law of value. Today the whole system is swamped by indeterminacy, and every reality is absorbed by the hyperreality of the code and simulation. The principle of simulation governs us now, rather that the outdated reality principle. We feed on those forms whose finalities have disappeared. No more ideology, only simulacra. We must therefore reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system. A structural revolution of value. This genealogy must cover political economy, where it will appear as a second-order simulacrum, just like all those that stake everything on the real: the real of production, the real of signification, whether conscious or unconscious. Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy: it operates with political economy as its simulated model. The entire apparatus of the commodity law of value is absorbed and recycled in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra. Political economy is thus assured a second life, an eternity, within the confines of an apparatus in which it has lost all its strict determinacy, but maintains an effective presence as a system of reference for simulation. (Baudrillard 1993a: 2)¶ Simulation is the new plane of consistency of capitalist growth: financial speculation, for instance, has displaced the process of exploitation from the sphere of material production to the sphere of expectations, desire, and immaterial labor. The simulation process (Cyberspace) is proliferating without limits, irradiating signs that go everywhere in the attention market. The brain is the market, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality. And the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely.
 The process of collective subjectivation (i.e. social recomposition) implies the development of a common language-affection which is essentially happening in the temporal dimension. The semiocapitalist acceleration of time has destroyed the social possibility of sensitive elaboration of the semio-flow. The proliferation of simulacra in the info-sphere has saturated the space of attention and imagination. Advertising and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), have submitted the energies of the social psyche to permanent mobilization. Exhaustion follows, and exhaustion is the only way of escape:¶ Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide. So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act. (Baudrillard 1993a: 37)¶ In these impressive pages Baudrillard outlines the end of the modern dialectics of revolution against power, of the labor movement against capitalist domination, and predicts the advent of a new form of action which will be marked by the sacrificial gift of death (and self-annihilation). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in the most important terrorist act ever, Baudrillard wrote a short text titled The Spirit of Terrorism where he goes back to his own predictions and recognizes the emergence of a catastrophic age. When the code becomes the enemy the only strategy can be catastrophic:¶ all the counterphobic ravings about exorcizing evil: it is because it is there, everywhere, like an obscure object of desire. Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity. (Baudrillard 2003: 6)¶ This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power by the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. This malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share this order’s benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order:¶ No need, then, for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects. Very logically – inexorably – the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it. And it was party to its own destruction. When the two towers collapsed, you had the impression that they were responding to the suicide of the suicide-planes with their own suicides. It has been said that “Even God cannot declare war on Himself.” Well, He can. The West, in position of God (divine omnipotence and absolute moral legitimacy), has become suicidal, and declared war on itself. (Baudrillard 2003: 6-7)¶ In Baudrillard’s catastrophic vision I see a new way of thinking subjectivity: a reversal of the energetic subjectivation that animates the revolutionary theories of the 20th century, and the opening of an implosive theory of subversion, based on depression and exhaustion.¶ In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle. But exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow movement towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism, and adopt the mode of passivity. A radical passivity would definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed.¶ The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate. We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade – the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam – we recognize that the most powerful weapon has been suicide. 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony. And they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere. Against neoliberal politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy, when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death, murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life?
 I think that it is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal. The exchange between life and money could be deserted, and exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange. A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic growth. The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth, and start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

<h4><u><strong>We must exhaust the 1AC through an act of radical passivity which forces the system to commit suicide – such a project is necessary to prevent the absorption of all resistance into the furthering of the sovereign juridical matrix</h4><p>Bifo 11</p><p></u></strong>Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Professor of Social History of Communication at the Accademia di Belle Arti of Milan, After the Future, <u>pg. 104-108</p><p>Time is in the mind</u>. <u>The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level</u>. I think that <u>we are here touching upon a crucial point</u>. The process of re-composition, of conscious and collective subjectivation, finds here a new – paradoxical – way. <u><mark>Modern radical thought has always <strong>seen the process of subjectivation</strong></mark> <mark>as</mark> an <strong><mark>energetic</mark> process</strong>: <strong><mark>mobilization</strong>, social <strong>desire</strong> and political <strong>activism</strong>, expression, <strong>participation</strong> have been the modes of conscious collective</mark> subjectivation in the age of the revolutions</u>. <u>But in our age <strong><mark>energy is running out</strong>, and <strong>desire</strong> which has given soul to modern social dynamics is <strong>absorbed in the black hole of virtualization</mark> and financial games</u></strong>, as Jean Baudrillard (1993a) argues in his book Symbolic Exchange and Death, first published in 1976. In this book Baudrillard analyzes the hyper-realistic stage of capitalism, and the instauration of the logic of simulation.¶ Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, <u>the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction</u>. <u>It becomes reality for its own sake, the <strong>fetishism of the lost object</u></strong>: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal. [...]¶ The reality principle corresponds to a certain stage of the law of value. <u>Today the whole system is <strong>swamped by indeterminacy</strong>, and every reality is <strong>absorbed by the hyperreality</strong> of the code and simulation</u>. The principle of simulation governs us now, rather that the outdated reality principle. We feed on those forms whose finalities have disappeared. No more ideology, only simulacra. <u>We must therefore <strong>reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value</strong> and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system</u>. A structural revolution of value. This genealogy must cover political economy, where it will appear as a second-order simulacrum, just like all those that stake everything on the real: the real of production, the real of signification, whether conscious or unconscious. Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy: it operates with political economy as its simulated model. <u>The entire apparatus of <strong>the commodity law of value</strong> is <strong>absorbed and recycled</strong> in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra</u>. Political economy is thus assured a second life, an eternity, within the confines of an apparatus in which it has lost all its strict determinacy, but maintains an effective presence as a system of reference for simulation. (Baudrillard 1993a: 2)¶ Simulation is the new plane of consistency of capitalist growth: financial speculation, for instance, has displaced the process of exploitation from the sphere of material production to the sphere of expectations, desire, and immaterial labor. The simulation process (Cyberspace) is proliferating without limits, irradiating signs that go everywhere in the attention market. <u><strong>The brain is the market</strong>, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality</u>. And <u>the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely</u>.
 The process of collective subjectivation (i.e. social recomposition) implies the development of a common language-affection which is essentially happening in the temporal dimension. The semiocapitalist acceleration of time has destroyed the social possibility of sensitive elaboration of the semio-flow. <u><mark>The <strong>prolif</mark>eration <mark>of simulacra</strong></mark> in the info-sphere <mark>has <strong>saturated</strong> the space of <strong>attention and imagination</u></strong>.</mark> <u><mark>Advertising</mark> and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), <mark>have <strong>submitted the energies</strong></mark> of the social psyche to <strong><mark>permanent mobilization</u></strong></mark>. <u>Exhaustion follows, and <strong><mark>exhaustion is the only way of escape</u></strong>:¶ <u>Nothing, </mark>not even the system, <strong><mark>can avoid the symbolic obligation</strong>, </mark>and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains</u>. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. <u><mark>The system <strong>must itself commit suicide</strong> in response to the</mark> multiplied <strong><mark>challenge of death and suicide</u></strong>. <u><strong>So hostages are taken</u></strong></mark>. <u>On the symbolic or sacrificial plane<mark>, from which every moral consideration</mark> of the innocence of the <mark>victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute</mark>, the alter-ego of the terrorist, <mark>the hostage’s death for the terrorist. <strong>Hostage and terrorist</strong> may thereafter become <strong>confused</strong> in the same sacrificial ac</mark>t</u>. (Baudrillard 1993a: 37)¶ In these impressive pages Baudrillard outlines the end of the modern dialectics of revolution against power, of the labor movement against capitalist domination, and predicts the advent of a new form of action which will be marked by the sacrificial gift of death (and self-annihilation). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in the most important terrorist act ever, Baudrillard wrote a short text titled The Spirit of Terrorism where he goes back to his own predictions and recognizes the emergence of a catastrophic age. When the code becomes the enemy the only strategy can be catastrophic:¶ all the counterphobic ravings about exorcizing evil: it is because it is there, everywhere, like an obscure object of desire. <u>Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity</u>. (Baudrillard 2003: 6)¶ This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power by the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. This malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share this order’s benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order:¶ <u><mark>No need</u></mark>, then, <u><mark>for a</mark> death drive or a <mark>destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects</mark>.</u> Very logically – inexorably – <u>the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it</u>. And <u>it was party to its own destruction</u>. When the two towers collapsed, you had the impression that they were responding to the suicide of the suicide-planes with their own suicides. It has been said that “Even God cannot declare war on Himself.” Well, He can<u>. <mark>The West</u></mark>, in position of God (divine omnipotence and absolute moral legitimacy), <u><mark>has become suicidal</mark>, and declared war on itself</u>. (Baudrillard 2003: 6-7)¶ In Baudrillard’s catastrophic vision I see a new way of thinking subjectivity: a reversal of the energetic subjectivation that animates the revolutionary theories of the 20th century, and the opening of an implosive theory of subversion, based on depression and exhaustion.¶ <u>In the activist view <mark>exhaustion is seen as the inability</mark> of the social <mark>body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared:</mark> deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle</u>. But <u><strong><mark>exhaustion</strong> could</mark> also <mark>become </mark>the beginning of <strong>a slow movement</strong> towards <mark>a “wu wei” civilization, based on the <strong>withdrawal</strong>, and frugal expectations of life and consumption</u>. <u>Radicalism could abandon</mark> the mode of <mark>activism</u>, and <u><strong>adopt the mode of passivity</u></strong>. <u>A <strong>radical passivity</strong> would</mark> definitely <strong><mark>threaten the ethos</strong> of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed</u></mark>.¶ <u>The mother of all the bubbles, <mark>the work bubble, would finally deflate</u>. <u>We have been <strong>working too much</strong></mark> during the last three or four centuries<mark>, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years</u></mark>. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade – the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam – we recognize that <u>the most powerful weapon has been suicide</u>. <u>9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony</u>. And <u>they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ </u>The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. <u><strong>Suicide</strong> has became <strong>a form of political action</strong> everywhere</u>. Against neoliberal politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy, when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death, murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life?
 I think that <u>it <mark>is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawa</mark>l</u>. <u><mark>The exchange between life and money could be <strong>deserted</u></strong>,</mark> and <u><mark>exhaustion could give way to <strong>a huge wave of withdrawal</strong></mark> from the sphere of economic exchange</u>. <u><mark>A new refrain could <strong>emerge in that moment</strong>, and wipe out</mark> the law of <mark>economic growth</u></mark>. <u>The self-organization of <mark>the general intellect could <strong>abandon the law of accumulation and growth</u></strong></mark>, and <u>start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.</p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We affirm a politics of stealing away – we must abuse the university’s openness to give power back to the undercommons

Moten and Harney 04.

Moten and Harney 04. Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, The University and the Undercommons, SEVEN THESES Social Text 79, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 2004. Copyright © 2004 by Duke University Press

To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university Call out to it as it calls to you But for the subversive intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, into the Undercommons of Enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong teaching would be performing the work of the university Teaching is merely a profession and an operation of what Jacques Derrida calls the onto-/auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby erased by it it is teaching that brings us in The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually, one should not teach for food if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university But what would it mean if the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance And what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the Undercommons—this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act it is at the same time, the only possible act In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research. To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, the criminal, matricidal, queer, in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life, the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching

To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality spite its mission join its refugee colony the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love She disappears into the underground into the Undercommons Teaching is a profession an operation what Derrida calls the auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas it is teaching that brings us in what would it mean if the beyond of teaching” is what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance And what of those minorities who refuse as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes into the Undercommons this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act it is the only possible act To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural the criminal, matricidal, queer on the stroll of the stolen life the life stolen by enlightenment stolen back it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others

“To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal,” to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us. This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. This may be true of universities everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But certainly, this much is true in the United States: it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. Call out to it as it calls to you. But for the subversive intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men. After all, the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love. Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome. The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings. And on top of all that, she disappears. She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, into the Undercommons of Enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong. What is that work and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to say teaching, one would be performing the work of the university. Teaching is merely a profession and an operation of what Jacques Derrida calls the onto-/auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas. But it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters. The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby erased by it. It is not teaching then that holds this social capacity, but something that produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to call the prophetic organization. But it is teaching that brings us in. Before there are grants, research, conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book, teaching happened. The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually, one should not teach for food. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the university. But if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university. Kant interestingly calls such a stage “self-incurred minority.” He tries to contrast it with having the “determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another.” “Have the courage to use your own intelligence.” But what would it mean if teaching or rather what we might call “the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance? And what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority? Certainly, the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste. But their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment. The waste lives for those moments 102 Moten/Harneybeyond2 teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase— unexpected, no one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the Enlightenment truly better than this? Perhaps the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must. But even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional. And one may be given one last chance to be pragmatic—why steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the Undercommons—this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act. And it is at the same time, the only possible act. In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research. To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, the criminal, matricidal, queer, in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life, the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons. What the beyond2 of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not completing; it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching.

<h4>We affirm a politics of stealing away – we must abuse the university’s openness to give power back to the undercommons</h4><p><u><strong>Moten and Harney 04.</u></strong> Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, The University and the Undercommons, SEVEN THESES Social Text 79, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 2004. Copyright © 2004 by Duke University Press</p><p>“<u><strong><mark>To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal</u></strong></mark>,” to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us. <u>This is the only possible relationship to the American university today.</u> This may be true of universities everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But certainly, this much is true in the United States: <u>it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment</u>. In the face of these conditions <u><mark>one can only <strong>sneak into the university</strong> and <strong>steal what one can</u></strong>. <u><strong>To abuse its hospitality</strong></mark>, to <mark>spite its mission</mark>, to <mark>join its refugee colony</mark>, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university</u>. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. <u><strong>Call out to it as it calls to you</u></strong>. <u>But for the <strong>subversive intellectual</strong>, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men</u>. After all, <u><mark>the subversive intellectual <strong>came under false pretenses</strong>, with <strong>bad documents</strong>, <strong>out of love</u></strong></mark>. <u>Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome</u>. The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings. And on top of all that, she disappears. <u><mark>She disappears into the underground</mark>, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, <mark>into the Undercommons</mark> of Enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong</u>. What is that work and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to say <u>teaching</u>, one <u>would be performing the work of the university</u>. <u><strong><mark>Teaching</strong> is</mark> merely <mark>a <strong>profession</strong></mark> and <strong><mark>an operation</strong></mark> of <mark>what</mark> Jacques <mark>Derrida calls <strong>the</mark> </strong>onto-<strong>/<mark>auto-encyclopedic</strong> circle of the Universitas</u></mark>. But <u>it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters</u>. <u>The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby <strong>erased by it</u></strong>. It is not teaching then that holds this social capacity, but something that produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to call the prophetic organization. But <u><mark>it is teaching that brings us in</u></mark>. Before there are grants, research, conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book, teaching happened. <u>The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually, one should not teach for food</u>. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the university. But <u>if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university</u>. Kant interestingly calls such a stage “self-incurred minority.” He tries to contrast it with having the “determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another.” “Have the courage to use your own intelligence.” <u>But <mark>what would it mean if</u></mark> teaching or rather what we might call “<u><mark>the <strong>beyond of teaching</strong>” is</mark> precisely <mark>what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance</u></mark>? <u><mark>And what of those minorities who refuse</mark>, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), <mark>as if <strong>they will not be subjects</strong>, as if <strong>they want to think as objects</strong>, as <strong>minority</u></strong></mark>? Certainly, <u>the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste</u>. But <u><mark>their collective labor will always call into question <strong>who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment</u></strong></mark>. The waste lives for those moments 102 Moten/Harneybeyond2 teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase— unexpected, no one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the Enlightenment truly better than this? Perhaps <u>the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must</u>. But <u>even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional</u>. And one may be given one last chance to be pragmatic—why steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But <u><mark>if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes</mark> with hands full into the underground of the university, <mark>into the Undercommons</mark>—<mark>this will be <strong>regarded as theft</strong>, as a <strong>criminal act</u></strong></mark>. And <u><mark>it is</mark> at the same time, <strong><mark>the only possible act</u></strong></mark>. <u>In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research. <mark>To enter this space is to <strong>inhabit the ruptural</strong></mark> and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, <strong><mark>the criminal</strong>, <strong>matricidal</strong>, <strong>queer</strong></mark>, in the cistern, <strong><mark>on the stroll of the stolen life</strong></mark>, <mark>the life stolen by enlightenment</mark> and <strong><mark>stolen back</strong></mark>, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons</u>. What the beyond2 of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not completing; <u><mark>it’s about <strong>allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others</strong></mark>, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching</u>.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Academia is a pollution of the affirmative project—an inoculation and re-scripting of the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation of social death

Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9

Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9 (“The Necrosocial – Civic Life, Social Death, and the University of California,” November 2009, Craccum Magazine – University of Auckland Student Magazine. Iss. 4, 2012. http://craccum.ausa.auckland.ac.nz/?p=286) [m leap]

here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like the university just like the state just like the economy manages our social death, translating what we once knew from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social conflict. Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement. He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death. He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether—that is, meaning is ripped from action. Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: to perpetually deliberate, the endless fleshing-out-of—when we push the boundaries of this form they are quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us Each day passes in this way, the administration out to shape student discourse—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. It becomes banal, thoughtless The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning. As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death. Social death is, of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity. A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death the university is a graveyard, but it is also a factory: a factory of meaning which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property). Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless demands. Totally managed death. A machine for administering death As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the university’s ghosts, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs, given their book titles, their citations. This is our gothic—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. We form teams, schools ideologies, identities each group gets its own designated burial plot Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality translates to a value of domination. It should never feel terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this same dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. The values create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in general. They sell the practice through the image. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice. Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we are willing to play, how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a function of war. War contains the ability to create a new frame, to build a new tension for the agents at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures We are an antagonistic dead.

the university manages our social death, translating what we once knew into acceptable forms of social conflict. the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where meaning is ripped from action to perpetually deliberate when we push the boundaries they reconfigure themselves to contain us the administration out to shape student discourse It becomes banal, thoughtless The university steals and homogenizes meaning the university is a graveyard a factory of meaning which reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students discourse designed to make our moments together into a set of legible and fruitless demands Totally managed death. A machine for administering death each which seek to absorb more of our energy they perpetuate the inertia of meaning detached from social context these discourses and research programs play their role, co-opting and containing radical potential The university gladly permits precautionary lectures A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us the university’s ghosts are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs We form teams, identities each group gets its own designated burial plot . Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures We are an antagonistic dead.

Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like the university just like the state just like the economy manages our social death, translating what we once knew from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social conflict. Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement. When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money. He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death. He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether—that is, meaning is ripped from action. Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: to perpetually deliberate, the endless fleshing-out-of—when we push the boundaries of this form they are quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us: the chancellor’s congratulations, the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assembly—there is no fight against the administration here, only its own extension. Each day passes in this way, the administration on the look out to shape student discourse—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. It becomes banal, thoughtless. So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two, how close to being this or that, how far? This accumulation is our shared history. This accumulation—every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreak—is a muted, but desirous life. A dead but restless and desirous life. The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning. As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death. Social death is, of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity. A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which our feet are planted. Yes, the university is a graveyard, but it is also a factory: a factory of meaning which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property). Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless demands. Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard– así es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity, equality, democracy. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the university’s ghosts, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs, given their book titles, their citations. This is our gothic—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subcultures—and thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality translates to a value of domination. We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others. It should never feel terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this same dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. We know their values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of course, and in this moment of practiced theater—the fight between the university and its own students—we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by the very institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for them to adhere to their values. What many have learned again and again is that these institutions don’t care for those values, not at all, not for all. And we are only beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. The values create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in general. They sell the practice through the image. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice. In this crisis the Chancellors and Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university economically and socially—which is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation. Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we are willing to play, how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Every institution has of course our best interest in mind, so much so that we’re willing to pay, to enter debt contracts, to strike a submissive pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the workplace to pay back those debts. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a function of war. War contains the ability to create a new frame, to build a new tension for the agents at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. It is November 2009. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures and self-propelled, unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead.

<h4>Academia is a pollution of the affirmative project—an inoculation and re-scripting of the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation of social death</h4><p><u><strong>Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9</u></strong> (“The Necrosocial – Civic Life, Social Death, and the University of California,” November 2009, Craccum Magazine – University of Auckland Student Magazine. Iss. 4, 2012. http://craccum.ausa.auckland.ac.nz/?p=286) [m leap]</p><p>Yes, very much a cemetery. Only <u>here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like <mark>the university </mark>just like the state just like the economy <strong><mark>manages our social death</strong>, translating what we once knew</mark> from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, <mark>into acceptable forms of social conflict.</mark> Who knew that behind so much civic life</u> <u>(electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam)</u> <u>was so much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement. </u>When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money. <u>He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death. He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, <mark>the <strong>release valve</strong> of the university plunges us into an abyss where</mark> ideas are wisps of ether—that is, <strong><mark>meaning is ripped from action</strong></mark>. Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: <mark>to <strong>perpetually deliberate</strong></mark>, the endless fleshing-out-of—<mark>when we push the boundaries</mark> of this form <mark>they </mark>are quick <strong>to <mark>reconfigure themselves to contain us</u></strong></mark>: the chancellor’s congratulations, the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assembly—there is no fight against the administration here, only its own extension.<u> Each day passes in this way, <mark>the administration</mark> </u>on the look<u> <mark>out to shape student discourse</mark>—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. <mark>It becomes <strong>banal, thoughtless</u></strong></mark>. So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two, how close to being this or that, how far? This accumulation is our shared history. This accumulation—every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreak—is a muted, but desirous life. A dead but restless and desirous life. <u><mark>The university</mark> steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also <strong><mark>steals and homogenizes meaning</strong></mark>. As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death. <strong>Social death is</strong>, of course, simply the power source, <strong>the generator, of civic life</strong> with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity. A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death</u>: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which our feet are planted. Yes, <u><strong><mark>the university is a graveyard</strong></mark>, but it is also a factory: <strong><mark>a factory of meaning</strong> </mark>which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; <mark>which </mark>everywhere <mark>reproduces the <strong>empty reactionary behavior of students</strong> </mark>based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property).</u> Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. <u>Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, <strong><mark>discourse designed to make our </mark>very <mark>moments </mark>here <mark>together into a set of legible and fruitless demands</strong></mark>. <mark>Totally managed death. A machine for administering death</u></mark>, for the proliferation of technologies of death. <u>As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, <strong>it matters little what face one puts on the university</u></strong>—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—<u><mark>each </mark>one the product of some exploitation—<mark>which seek to absorb more of our </mark>work, more tuition, more <mark>energy</mark>.</u> The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place.<u> With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, <mark>they perpetuate the </u></mark>blind <u><strong><mark>inertia of meaning</strong></mark> ostensibly <strong><mark>detached from</strong></mark> its <strong><mark>social context</strong></mark>. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, <mark>these discourses and research programs play their</mark> own <mark>role, <strong>co-opting and containing radical potential</u></strong></mark>. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. <u><mark>The university gladly permits</mark> the <strong><mark>precautionary lectures</strong></mark> on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. <strong><mark>A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us</strong></mark> against any confrontational radicalism.</u> And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard– así es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity, equality, democracy. <u>Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to <strong><mark>the university’s ghosts</strong></mark>, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They <mark>are<strong> summoned forth and banished</strong> by a few well-meaning <strong>phrases and research programs</strong></mark>, given their book titles, their <strong>citations</strong>. <strong>This is our gothic</strong>—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us.</u> Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. <u><mark>We form teams,</u></mark> clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, <u>schools</u>, unions, <u>ideologies, <mark>identities</u></mark>, and subcultures—and thankfully <u><strong><mark>each group gets its own designated burial plot</u></strong></mark>. <u>Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality translates to a value of domination<mark>.</mark> </u>We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others.<u> It should never feel terrible ordering others around, right? It should never <strong>feel terrible</strong> to <strong>diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital</strong> as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this <strong>same dream of domination.</strong> After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are <strong>convinced, owned, broken.</u></strong> We know their values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of course, and in this moment of practiced theater—the fight between the university and its own students—we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by the very institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for them to adhere to their values. What many have learned again and again is that these institutions don’t care for those values, not at all, not for all. And we are only beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. <u>The values create popular images and ideals</u> <u>(healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education)</u> <u>while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in general. <strong>They sell the practice through the image</strong>. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice.</u> In this crisis the Chancellors and Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university economically and socially—which is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation. <u>Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just <strong>how dead we are willing to play</strong>, how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. </u>Every institution has of course our best interest in mind, so much so that we’re willing to pay, to enter debt contracts, to strike a submissive pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the workplace to pay back those debts.<u> Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. <strong><mark>Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning. </mark>It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact</strong>.</u> <u>It’s the particular nature of being owned. <strong>Social rupture</strong> is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a <strong>function of war</strong>. War contains the ability to create a <strong>new frame</strong>, to build a <strong>new tension</strong> for the agents at play, <strong>new dynamics</strong> in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war.</u> It is November 2009. <u><mark>For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures </u></mark>and self-propelled, unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations. <u><strong><mark>We are an antagonistic dead.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Their critique of state power in the context of the prohibition on prostitution is hijacked by anti-state neoliberalism

Gupta 12

Gupta 12

Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism promotes privatisation and deregulation to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete without interference from a state capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal the right has little to say about patriarchy The critique of the state mounted by feminists when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda by neoliberalism If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency free even of patriarchal restraints It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’ If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make prostitution is seen as a liberation Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project neo-liberalism promotes privatisation and deregulation to safeguard the individual to compete without interference from a state capitalism co-opts the opposition neoliberalism serves to co-opt the feminist critique The critique of the state mounted by feminists neoliberal values created a space for fake feminism This period represented appropriation of the feminist agenda, by neoliberalism. If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women it was the idea of agency free even of patriarchal restraints It emphasised self-sufficiency undermining struggles The world was your oyster all you needed to do was compete capitalism is committed to the ‘fetishism of choice’ If women choose things that disadvantage them it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make prostitution is seen as a liberation Choice is their weapon their so-called free expression they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

Rahila is a freelance journalist and published author, January 4th, https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways, “Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?”, AB Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project to which it is in hock in order to make it deliver for women. It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order that is hovering on the horizon, says Rahila Gupta How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks the developed world. While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth. The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, promotes privatisation and deregulation in order to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete and consume without interference from a bloated state. According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down. The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books. The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back. The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’. I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions. It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends. If part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, the right has little to say about patriarchy. What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant. The critique of the state mounted by feminists such as Elizabeth Wilson when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded. It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls. This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda, shorn of its political context, by neoliberalism. Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters. If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints. It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while at the same time undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’. If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because prostitution is seen as a liberation from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

<h4><u><strong>Their critique of state power in the context of the prohibition on prostitution is hijacked by anti-state neoliberalism </h4><p>Gupta 12</p><p></u></strong>Rahila is a freelance journalist and published author, January 4th, https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways, “Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?”, AB </p><p><u><strong><mark>Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project</u></strong></mark> to which it is in hock in order to make it deliver for women. <u>It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order</u> that is hovering on the horizon, says Rahila Gupta How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks the developed world. While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth. <u>The current phase of capitalism – <mark>neo-liberalism</u></mark> – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, <u><mark>promotes privatisation and deregulation</mark> </u>in order <u><mark>to</mark> <mark>safeguard</u></mark> <u><mark>the</mark> freedom of the <mark>individual to compete</u></mark> and consume <u><mark>without interference from a</u> </mark>bloated <u><mark>state</u></mark>. According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down. The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books. The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back. The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’. I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions. It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, <u><mark>capitalism co-opts the opposition</mark> to its own ends</u>. If <u>part of the project of <mark>neoliberalism</mark> is to shrink the size of the state, it <mark>serves</mark> its purpose <mark>to co-opt the feminist critique</mark> that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal</u>. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, <u>the right has little to say about patriarchy</u>. What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant. <u><strong><mark>The critique of the state mounted by feminists</u></strong></mark> such as Elizabeth Wilson <u>when state capitalism was at the height of its powers <strong>suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. </u></strong>Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded. It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that <u><mark>neoliberal values created a space for </mark>a bright, brassy and ultimately <mark>fake feminism</u></mark> - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls. <u><mark>This</mark> transitional <mark>period</mark> between second wave and the current wave of feminism</u> (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) <u><mark>represented</mark> the archetypal <strong><mark>appropriation of the feminist agenda</u></strong>, </mark>shorn of its political context, <u><strong><mark>by neoliberalism</u></strong>. </mark>Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters. <u><mark>If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women</mark>, <mark>it was the idea of agency</u></mark>, of choice freely exercised, <u><mark>free even of patriarchal restraints</u></mark>. <u><mark>It emphasised self-sufficiency</mark> of the individual while</u> at the same time <u><mark>undermining</mark> those collective <mark>struggles</mark> or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. <mark>The</mark> <mark>world was your oyster</mark> – <mark>all you needed to do was compete</mark> successfully in the marketplace</u>. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that <u>liberal <mark>capitalism is committed to</mark> what she calls <mark>the ‘fetishism of choice’</u></mark>. <u><mark>If women</mark> <mark>choose things that disadvantage them</mark> and entrench differences, <mark>it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make</u></mark>. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because <u><mark>prostitution is seen as a liberation</u></mark> from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. <u><mark>Choice is</mark> <mark>their weapon</mark> against feminist objections. In <mark>their <strong>so-called free expression</strong></mark> of their sexuality</u>, <u><strong><mark>they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.</mark> </p></u></strong>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The affirmative is part of an economy of victimized subjection which formulates Western identity in relation to the subaltern – this process destroys the agency of subalternity by trapping it within a matrix of pain and suffering, never to be escaped

Spivak 88

Spivak 88 (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Indian literary theorist, philosopher and University Professor at Columbia University, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, 1988 “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” Online, azp)

SOME OF THE most radical criticism coming out of the West today is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized ‘subject-effects’ gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while often providing a cover for this subject of knowledge this concealed Subject pretends it has ‘no geo-political determinations.’ The critique of the sovereign subject thus actually inaugurates a Subject. . . . This S/subject, curiously sewn together into a transparency by denegations, belongs to the exploiters’ side of the international division of labor. It is impossible for contemporary intellectuals to imagine the kind of Power and Desire that would inhabit the unnamed subject of the Other in the constitution of that Other of Europe, great care was taken to obliterate the textual ingredients with which such a subject could cathect, could occupy (invest?) its itinerary the intellectual is complicit in the persistent constitution of Other as the Self’s shadow, a possibility of political practice for the intel- lectual would be to put the economic ‘under erasure,’ to see the economic factor as irreducible as it reinscribes the social text, even as it is erased, however imperfectly, when it claims to be the final determinant or the transcendental signified. The clearest available example of such epistemic violence is the remotely orchestrated, fareflung, and heterogeneous project to constitute the colonial subject as Other This project is also the asymetrical obliteration of the trace of that Other in its precarious Subjectivity Let us now move to consider the margins the silent, silenced center the lowest strata According to Foucault and Deleuze the oppressed, if given the chance can speak and know their conditions. We must now confront the following question: On the other side of the international division of labor from socialized capital, inside and outside the circuit of the epistemic violence of imperialist law and education supplementing an earlier economic text, can the subaltern speak? . . .

radical criticism coming out of the West is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized ‘subject-effects’ gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while providing a cover for this subject of knowledge this concealed Subject pretends it has ‘no geo-political determinations.’ The critique of the sovereign subject inaugurates a Subject This subject sewn together into a transparency by denegations, belongs to the exploiters’ side It is impossible for contemporary intellectuals to imagine the Power and Desire that would inhabit the subject of the Other in the constitution of that Other great care was taken to obliterate the textual ingredients with which such a subject could occupy its itinerary the intellectual is complicit in the constitution of Other as the Self’s shadow The clearest example is the remotely orchestrated heterogeneous project to constitute the colonial subject as Other This project is the obliteration of the trace of that Other We must now confront the following question can the subaltern speak?

SOME OF THE most radical criticism coming out of the West today is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized ‘subject-effects’ gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while often providing a cover for this subject of knowledge. Although the history of Europe as Subject is narrativized by the law, political economy, and ideology of the West, this concealed Subject pretends it has ‘no geo-political determinations.’ The much publicized critique of the sovereign subject thus actually inaugurates a Subject. . . . This S/subject, curiously sewn together into a transparency by denegations, belongs to the exploiters’ side of the international division of labor. It is impossible for contemporary French intellectuals to imagine the kind of Power and Desire that would inhabit the unnamed subject of the Other of Europe. It is not only that everything they read, critical or uncritical, is caught within the debate of the production of that Other, supporting or critiquing the constitution of the Subject as Europe. It is also that, in the constitution of that Other of Europe, great care was taken to obliterate the textual ingredients with which such a subject could cathect, could occupy (invest?) its itinerary — not only by ideological and scientific production, but also by the institution of the law. . . . In the face of the possibility that the intellectual is complicit in the persistent constitution of Other as the Self’s shadow, a possibility of political practice for the intel- lectual would be to put the economic ‘under erasure,’ to see the economic factor as irreducible as it reinscribes the social text, even as it is erased, however imperfectly, when it claims to be the final determinant or the transcendental signified. The clearest available example of such epistemic violence is the remotely orchestrated, fareflung, and heterogeneous project to constitute the colonial subject as Other. This project is also the asymetrical obliteration of the trace of that Other in its precarious Subjectivity. It is well known that Foucault locates epistemic violence, a complete overhaul of the episteme, in the redefinition of sanity at the end of the European eighteenth century. But what if that particular redefinition was only a part of the narrative of history in Europe as well as in the colonies? What if the two projects of epistemic overhaul worked as dislocated and unacknowledged pans ofa vast two-handed engine? Perhaps it is no more than to ask that the subtext of the palimpsestic narra- tive of imperialism be recognized as ‘subjugated knowledge,’ ‘a whole set of knowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate to their task or insuffi- ciently elaborated: naive knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy, beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity‘ (Foucault I980: 82). This is not to describe ‘the way things really were’ or to privilege the narrative of history as imperialism as the best version of history. It is, rather, to offer an account of how an explanation and narrative of reality was established as the normative one. . . . Let us now move to consider the margins (one can just as well say the silent, silenced center) of the circuit marked out by this epistemic violence, men and women among the illiterate peasantry, the tribals, the lowest strata of the urban subproletariat. According to Foucault and Deleuze (in the First World, under the standardization and regimentation of socialized capital, though they do not seem to recognize this) the oppressed, if given the chance (the problem of representation cannot be bypassed here), and on the way to solidarity through alliance politics (a Marxist thematic is at work here) can speak and know their conditions. We must now confront the following question: On the other side of the international division of labor from socialized capital, inside and outside the circuit of the epistemic violence of imperialist law and education supplementing an earlier economic text, can the subaltern speak? . . .

<h4>The affirmative is part of an economy of victimized subjection which formulates Western identity in relation to the subaltern – this process destroys the agency of subalternity by trapping it within a matrix of pain and suffering, never to be escaped</h4><p><u><strong>Spivak 88</u></strong> (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Indian literary theorist, philosopher and University Professor at Columbia University, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, 1988 “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” Online, azp)</p><p><u>SOME OF THE most <mark>radical criticism coming out of the West</mark> today <mark>is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized ‘subject-effects’ gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while</mark> often <mark>providing a cover for this subject of knowledge</u></mark>. Although the history of Europe as Subject is narrativized by the law, political economy, and ideology of the West, <u><mark>this concealed Subject pretends it has ‘no geo-political determinations.’ The</u></mark> much publicized <u><mark>critique of the sovereign subject</mark> thus actually <mark>inaugurates a Subject</mark>. . . . <mark>This</mark> S/<mark>subject</mark>, curiously <mark>sewn together into a transparency by denegations, belongs to the exploiters’ side</mark> of the international division of labor. <mark>It is impossible for contemporary</u></mark> French <u><mark>intellectuals to imagine the</mark> kind of <mark>Power and Desire that would inhabit the</mark> unnamed <mark>subject of the Other</u></mark> of Europe. It is not only that everything they read, critical or uncritical, is caught within the debate of the production of that Other, supporting or critiquing the constitution of the Subject as Europe. It is also that, <u><mark>in the constitution of that Other</mark> of Europe, <mark>great care was taken to obliterate the textual ingredients with which such a subject could</mark> cathect, could <mark>occupy</mark> (invest?) <mark>its itinerary</u></mark> — not only by ideological and scientific production, but also by the institution of the law. . . . In the face of the possibility that <u><mark>the intellectual is complicit in the</mark> persistent <mark>constitution of Other as the Self’s shadow</mark>, a possibility of political practice for the intel- lectual would be to put the economic ‘under erasure,’ to see the economic factor as irreducible as it reinscribes the social text, even as it is erased, however imperfectly, when it claims to be the final determinant or the transcendental signified. <mark>The clearest</mark> available <mark>example </mark>of such epistemic violence <mark>is the remotely orchestrated</mark>, fareflung, and <mark>heterogeneous project to constitute the colonial subject as Other</u></mark>. <u><mark>This project is</mark> also <mark>the</mark> asymetrical <mark>obliteration of the trace of that Other</mark> in its precarious Subjectivity</u>. It is well known that Foucault locates epistemic violence, a complete overhaul of the episteme, in the redefinition of sanity at the end of the European eighteenth century. But what if that particular redefinition was only a part of the narrative of history in Europe as well as in the colonies? What if the two projects of epistemic overhaul worked as dislocated and unacknowledged pans ofa vast two-handed engine? Perhaps it is no more than to ask that the subtext of the palimpsestic narra- tive of imperialism be recognized as ‘subjugated knowledge,’ ‘a whole set of knowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate to their task or insuffi- ciently elaborated: naive knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy, beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity‘ (Foucault I980: 82). This is not to describe ‘the way things really were’ or to privilege the narrative of history as imperialism as the best version of history. It is, rather, to offer an account of how an explanation and narrative of reality was established as the normative one. . . . <u>Let us now move to consider the margins</u> (one can just as well say <u>the silent, silenced center</u>) of the circuit marked out by this epistemic violence, men and women among the illiterate peasantry, the tribals, <u>the lowest strata</u> of the urban subproletariat. <u>According to Foucault and Deleuze</u> (in the First World, under the standardization and regimentation of socialized capital, though they do not seem to recognize this) <u>the oppressed, if given the chance</u> (the problem of representation cannot be bypassed here), and on the way to solidarity through alliance politics (a Marxist thematic is at work here) <u>can speak and know their conditions. <mark>We must now confront the following question</mark>: On the other side of the international division of labor from socialized capital, inside and outside the circuit of the epistemic violence of imperialist law and education supplementing an earlier economic text, <mark>can the subaltern speak?</mark> . . . </p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Capitalism causes extinction and destroys value to life

Robinson 14

Robinson 14 (William I. Robinson, professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, “Global Capitalism Is In the Midst of Its Most Severe Crisis” 02 Jul 2014, KB)

US intervention entered a qualitatively new period after September 11, 2001. This should be seen in the context of emergent 21st century global capitalism. Global capitalism is in the midst of its most severe crisis in a century the current crisis is much worse than that of the 1930s because we are on the precipice of an ecological holocaust that threatens the very earth system and the ability to sustain life, ours included, because the means of violence and social control have never before been so concentrated within a single powerful state, and because the global means of communication is extraordinarily concentrated in the hands of transnational capital and a few powerful states. global inequalities have never been as acute and grotesque we need to see the escalation of US interventionism and the untold suffering it brings about including the killing of unarmed civilians, the destruction of the environment, forced migration and displacement, undermining democracy as a response by the US-led transnational state and capitalist class to contain the explosive contradictions of a global capitalist system that is out of control and in deep crisis. There is currently a global revolt from below underway, but it is spread unevenly across countries and has not taken any clear form or direction. We have never in the history of humanity seen such a sharp social polarization between the haves and the have-nots There have been countless studies in recent years documenting the escalation of inequalities the notorious “1 percent” monopolizes a huge portion of the wealth and transnational corporations and banks are registering record profits 80 percent experience of insecurity, impoverishment, and increasingly inhabiting a “planet of slums.” apologists of capitalism point to the rise of a middle class in China to claim that the system is successful. But 300-400 million people have entered the ranks of the global middle and consuming class while the other 800-900 million have faced downward mobility, immiseration, insecurity, unemployment and extreme levels of exploitation. Foxcomm workers preferred to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of their factories than to remain in their labor camps. Foxcomm makes your iPads and iPhones. We are headed towards a global police state organized by global elites and led by the US state to contain the potential rebellion of a dispossessed majority conformity to a system of structural violence must be compelled through direct violence The Orwellian society has arrived. Yet it is worse than Orwell imagined, because at least the members of Orwell’s society had their basic needs met in return for their obedience and conformity. States have turned to an array of redistributive mechanisms because they have been pressured from below to do so the natural tendency for capitalism to concentrate wealth has been unleashed without any countervailing restraints. The result has been escalation of worldwide inequalities Hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions, have been made “superfluous”, thrown off the land or out of productive employment, replaced by machines and rising productivity, marginalized and relegated to migration and to trying to scratch by an existence in the “planet of slums.” this mass of humanity places those that are employed in a very vulnerable situation, drives down wage levels everywhere, facilitates the “flexibilization” and precarious nature of wage labor, and thereby further aggravating inequalities. We cannot understand intensified militarization and the rise of this complex outside of the crisis of global capitalism. It is a crisis of over-accumulation. The rise of the global economy has allowed the transnational capitalist class to restructure and reorganize the whole world economy extreme inequality and social polarization means that the global market cannot absorb the expanding output of the global economy. The result is a stagnation that is becoming chronic. The gap between what the global economy can produce and what the global market can absorb is growing and this leads to a crisis of overproduction: where and how to unload the surplus? Unloading the surplus through financial speculation aggravates the solution, as we saw with the collapse of 2008. the mass production and distribution of vaccines and medications for diseases that affect masses of poor people around the world are not profitable and as a result we even have new pandemics of diseases tuberculosis, measles, etc that previously were under control. Yet it is profitable for the global capitalist medical industry to spend billions on developing plastic surgery and every imaginable treatment for the vanity of a small portion of humanity, or to develop incredibly expensive treatments for diseases that afflict the affluent. capital will seek to accumulate where it is profitable which is shaped by the balance of class and social power and what we call the relations of production and irrespective of rational use of resources and irrespective of human need. it becomes profitable to turn to wars the surplus that the global economy has been and is producing but that cannot be absorbed by the world market, has been channeled into wars and conflicts that involve endless rounds of destruction and reconstruction as a way of sustaining capital accumulation and profit making in the face of stagnation tendencies. The US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan although legitimated in the name of fighting “terrorism” – have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts and profits for transnational capital. The prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes is enormously profitable for private corporations we are now living in a global war economy in which the threat of stagnation is offset by the militarization of global economy and society and the spread of systems of mass social control A global war economy based on a multitude of endless conflicts and the spread of social control systems, from full-scale wars to the repression of racial minorities and immigrants in the United States and Europe, must be ideologically legitimated. This is where bogus “wars on drugs and terrorism” come in, where enemies must be conjured up, in which populations must be led to believe they are threatened So the US public must believe that Iran is a threat, that Putin is the devil, and so on. One “threat” replaces another but the system needs to keep a population in permanent compliance through the manipulation of emotion and the senses. This transition into a permanent global war economy involved some shifts in the gravitational centers of capital accumulation each drone that flies, each missile fired, each round of ammunition, each tank deployed, each soldier equipped and fed, each prison that is constructed, each surveillance system put into place, each border wall installed, and so on is produced in factories and through production chains by global corporations whose supply of raw materials, machinery and service inputs come from other global corporations the global economy is kept running through violence and conflict the global war economy also involves the global financial institutions that are at the very heart of the global econom with the petroleum complex that is coming under pressure from the environmental movement yet is showing all-time record profits in the past few years. This is a new transnational power bloc this complex of corporate interests brought around a global war economy and global systems of repression and social control with elites and state managers brought into or representing the power bloc. the polarization of the world population into 20 percent affluent and 80 percent immiserated generates new spatial social relations, so that the privileged occupy gated communities and those displaced by gentrification must be violently suppressed and carefully controlled, while surveillance systems and security guards must patrol and protect that 20 percent. All this and much more are part of the militarization and “securitization” of global society We face doctrines, ideologies and political discourse that legitimize the construction of a global police state the “war on drugs,” the US state is the biggest perpetrator of terror in the world. It is not that Al-Qaida and other groups do not carry out condemnable violence against innocent civilians. They do. But if we define terrorism as the use of violence against civilians for political objectives, then the US state is the world’s leading terrorist.

capitalism is in the midst of its most severe crisis because we are on the precipice of an ecological holocaust that threatens the ability to sustain life global inequalities have never been as grotesque we need to see the escalation of US interventionism and the untold suffering it brings as a response by the capitalist class to contain the explosive contradictions of a global capitalist system that is out of control and in deep crisis. There is global revolt from below underway, but it is spread unevenly and has not taken any clear direction There have been countless studies documenting the escalation of inequalities 80 percent experience insecurity impoverishment and inhabit a “planet of slums.” We are headed towards a global police state The Orwellian society has arrived. Yet it is worse because at least the members of Orwell’s society had their basic needs met in return for obedience States have turned to an array of redistributive mechanisms because they have been pressured from below to do so the tendency for capitalism to concentrate wealth has been unleashed without any countervailing restraints. The result has been escalation of worldwide inequalities billions have been thrown off the land or out of employment relegated to migration We cannot understand intensified militarization outside of capitalism extreme inequality and social polarization means that the global market cannot absorb expanding output The result is a stagnation that is becoming chronic. The gap between what the global economy can produce and absorb is growing this leads to a crisis of overproduction Unloading the surplus aggravates the solution as we saw with the collapse of 08 it becomes profitable to turn to wars the surplus cannot be absorbed has been channeled into wars and conflicts that involve endless rounds of destruction and reconstruction we are living in a global war economy in which the threat of stagnation is offset by militarization A global war economy based on a multitude of endless conflicts from full-scale wars to the repression of racial minorities and immigrants must be ideologically legitimated This is where enemies must be conjured up populations must believe they are threatened One “threat” replaces another but the system needs to keep a population in permanent compliance the economy is kept running through violence and conflict This is a new transnational power bloc the polarization of the world population generates new social relations, so that the privileged occupy gated communities and those displaced by gentrification must be violently suppressed and controlled while guards protect that 20 percent this and more are part of the “securitization” of global society We face doctrines ideologies and political discourse that legitimize the construction of a global police state the “war on drugs,”

However, and this is the key point I wish to highlight here, US intervention around the world clearly entered a qualitatively new period after September 11, 2001. This new period should be seen in the context of emergent 21st century global capitalism. Global capitalism is in the midst of its most severe crisis in close to a century, and in many ways the current crisis is much worse than that of the 1930s because we are on the precipice of an ecological holocaust that threatens the very earth system and the ability to sustain life, ours included, because the means of violence and social control have never before been so concentrated within a single powerful state, and because the global means of communication is also extraordinarily concentrated in the hands of transnational capital and a few powerful states. On the other hand, global inequalities have never been as acute and grotesque as they are today. So, in simplified terms, we need to see the escalation of US interventionism and the untold suffering it brings about, including what you mention – the killing of unarmed civilians, the destruction of the environment, forced migration and displacement, undermining democracy – as a response by the US-led transnational state and the transnational capitalist class to contain the explosive contradictions of a global capitalist system that is out of control and in deep crisis. You ask me who is going to compensate for these losses. That will depend on how the world’s people respond. There is currently a global revolt from below underway, but it is spread unevenly across countries and has not taken any clear form or direction. Can the popular majority of humanity force the transnational capitalist class and the US/transnational state to be accountable for its crimes? Mao Zedong once said that “power flows through the barrel of a gun.” What he meant by this, in a more abstract than literal way, I believe, is that in the end it is the correlation of real forces that will determine outcomes. Because the United States has overwhelming and “full spectrum” military dominance, it can capture, execute, or bring to trial people anywhere around the world… it has “free license”, so to speak, to act as an international outlaw. We don’t even have to take the more recent examples. In December 1989 the United States undertook an illegal and criminal invasion of Panama, kidnapped Manuel Noriega – whether or not he was a dictator is not the point, as the United States puts in power and defends dictators that defend US and transnational elite interests, and brought him back to US territory for trial. What country in the world now has the naked power “flowing through the barrel of a gun” to invade the United States, capture George Bush, Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other war criminals, and bring them somewhere to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Q: In your writings, you’ve warned against the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the slant accumulation of the global wealth in the hands of an affluent few and the impoverishment of the suppressed majority. What do you think are the reasons for this stark inequality and the disturbing dispossession of millions of people in the capitalist societies? You wrote that the participants of the 2011 World Economic Forum in Davos were worried that the current situation raises the specter of worldwide instability and civil wars. Is it really so? A: We have never in the history of humanity seen such a sharp social polarization between the haves and the have-nots, such grotesque levels of inequality, within and among countries. There have been countless studies in recent years documenting the escalation of inequalities, among them, the current bestseller by Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” The pattern we see is that the notorious “1 percent” monopolizes a huge portion of the wealth that humanity produces and transnational corporations and banks are registering record profits, but as well that some 20 percent of the population in each countries has integrated into the global economy as middle class and affluent consumers while the remaining 80 percent has experienced rising levels of insecurity, impoverishment, and precariousness, increasingly inhabiting what some have called a “planet of slums.” The apologists of global capitalism point to the rise of a middle class in China to claim that the system is successful. But in China, 300-400 million people have entered the ranks of the global middle and consuming class while the other 800-900 million have faced downward mobility, immiseration, insecurity, unemployment and extreme levels of exploitation. Such is this exploitation that a couple years ago, you may remember, Foxcomm workers preferred to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of their factories than to remain in their labor camps. This is the Foxcomm that makes your iPads and iPhones. The 80 percent is then subject to all sorts of sophisticated systems of social control and repression. We are headed in this regard towards a global police state, organized by global elites and led by the US state, to contain the real or potential rebellion of a dispossessed majority. Such structures of inequality and exploitation cannot be contained over time without both ideological and coercive apparatuses; conformity to a system of structural violence must be compelled through direct violence, organized by states and private security forces. Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which we are now living in a global social control state, a global panoptical surveillance state. George Orwell wrote about such a state in his famous novel “1984.” The Orwellian society has arrived. Yet it is worse than Orwell imagined, because at least the members of Orwell’s society had their basic needs met in return for their obedience and conformity. How do we explain such stark inequality? Capitalism is a system that by its very internal dynamic generates wealth yet polarizes and concentrates that wealth. Historically a de-concentration of wealth through redistribution has come about by state intervention to offset the natural tendency for capital accumulation to result in such polarization. States have turned to an array of redistributive mechanisms both because they have been pressured from below to do so – whether by trade unions, social movements, socialist struggles, or so on – or because states must do so in order to retain legitimacy and preserve at least enough social peace for the reproduction of the system. A great variety of redistributive models emerged in the 20th century around the world, and went by a great many names – socialism, communism, social democracy, New Deal, welfare states, developmental states, populism, the social wage, and so on. All these models shared two things in common. One was state intervention in the economy to regulate capital accumulation and thus to bring under some control the most anarchic and most destructive elements of unrestrained capitalism. The other was redistribution through numerous policies, ranging from minimum legal wages and unemployment insurance, to public enterprises, the social wages of public health, education, transportation, and housing, welfare programs, land reform in agrarian countries, low cost credit, and so on. But capital responded to the last major crisis of the system, that of the 1970s, by “going global,” by breaking free of nation-state constraints to accumulation and undermining models of state regulation and redistribution. Neo-liberalism is a set of policies that facilitate the rise of transnational capital. As transnational capital has broken free of the confine of the nation-state, the natural tendency for capitalism to concentrate wealth has been unleashed without any countervailing restraints. The result has been this dizzying escalation of worldwide inequalities as wealth concentrates within the transnational capitalist class and, to a much lesser extent, the better off strata of middle classes and professionals. There are other related factors that account for the intensification of worldwide inequalities. One is the defeat of the worldwide left in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which led the ruling groups to declare that global neo-liberal capitalism was “The End of History.” A second is the rise of a globally integrated financial system in which capital in its liquid, that is money, form can move frictionless across the planet with no controls whatsoever. Transnational finance capital has become the hegemonic fraction of capital on a global scale, and it engages in unfathomable levels of speculation, turning the global economy into one giant casino. Transnational finance capital has come to control the levers of the global economy, to get around and to undermine any effort at regulation, and to concentrate wealth in its liquid form in a way that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. A third factor is the rise of a mass of surplus humanity. Hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions, have been made “superfluous”, thrown off the land or out of productive employment, replaced by machines and rising productivity, marginalized and relegated to migration and to trying to scratch by an existence in the “planet of slums.” In turn, this mass of humanity places those that are employed in a very vulnerable situation, drives down wage levels everywhere, facilitates the “flexibilization” and precarious nature of wage labor, and thereby further aggravating inequalities. Q: In one of your articles, you talked of an “ever-expanding military-prison-industrial-security-financial complex” that generates enormous profits through waging wars, selling weapons and then taking part in reconstruction activities in the war-torn countries. How does this complex operate? Is it really reliant on waging wars? A: We cannot understand intensified militarization and the rise of this complex outside of the crisis of global capitalism. This crisis is structural, in the first instance. It is what we call a crisis of over-accumulation. The rise of the global economy driven by new technologies, especially computer, information, and communications technologies, but also by the revolution in transportation and containerization, by robotics, aerospace, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and more recently, by 3D printing, among other aspects, has allowed the transnational capitalist class to restructure and reorganize the whole world economy, and to bring about a huge increase in productivity worldwide and an enormous expansion of the capacity of the global economy to churn out goods and services. But extreme inequality and social polarization in the global system means that the global market cannot absorb the expanding output of the global economy. The result is a stagnation that is becoming chronic. The gap between what the global economy can produce and what the global market can absorb is growing and this leads to a crisis of overproduction: where and how to unload the surplus? How can transnational capital continue to accumulate and generate profits if this output is not unloaded, that is, profitably marketed? Unloading the surplus through financial speculation, which has skyrocketed in recent years, only aggravates the solution, as we saw with the collapse of 2008. Now, if only 20 percent of humanity can consume in any significant quantity it is not very profitable to go into the business of mass, inexpensive public transportation, health and education, or the production of practical goods that the world’s population needs because very simply even if people need these things they do not have the income to purchase them. A global civilian economy geared to the basic needs of humanity is simply not profitable for the transnational capitalist class. Look at it like this: the mass production and distribution of vaccines and other medications for communicable and treatable diseases that affect masses of poor people around the world are simply not profitable and as a result we even have new pandemics of diseases – tuberculosis, measles, etc. – that previously were under control. Yet it is profitable for the global capitalist medical industry, including the giant pharmaceutical, biotechnology and related branches to spend billions on developing plastic surgery and every imaginable treatment for the vanity of a small portion of humanity, or to develop incredibly expensive treatments for diseases that afflict the affluent. The lesson here is that capital will seek to accumulate where it is profitable, according to the structure of the market and of income, which in turn is shaped by the balance of class and social power and what we call the relations of production and irrespective of rational use of resources and irrespective of human need. It is in this context that it becomes quite profitable to turn to wars, conflicts, systems of repression and social control to generate profit, to produce goods and systems that can repress that 80 percent of humanity that is not your consumer, not your customer so to say, because they do not have the purchasing power to sustain your drive to accumulate by producing goods and services for them that they actually need. Global capitalism is a perverted and irrational system. Putting aside geo-political considerations, the surplus that the global economy has been and is producing but that cannot be absorbed by the world market, has been channeled into wars and conflicts that involve endless rounds of destruction and reconstruction, and new systems of social control and repression, independent of geo-political considerations, that is, simply as a way of sustaining capital accumulation and profit making in the face of stagnation tendencies. The US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – although legitimated in the name of fighting “terrorism” – have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts and profits for transnational capital. The prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes in the United States – and let us recall that the United States holds some 25-30 percent of the world’s prisoners – is enormously profitable for private corporations that run almost all of the immigrant detention centers, some of the general prisons, supply everything from guards to food, build the installations, erect border walls, and so on. Let us recall that the US National Security Agency – and we now know from Edward Snowden just how vast are its operations – subcontracts out its activities to private corporations, as do the CIA, the Pentagon, and so on. Global security corporations are one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy and there are now more private security guards in the world than police officers. All of this is to say that we are now living in a global war economy, in which the threat of stagnation is offset in part by the militarization of global economy and society and the introduction and spread of systems of mass social control. Of course this involves all kinds of cultural, ideological, and political dimensions as well. A global war economy based on a multitude of endless conflicts and the spread of social control systems, from full-scale wars to the repression of racial minorities and immigrants in the United States and Europe, must be ideologically legitimated. This is where bogus and farcical “wars on drugs and terrorism” come in, where enemies must be conjured up, in which populations must be led to believe they are threatened, and so on. So the US public must believe that Iran is a threat, that Putin is now the devil, and so on. One “threat” replaces another but the system needs to keep a population in permanent compliance through the manipulation of emotion and the senses. This transition into a permanent global war economy has involved some shifts in the gravitational centers of capital accumulation, towards those global corporate conglomerates involved in the production of war materials, of security, of engineering (for example, Bechtel and Halliburton), and other activities that involve making profit out of conflict and control. Remember by way of example that each drone that flies, each missile fired, each round of ammunition, each tank deployed, each soldier equipped and fed, each prison that is constructed, each surveillance system put into place, each border wall installed, and so on and so forth, is produced in factories and through production chains by global corporations whose supply, in turn, of raw materials, machinery and service inputs in turn come from other global corporations or local firms. So the whole global economy is kept running through violence and conflict. But the global war economy also involves the global financial institutions that are at the very heart of the global economy, together with the petroleum complex that is coming under much pressure from the environmental movement yet is showing all-time record profits in the past few years. This is a new transnational power bloc – this complex of corporate interests brought around a global war economy and global systems of repression and social control, together with elites and state managers brought into or representing the power bloc. Remember also that the polarization of the world population into 20 percent affluent and 80 percent immiserated generates new spatial social relations, so that the privileged occupy gated communities and those displaced by gentrification must be violently suppressed and carefully controlled, while surveillance systems and security guards must patrol and protect that 20 percent. All this and much more are part of the militarization and “securitization” of global society by the powers that be. We face new doctrines, ideologies and political discourse that legitimize the construction of a global police state – “fourth generation warfare,” “humanitarian intervention,” the “war on drugs,” among others, and above all, the so-called “war on terror.” I say so-called because, the US state is the biggest perpetrator of terror in the world. It is not that Al-Qaida and other groups do not carry out condemnable violence against innocent civilians. They indeed do. But if we define terrorism as the use of violence against civilians for political objectives, then the US state is the world’s leading terrorist. The powers that be in global society and that control the global political discourse attach the label “terrorist” to violence that they do not approve of, and they attach the label of “freedom and democracy and security” to violence that they do approve of, or that they commit themselves. Moreover, increasingly “terrorism” is used to simply describe political dissent, so that legitimate social movements and political struggles against global capitalism become labeled as “terrorism” in order to justify their suppression.

<h4><u><strong>Capitalism causes extinction and destroys value to life </h4><p>Robinson 14</p><p></u></strong>(William I. Robinson, professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, “Global Capitalism Is In the Midst of Its Most Severe Crisis” 02 Jul 2014, KB)</p><p>However, and this is the key point I wish to highlight here, <u><strong>US intervention</u></strong> around the world clearly <u><strong>entered a qualitatively new period after September 11, 2001.</u></strong> <u>This</u> new period <u>should be seen in the context of emergent 21st century global capitalism.</u> <u>Global <mark>capitalism is in the midst of its most severe crisis </mark>in</u> close to <u>a century</u>, and in many ways <u>the current crisis is much worse than that of the 1930s <mark>because we are on <strong>the precipice of an ecological holocaust that threatens the</mark> very earth system and the <mark>ability to sustain life</strong></mark>, ours included, because the means of violence and social control have never before been so concentrated within a single powerful state, and because the global means of communication is</u> also <u>extraordinarily concentrated in the hands of transnational capital and a few powerful states.</u> On the other hand, <u><strong><mark>global inequalities have never been as</mark> acute and <mark>grotesque</u></strong></mark> as they are today. So, in simplified terms, <u><mark>we need to see the escalation of US interventionism and the untold suffering it brings</mark> about</u>, <u>including</u> what you mention – <u>the killing of unarmed civilians, the destruction of the environment, forced migration and displacement, undermining democracy</u> – <u><mark>as a response by the</mark> US-led transnational state and</u> the transnational<u> <mark>capitalist class to contain the explosive contradictions of a global capitalist system that is out of control and in deep crisis.</mark> </u>You ask me who is going to compensate for these losses. That will depend on how the world’s people respond. <u><strong><mark>There is</mark> currently a <mark>global revolt from below underway</strong>, but it is spread unevenly</mark> across countries <mark>and has not taken any clear</mark> form or <mark>direction</mark>.</u> Can the popular majority of humanity force the transnational capitalist class and the US/transnational state to be accountable for its crimes? Mao Zedong once said that “power flows through the barrel of a gun.” What he meant by this, in a more abstract than literal way, I believe, is that in the end it is the correlation of real forces that will determine outcomes. Because the United States has overwhelming and “full spectrum” military dominance, it can capture, execute, or bring to trial people anywhere around the world… it has “free license”, so to speak, to act as an international outlaw. We don’t even have to take the more recent examples. In December 1989 the United States undertook an illegal and criminal invasion of Panama, kidnapped Manuel Noriega – whether or not he was a dictator is not the point, as the United States puts in power and defends dictators that defend US and transnational elite interests, and brought him back to US territory for trial. What country in the world now has the naked power “flowing through the barrel of a gun” to invade the United States, capture George Bush, Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other war criminals, and bring them somewhere to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Q: In your writings, you’ve warned against the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the slant accumulation of the global wealth in the hands of an affluent few and the impoverishment of the suppressed majority. What do you think are the reasons for this stark inequality and the disturbing dispossession of millions of people in the capitalist societies? You wrote that the participants of the 2011 World Economic Forum in Davos were worried that the current situation raises the specter of worldwide instability and civil wars. Is it really so? A: <u><strong>We have never in the history of humanity seen such a sharp social polarization between the haves and the have-nots</u></strong>, such grotesque levels of inequality, within and among countries. <u><mark>There have been countless studies</mark> in recent years <mark>documenting the escalation of inequalities</u></mark>, among them, the current bestseller by Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” The pattern we see is that <u>the notorious “1 percent” monopolizes a huge portion of the wealth</u> that humanity produces <u>and transnational corporations and banks are registering record profits</u>, but as well that some 20 percent of the population in each countries has integrated into the global economy as middle class and affluent consumers while the remaining <u><mark>80 percent</u></mark> has <u><mark>experience</u></mark>d rising levels <u>of <mark>insecurity</mark>, <mark>impoverishment</mark>, <mark>and</u></mark> precariousness, <u>increasingly <mark>inhabit</mark>ing</u> what some have called <u><strong><mark>a “planet of slums.”</u></strong></mark> The <u>apologists of</u> global <u>capitalism point to the rise of a middle class in China to claim that the system is successful.</u> <u>But</u> in China, <u>300-400 million people have entered the ranks of the global middle and consuming class while the other 800-900 million have faced downward mobility, immiseration, insecurity, unemployment and extreme levels of exploitation. </u>Such is this exploitation that a couple years ago, you may remember, <u>Foxcomm workers preferred to commit suicide by jumping off the roof of their factories than to remain in their labor camps.</u> This is the <u>Foxcomm</u> that <u>makes your iPads and iPhones.</u> The 80 percent is then subject to all sorts of sophisticated systems of social control and repression. <u><strong><mark>We are headed</u></strong></mark> in this regard <u><strong><mark>towards a global police state</u></strong></mark>, <u>organized by global elites and led by the US</u> <u>state</u>, <u>to contain the</u> real or <u>potential rebellion of a dispossessed majority</u>. Such structures of inequality and exploitation cannot be contained over time without both ideological and coercive apparatuses; <u>conformity to a system of structural violence must be compelled through direct violence</u>, organized by states and private security forces. Edward Snowden revealed the extent to which we are now living in a global social control state, a global panoptical surveillance state. George Orwell wrote about such a state in his famous novel “1984.” <u><strong><mark>The Orwellian society has arrived.</u></strong> <u>Yet it is worse</mark> than Orwell imagined, <mark>because at least the members of Orwell’s society had their basic needs met in return for</mark> their <mark>obedience</mark> and conformity. </u>How do we explain such stark inequality? Capitalism is a system that by its very internal dynamic generates wealth yet polarizes and concentrates that wealth. Historically a de-concentration of wealth through redistribution has come about by state intervention to offset the natural tendency for capital accumulation to result in such polarization. <u><mark>States have turned to an array of redistributive mechanisms</u></mark> both <u><strong><mark>because they have been pressured from below to do so</u></strong></mark> – whether by trade unions, social movements, socialist struggles, or so on – or because states must do so in order to retain legitimacy and preserve at least enough social peace for the reproduction of the system. A great variety of redistributive models emerged in the 20th century around the world, and went by a great many names – socialism, communism, social democracy, New Deal, welfare states, developmental states, populism, the social wage, and so on. All these models shared two things in common. One was state intervention in the economy to regulate capital accumulation and thus to bring under some control the most anarchic and most destructive elements of unrestrained capitalism. The other was redistribution through numerous policies, ranging from minimum legal wages and unemployment insurance, to public enterprises, the social wages of public health, education, transportation, and housing, welfare programs, land reform in agrarian countries, low cost credit, and so on. But capital responded to the last major crisis of the system, that of the 1970s, by “going global,” by breaking free of nation-state constraints to accumulation and undermining models of state regulation and redistribution. Neo-liberalism is a set of policies that facilitate the rise of transnational capital. As transnational capital has broken free of the confine of the nation-state, <u><mark>the</mark> natural <mark>tendency for capitalism to concentrate wealth has been unleashed without any countervailing restraints. <strong>The result has been</u></strong></mark> this dizzying <u><strong><mark>escalation of worldwide inequalities</u></strong></mark> as wealth concentrates within the transnational capitalist class and, to a much lesser extent, the better off strata of middle classes and professionals. There are other related factors that account for the intensification of worldwide inequalities. One is the defeat of the worldwide left in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which led the ruling groups to declare that global neo-liberal capitalism was “The End of History.” A second is the rise of a globally integrated financial system in which capital in its liquid, that is money, form can move frictionless across the planet with no controls whatsoever. Transnational finance capital has become the hegemonic fraction of capital on a global scale, and it engages in unfathomable levels of speculation, turning the global economy into one giant casino. Transnational finance capital has come to control the levers of the global economy, to get around and to undermine any effort at regulation, and to concentrate wealth in its liquid form in a way that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. A third factor is the rise of a mass of surplus humanity. <u>Hundreds of millions of people, perhaps <mark>billions</mark>, <mark>have been</mark> made “superfluous”, <mark>thrown off the land or out of</mark> productive <mark>employment</mark>, replaced by machines and rising productivity, marginalized and <mark>relegated to migration</mark> and to trying to scratch by an existence in the “planet of slums.”</u> In turn, <u>this mass of humanity places those that are employed in a very vulnerable situation, drives down wage levels everywhere, facilitates the “flexibilization” and precarious nature of wage labor, and thereby further aggravating inequalities. </u>Q: In one of your articles, you talked of an “ever-expanding military-prison-industrial-security-financial complex” that generates enormous profits through waging wars, selling weapons and then taking part in reconstruction activities in the war-torn countries. How does this complex operate? Is it really reliant on waging wars? A: <u><strong><mark>We cannot understand intensified militarization</mark> and the rise of this complex <mark>outside of</mark> the crisis of global <mark>capitalism</mark>.</u></strong> This crisis is structural, in the first instance. <u>It is</u> what we call <u>a crisis of over-accumulation. The rise of the global economy</u> driven by new technologies, especially computer, information, and communications technologies, but also by the revolution in transportation and containerization, by robotics, aerospace, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and more recently, by 3D printing, among other aspects, <u>has allowed the transnational capitalist class to restructure and reorganize the whole world economy</u>, and to bring about a huge increase in productivity worldwide and an enormous expansion of the capacity of the global economy to churn out goods and services. But <u><mark>extreme inequality and social polarization</u></mark> in the global system <u><mark>means that the global market cannot absorb</mark> the <mark>expanding output</mark> of the global economy. <strong><mark>The result is a stagnation that is becoming chronic.</u></strong></mark> <u><mark>The gap between what the global economy can produce and </mark>what the global market can <mark>absorb is growing</mark> and <mark>this leads to a crisis of overproduction</mark>: where and how to unload the surplus?</u> How can transnational capital continue to accumulate and generate profits if this output is not unloaded, that is, profitably marketed? <u><mark>Unloading the surplus</mark> through financial speculation</u>, which has skyrocketed in recent years, only <u><mark>aggravates the solution</mark>, <mark>as we saw with the collapse of</mark> 20<mark>08</mark>. </u>Now, if only 20 percent of humanity can consume in any significant quantity it is not very profitable to go into the business of mass, inexpensive public transportation, health and education, or the production of practical goods that the world’s population needs because very simply even if people need these things they do not have the income to purchase them. A global civilian economy geared to the basic needs of humanity is simply not profitable for the transnational capitalist class. Look at it like this: <u>the mass production and distribution of vaccines and</u> other <u>medications for</u> communicable and treatable <u>diseases that affect masses of poor people around the world are</u> simply <u>not profitable and as a result we even have new pandemics of diseases</u> – <u>tuberculosis, measles, etc</u>. – <u>that previously were under control.</u> <u>Yet it is profitable for the global capitalist medical industry</u>, including the giant pharmaceutical, biotechnology and related branches <u>to spend billions on developing plastic surgery and every imaginable treatment for the vanity of a small portion of humanity, or to develop incredibly expensive treatments for diseases that afflict the affluent.</u> The lesson here is that <u>capital will seek to accumulate where it is profitable</u>, according to the structure of the market and of income, <u>which</u> in turn <u>is shaped by the balance of class and social power and what we call the relations of production and irrespective of rational use of resources and irrespective of human need. </u>It is in this context that <u><strong><mark>it becomes</u></strong></mark> quite <u><strong><mark>profitable to turn to wars</u></strong></mark>, conflicts, systems of repression and social control to generate profit, to produce goods and systems that can repress that 80 percent of humanity that is not your consumer, not your customer so to say, because they do not have the purchasing power to sustain your drive to accumulate by producing goods and services for them that they actually need. Global capitalism is a perverted and irrational system. Putting aside geo-political considerations, <u><mark>the</u> <u>surplus</mark> that the global economy has been and is producing but that <mark>cannot be absorbed</mark> by the world market, <mark>has been channeled into wars and conflicts that involve endless rounds of destruction and reconstruction</u></mark>, and new systems of social control and repression, independent of geo-political considerations, that is, simply <u>as a way of sustaining capital accumulation and profit making in the face of stagnation tendencies.</u> <u>The US </u>invasions and <u>occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan</u> – <u>although legitimated in the name of fighting “terrorism” – have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts and profits for transnational capital.</u> <u>The prison-industrial</u> <u>and immigrant-detention complexes</u> in the United States – and let us recall that the United States holds some 25-30 percent of the world’s prisoners – <u>is enormously profitable for private corporations</u> that run almost all of the immigrant detention centers, some of the general prisons, supply everything from guards to food, build the installations, erect border walls, and so on. Let us recall that the US National Security Agency – and we now know from Edward Snowden just how vast are its operations – subcontracts out its activities to private corporations, as do the CIA, the Pentagon, and so on. Global security corporations are one of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy and there are now more private security guards in the world than police officers. All of this is to say that <u><strong><mark>we are </mark>now <mark>living in a global war economy</u></strong></mark>, <u><mark>in which the threat of stagnation is offset</u></mark> in part <u><mark>by</mark> the <mark>militarization</mark> of global economy and society and the</u> introduction and <u>spread of systems of mass social control</u>. Of course this involves all kinds of cultural, ideological, and political dimensions as well. <u><mark>A global war economy based on <strong>a multitude of endless conflicts</u></strong></mark> <u>and the spread of social control systems, <strong><mark>from full-scale wars to the repression of racial minorities and immigrants</mark> in the United States and Europe</strong>, <mark>must be ideologically legitimated</mark>.</u> <u><mark>This is where</mark> bogus</u> and farcical <u>“wars on drugs and terrorism” come in, where <mark>enemies must be conjured up</mark>, in which <mark>populations must </mark>be led to <mark>believe they are threatened</u></mark>, and so on. <u>So the US public must believe that Iran is a threat, that Putin is</u> now <u>the devil, and so on.</u> <u><strong><mark>One “threat” replaces another</u></strong> <u>but the system needs to keep a population <strong>in permanent compliance</strong></mark> through the manipulation of emotion and the senses. This transition into a permanent global war economy</u> has <u>involved some shifts in the gravitational centers of capital accumulation</u>, towards those global corporate conglomerates involved in the production of war materials, of security, of engineering (for example, Bechtel and Halliburton), and other activities that involve making profit out of conflict and control. Remember by way of example that <u>each drone that flies, each missile fired, each round of ammunition, each tank deployed, each soldier equipped and fed, each prison that is constructed, each surveillance system put into place, each border wall installed, and so on</u> and so forth, <u>is produced in factories and through production chains by global corporations whose supply</u>, in turn, <u>of raw materials, machinery and service inputs</u> in turn <u>come from other global corporations</u> or local firms. So <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong></mark> whole <u><strong>global <mark>economy is kept running through violence and conflict</u></strong></mark>. But <u>the global war economy also involves the global financial institutions that are at the very heart of the global econom</u>y, together <u>with the petroleum complex that is coming under</u> much <u>pressure from the environmental movement yet is showing all-time record profits in the past few years. <strong><mark>This is a new transnational power bloc</u></strong></mark> – <u>this</u> <u>complex of corporate interests brought around a global war economy and global systems of repression and social control</u>, together <u>with elites and state managers brought into or representing the power bloc.</u> Remember also that <u><mark>the polarization of the world population</mark> into 20 percent affluent and 80 percent immiserated <mark>generates new</mark> spatial <mark>social relations, <strong>so that the privileged occupy gated communities</strong> and those displaced by gentrification must be violently suppressed and</mark> carefully <mark>controlled</mark>, <mark>while</mark> surveillance systems and security <mark>guards</mark> must patrol and <mark>protect</mark> <mark>that 20 percent</mark>.</u> <u>All <mark>this</mark> <mark>and</mark> much <mark>more are part of the</mark> militarization and <strong><mark>“securitization” of global society</u></strong></mark> by the powers that be. <u><mark>We face</u></mark> new <u><mark>doctrines</mark>, <mark>ideologies and political discourse that legitimize the construction of a global police state</u></mark> – “fourth generation warfare,” “humanitarian intervention,” <u><strong><mark>the “war on drugs,”</u></strong></mark> among others, and above all, the so-called “war on terror.” I say so-called because, <u>the US state is the biggest perpetrator of terror in the world. It is not that Al-Qaida and other groups do not carry out condemnable violence against innocent civilians. They</u> indeed <u>do. But if we define terrorism as the use of violence against civilians for political objectives, then <strong>the US state is the world’s leading terrorist.</u></strong> The powers that be in global society and that control the global political discourse attach the label “terrorist” to violence that they do not approve of, and they attach the label of “freedom and democracy and security” to violence that they do approve of, or that they commit themselves. Moreover, increasingly “terrorism” is used to simply describe political dissent, so that legitimate social movements and political struggles against global capitalism become labeled as “terrorism” in order to justify their suppression.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We must exhaust the 1ac through a parasitic act which dooms the system to crumble under its own weight – otherwise, logics of incorporation ensures the recuperation of juridical domination

Bifo 11

Bifo 11 Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Professor of Social History of Communication at the Accademia di Belle Arti of Milan, After the Future, pg. 104-108

Time is in the mind The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level we are here touching upon a crucial point Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as an energetic process: mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions But in our age energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization and financial games the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object Today the whole system is swamped by indeterminacy, and every reality is absorbed by the hyperreality of the code and simulation We must therefore reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system The entire apparatus of the commodity law of value is absorbed and recycled in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra The brain is the market, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely The proliferation of simulacra in the info-sphere has saturated the space of attention and imagination Advertising and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), have submitted the energies of the social psyche to permanent mobilization Exhaustion follows, and exhaustion is the only way of escape Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide So hostages are taken On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity No need for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects. the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it it was party to its own destruction . The West has become suicidal, and declared war on itself In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow movement towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism, and adopt the mode of passivity A radical passivity would definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years the most powerful weapon has been suicide 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere it is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal The exchange between life and money could be deserted exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic growth The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as energetic mobilization, social desire and political activism energy is running out, and desire is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization The proliferation of simulacra has saturated the space of attention and imagination. Advertising have submitted the energies to permanent mobilization exhaustion is the only escape:¶ Nothing, can avoid the symbolic obligation, The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does The system must itself commit suicide in response to the challenge of death So hostages are taken the hostage is the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may become confused in the same sacrificial ac The West has become suicidal exhaustion could become withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon activism, and adopt passivity radical passivity would threaten the ethos of relentless productivity We have been working too much is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawa The exchange between life and money could be deserted,

Time is in the mind. The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level. I think that we are here touching upon a crucial point. The process of re-composition, of conscious and collective subjectivation, finds here a new – paradoxical – way. Modern radical thought has always seen the process of subjectivation as an energetic process: mobilization, social desire and political activism, expression, participation have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions. But in our age energy is running out, and desire which has given soul to modern social dynamics is absorbed in the black hole of virtualization and financial games, as Jean Baudrillard (1993a) argues in his book Symbolic Exchange and Death, first published in 1976. In this book Baudrillard analyzes the hyper-realistic stage of capitalism, and the instauration of the logic of simulation.¶ Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction. It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal. [...]¶ The reality principle corresponds to a certain stage of the law of value. Today the whole system is swamped by indeterminacy, and every reality is absorbed by the hyperreality of the code and simulation. The principle of simulation governs us now, rather that the outdated reality principle. We feed on those forms whose finalities have disappeared. No more ideology, only simulacra. We must therefore reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system. A structural revolution of value. This genealogy must cover political economy, where it will appear as a second-order simulacrum, just like all those that stake everything on the real: the real of production, the real of signification, whether conscious or unconscious. Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy: it operates with political economy as its simulated model. The entire apparatus of the commodity law of value is absorbed and recycled in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra. Political economy is thus assured a second life, an eternity, within the confines of an apparatus in which it has lost all its strict determinacy, but maintains an effective presence as a system of reference for simulation. (Baudrillard 1993a: 2)¶ Simulation is the new plane of consistency of capitalist growth: financial speculation, for instance, has displaced the process of exploitation from the sphere of material production to the sphere of expectations, desire, and immaterial labor. The simulation process (Cyberspace) is proliferating without limits, irradiating signs that go everywhere in the attention market. The brain is the market, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality. And the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely.
 The process of collective subjectivation (i.e. social recomposition) implies the development of a common language-affection which is essentially happening in the temporal dimension. The semiocapitalist acceleration of time has destroyed the social possibility of sensitive elaboration of the semio-flow. The proliferation of simulacra in the info-sphere has saturated the space of attention and imagination. Advertising and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), have submitted the energies of the social psyche to permanent mobilization. Exhaustion follows, and exhaustion is the only way of escape:¶ Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide. So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out the hostage is the substitute, the alter-ego of the terrorist, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. Hostage and terrorist may thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act. (Baudrillard 1993a: 37)¶ In these impressive pages Baudrillard outlines the end of the modern dialectics of revolution against power, of the labor movement against capitalist domination, and predicts the advent of a new form of action which will be marked by the sacrificial gift of death (and self-annihilation). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in the most important terrorist act ever, Baudrillard wrote a short text titled The Spirit of Terrorism where he goes back to his own predictions and recognizes the emergence of a catastrophic age. When the code becomes the enemy the only strategy can be catastrophic:¶ all the counterphobic ravings about exorcizing evil: it is because it is there, everywhere, like an obscure object of desire. Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity. (Baudrillard 2003: 6)¶ This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power by the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. This malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share this order’s benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order:¶ No need, then, for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects. Very logically – inexorably – the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it. And it was party to its own destruction. When the two towers collapsed, you had the impression that they were responding to the suicide of the suicide-planes with their own suicides. It has been said that “Even God cannot declare war on Himself.” Well, He can. The West, in position of God (divine omnipotence and absolute moral legitimacy), has become suicidal, and declared war on itself. (Baudrillard 2003: 6-7)¶ In Baudrillard’s catastrophic vision I see a new way of thinking subjectivity: a reversal of the energetic subjectivation that animates the revolutionary theories of the 20th century, and the opening of an implosive theory of subversion, based on depression and exhaustion.¶ In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle. But exhaustion could also become the beginning of a slow movement towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the withdrawal, and frugal expectations of life and consumption. Radicalism could abandon the mode of activism, and adopt the mode of passivity. A radical passivity would definitely threaten the ethos of relentless productivity that neoliberal politics has imposed.¶ The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate. We have been working too much during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade – the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam – we recognize that the most powerful weapon has been suicide. 9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony. And they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. Suicide has became a form of political action everywhere. Against neoliberal politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy, when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death, murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life?
 I think that it is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawal. The exchange between life and money could be deserted, and exhaustion could give way to a huge wave of withdrawal from the sphere of economic exchange. A new refrain could emerge in that moment, and wipe out the law of economic growth. The self-organization of the general intellect could abandon the law of accumulation and growth, and start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

<h4><u><strong>We must exhaust the 1ac through a parasitic act which dooms the system to crumble under its own weight – otherwise, logics of incorporation ensures the recuperation of juridical domination</h4><p>Bifo 11</p><p></u></strong>Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Professor of Social History of Communication at the Accademia di Belle Arti of Milan, After the Future, <u>pg. 104-108</p><p>Time is in the mind</u>. <u>The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility to enhance time (Cybertime) beyond a certain level</u>. I think that <u>we are here touching upon a crucial point</u>. The process of re-composition, of conscious and collective subjectivation, finds here a new – paradoxical – way. <u><mark>Modern radical thought has always <strong>seen the process of subjectivation</strong></mark> <mark>as</mark> an <strong><mark>energetic</mark> process</strong>: <strong><mark>mobilization</strong>, social <strong>desire</strong> and political <strong>activism</strong></mark>, expression, <strong>participation</strong> have been the modes of conscious collective subjectivation in the age of the revolutions</u>. <u>But in our age <strong><mark>energy is running out</strong>, and <strong>desire</strong> </mark>which has given soul to modern social dynamics <mark>is <strong>absorbed in the black hole of virtualization</mark> and financial games</u></strong>, as Jean Baudrillard (1993a) argues in his book Symbolic Exchange and Death, first published in 1976. In this book Baudrillard analyzes the hyper-realistic stage of capitalism, and the instauration of the logic of simulation.¶ Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, <u>the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction</u>. <u>It becomes reality for its own sake, the <strong>fetishism of the lost object</u></strong>: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal. [...]¶ The reality principle corresponds to a certain stage of the law of value. <u>Today the whole system is <strong>swamped by indeterminacy</strong>, and every reality is <strong>absorbed by the hyperreality</strong> of the code and simulation</u>. The principle of simulation governs us now, rather that the outdated reality principle. We feed on those forms whose finalities have disappeared. No more ideology, only simulacra. <u>We must therefore <strong>reconstruct the entire genealogy of the law of value</strong> and its simulacra in order to grasp the hegemony and the enchantment of the current system</u>. A structural revolution of value. This genealogy must cover political economy, where it will appear as a second-order simulacrum, just like all those that stake everything on the real: the real of production, the real of signification, whether conscious or unconscious. Capital no longer belongs to the order of political economy: it operates with political economy as its simulated model. <u>The entire apparatus of <strong>the commodity law of value</strong> is <strong>absorbed and recycled</strong> in the larger apparatus of the structural law of value, this becoming part of the third order of simulacra</u>. Political economy is thus assured a second life, an eternity, within the confines of an apparatus in which it has lost all its strict determinacy, but maintains an effective presence as a system of reference for simulation. (Baudrillard 1993a: 2)¶ Simulation is the new plane of consistency of capitalist growth: financial speculation, for instance, has displaced the process of exploitation from the sphere of material production to the sphere of expectations, desire, and immaterial labor. The simulation process (Cyberspace) is proliferating without limits, irradiating signs that go everywhere in the attention market. <u><strong>The brain is the market</strong>, in semiocapitalist hyper-reality</u>. And <u>the brain is not limitless, the brain cannot expand and accelerate indefinitely</u>.
 The process of collective subjectivation (i.e. social recomposition) implies the development of a common language-affection which is essentially happening in the temporal dimension. The semiocapitalist acceleration of time has destroyed the social possibility of sensitive elaboration of the semio-flow. <u><mark>The <strong>proliferation of simulacra</strong></mark> in the info-sphere <mark>has <strong>saturated</strong> the space of <strong>attention and imagination</u></strong>.</mark> <u><mark>Advertising</mark> and stimulated hyper-expression (“just do it”), <mark>have <strong>submitted the energies</strong></mark> of the social psyche <mark>to <strong>permanent mobilization</u></strong></mark>. <u>Exhaustion follows, and <strong><mark>exhaustion is the only </mark>way of <mark>escape</u></strong>:¶ <u>Nothing, </mark>not even the system, <strong><mark>can avoid the symbolic obligation</strong>, </mark>and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital remains. <strong><mark>The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does</u></strong></mark> when encircled by the challenge of death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. <u><mark>The system <strong>must itself commit suicide</strong> in response to the</mark> multiplied <strong><mark>challenge of death </mark>and suicide</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>So hostages are taken</u></strong></mark>. <u>On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out <strong><mark>the hostage is the</mark> substitute, the <mark>alter-ego of the terrorist</strong>, the hostage’s death for the terrorist. <strong>Hostage and terrorist</strong> may </mark>thereafter <mark>become <strong>confused</strong> in the same sacrificial ac</mark>t</u>. (Baudrillard 1993a: 37)¶ In these impressive pages Baudrillard outlines the end of the modern dialectics of revolution against power, of the labor movement against capitalist domination, and predicts the advent of a new form of action which will be marked by the sacrificial gift of death (and self-annihilation). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in the most important terrorist act ever, Baudrillard wrote a short text titled The Spirit of Terrorism where he goes back to his own predictions and recognizes the emergence of a catastrophic age. When the code becomes the enemy the only strategy can be catastrophic:¶ all the counterphobic ravings about exorcizing evil: it is because it is there, everywhere, like an obscure object of desire. <u>Without this deep-seated complicity, the event would not have had the resonance it has, and in their symbolic strategy the terrorists doubtless know that they can count on this unavowable complicity</u>. (Baudrillard 2003: 6)¶ This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power by the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. This malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share this order’s benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order:¶ <u>No need</u>, then, <u>for a death drive or a destructive instinct, or even for perverse, unintended effects.</u> Very logically – inexorably – <u>the increase in the power heightens the will to destroy it</u>. And <u>it was party to its own destruction</u>. When the two towers collapsed, you had the impression that they were responding to the suicide of the suicide-planes with their own suicides. It has been said that “Even God cannot declare war on Himself.” Well, He can<u>. <mark>The West</u></mark>, in position of God (divine omnipotence and absolute moral legitimacy), <u><mark>has become suicidal</mark>, and declared war on itself</u>. (Baudrillard 2003: 6-7)¶ In Baudrillard’s catastrophic vision I see a new way of thinking subjectivity: a reversal of the energetic subjectivation that animates the revolutionary theories of the 20th century, and the opening of an implosive theory of subversion, based on depression and exhaustion.¶ <u>In the activist view exhaustion is seen as the inability of the social body to escape the vicious destiny that capitalism has prepared: deactivation of the social energies that once upon a time animated democracy and political struggle</u>. But <u><strong><mark>exhaustion</strong> could</mark> also <mark>become </mark>the beginning of <strong>a slow movement</strong> towards a “wu wei” civilization, based on the <strong><mark>withdrawal</strong>, and frugal expectations of life and consumption</u>. <u>Radicalism could abandon</mark> the mode of <mark>activism, and</u> <u><strong>adopt </mark>the mode of <mark>passivity</u></strong></mark>. <u>A <strong><mark>radical passivity</strong> would</mark> definitely <strong><mark>threaten the ethos</strong> of relentless productivity </mark>that neoliberal politics has imposed</u>.¶ <u>The mother of all the bubbles, the work bubble, would finally deflate</u>. <u><mark>We have been <strong>working too much</strong></mark> during the last three or four centuries, and outrageously too much during the last thirty years</u>. The current depression could be the beginning of a massive abandonment of competition, consumerist drive, and of dependence on work. Actually, if we think of the geopolitical struggle of the first decade – the struggle between Western domination and jihadist Islam – we recognize that <u>the most powerful weapon has been suicide</u>. <u>9/11 is the most impressive act of this suicidal war, but thousands of people have killed themselves in order to destroy American military hegemony</u>. And <u>they won, forcing the western world into the bunker of paranoid security, and defeating the hyper-technological armies of the West both in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.¶ </u>The suicidal implosion has not been confined to the Islamists. <u><strong>Suicide</strong> has became <strong>a form of political action</strong> everywhere</u>. Against neoliberal politics, Indian farmers have killed themselves. Against exploitation hundreds of workers and employees have killed themselves in the French factories of Peugeot, and in the offices of France Telecom. In Italy, when the 2009 recession destroyed one million jobs, many workers, haunted by the fear of unemployment, climbed on the roofs of the factories, threatening to kill themselves. Is it possible to divert this implosive trend from the direction of death, murder, and suicide, towards a new kind of autonomy, social creativity and of life?
 I think that <u>it <mark>is possible only if we start from exhaustion, if we emphasize the creative side of withdrawa</mark>l</u>. <u><mark>The exchange between life and money could be <strong>deserted</u></strong>,</mark> and <u>exhaustion could give way to <strong>a huge wave of withdrawal</strong> from the sphere of economic exchange</u>. <u>A new refrain could <strong>emerge in that moment</strong>, and wipe out the law of economic growth</u>. <u>The self-organization of the general intellect could <strong>abandon the law of accumulation and growth</u></strong>, and <u>start a new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.</p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Our alternative is pedagogical resistance to neoliberalism – the failure of traditional politics demands creation of resistant educational spaces – exposing epistemic cracks within neoliberal apparatuses provides the conditions of possibility for radical politics

Giroux 11/6

Giroux 11/6 (Henry Giroux, PhD from Carnegie-Mellon University, professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, distinguished visiting professor at Ryerson University, 11-6-14, “Capitalism Is a Tumor on the Body Politic: What's the Alternative? Beyond Mid-Election Babble,” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27273-henry-a-giroux-capitalism-is-a-tumor-on-the-body-politic-what-s-the-alternative) gz

The biggest challenge facing those who believe in social justice is to provide an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses and vision that can convince US citizens that a real democracy is worth fighting for The right-wing Republican sweep of Congress testifies to a massive memory and educational deficit among the US public and a failure among progressives and the left regarding how to think about politics outside of the established boundaries of liberal reform. The educative nature of politics has never been more crucial than it is now and testifies to the need for a new politics in which culture and education are as important as economic forces in shaping individual and social agency, if not resistance itself. The cultural apparatuses owned by the financial elite are largely responsible for the political and social darkness that engulfs the American public Americans are inhabiting a new moment in history in which the symbiosis among cultural institutions, power and everyday life has shaped the very nature of politics and the broader collective public consciousness with an influence unlike anything we have seen in the past Economics drives politics and its legitimating apparatuses have become the great engines of manufactured ignorance. This suggests the need for the left and their allies to take seriously how identities, desires and modes of agency are produced, struggled over and taken up the left "has underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle and have not always forged appropriate weapons to fight on this front" and in doing so have failed in its responsibility to address the educative nature of politics by challenging modes of domination "that lie on the side of the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle Couple that understanding with the need for a more comprehensive vision of change and the necessity for broad-based social movements, and it may become possible once again to develop new opportunities for a new political language, forms of collective struggle and a politics for radical change rather than cravenly center-right reforms. The financial state promotes a form of ideological terrorism and the key issue is how to expose it, and dismantle its cultural apparatuses with the use of the social media, diverse apparatuses of communication, new political formations, and ongoing collective educational and political struggles.

The biggest challenge facing social justice is to provide an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses and vision that can convince citizens that democracy is worth fighting for The right-wing sweep of Congress testifies to a educational deficit among the public and failure to think politics outside established boundaries The educative nature of politics has never been more crucial and testifies to the need for a new politics in which culture and education are important in shaping social agency, if not resistance Economics drives politics and its apparatuses have become engines of manufactured ignorance. This suggests the need to take seriously how identities, desires and agency are produced the left "has underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle and have not forged appropriate weapons to fight on this front Couple that with broad-based social movements, and it may become possible to develop a new political language and a politics for radical change The financial state promotes ideological terrorism and the key is how to expose and dismantle its cultural apparatuses

The biggest challenge facing those who believe in social justice is to provide an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses and vision that can convince US citizens that a real democracy is worth fighting for. The right-wing Republican sweep of Congress testifies to a massive memory and educational deficit among the US public and a failure among progressives and the left regarding how to think about politics outside of the established boundaries of liberal reform. The educative nature of politics has never been more crucial than it is now and testifies to the need for a new politics in which culture and education are as important as economic forces in shaping individual and social agency, if not resistance itself. The cultural apparatuses owned by the financial elite are largely responsible for the political and social darkness that engulfs the American public. Americans are inhabiting a new moment in history in which the symbiosis among cultural institutions, power and everyday life has shaped the very nature of politics and the broader collective public consciousness with an influence unlike anything we have seen in the past. Economics drives politics and its legitimating apparatuses have become the great engines of manufactured ignorance. This suggests the need for the left and their allies to take seriously how identities, desires and modes of agency are produced, struggled over and taken up. The left and other progressives need to rethink Pierre Bourdieu's insistence that the left "has underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle and have not always forged appropriate weapons to fight on this front" and in doing so have failed in its responsibility to address the educative nature of politics by challenging modes of domination "that lie on the side of the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle." (1) Couple that understanding with the need for a more comprehensive vision of change and the necessity for broad-based social movements, and it may become possible once again to develop new opportunities for a new political language, forms of collective struggle and a politics for radical change rather than cravenly center-right reforms. As Hannah Arendt and others told us many years ago, there is no democracy without an informed public. This is a lesson the right wing took very seriously after the democratic uprisings of the 1960s. This is not a matter of blaming the public but of trying to understand the role of culture and power as a vital force in politics and how it is linked to massive inequities in wealth and income. The financial state promotes a form of ideological terrorism and the key issue is how to expose it, and dismantle its cultural apparatuses with the use of the social media, diverse apparatuses of communication, new political formations, and ongoing collective educational and political struggles.

<h4>Our alternative is pedagogical resistance to neoliberalism – the failure of traditional politics demands creation of resistant educational spaces – exposing epistemic cracks within neoliberal apparatuses provides the conditions of possibility for radical politics</h4><p><u><strong>Giroux 11/6</u></strong> (Henry Giroux, PhD from Carnegie-Mellon University, professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, distinguished visiting professor at Ryerson University, 11-6-14, “Capitalism Is a Tumor on the Body Politic: What's the Alternative? Beyond Mid-Election Babble,” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27273-henry-a-giroux-capitalism-is-a-tumor-on-the-body-politic-what-s-the-alternative) gz</p><p><u><mark>The biggest challenge facing </mark>those who believe in <mark>social justice is to provide <strong>an alternative discourse, educational apparatuses and vision</strong> that can convince</mark> US <mark>citizens that</mark> a real <mark>democracy is worth fighting for</u></mark>.</p><p><u><mark>The right-wing</mark> Republican <mark>sweep of Congress testifies to a</mark> massive <strong>memory and <mark>educational deficit among the</mark> US <mark>public</strong> and</mark> a <mark>failure</mark> among progressives and the left regarding how <mark>to think </mark>about <mark>politics outside</mark> of the <mark>established boundaries </mark>of liberal reform. <strong><mark>The educative nature of politics</strong> has never been more crucial</mark> than it is now <mark>and testifies to <strong>the need for a new politics in which culture and education are</mark> as <mark>important</strong></mark> as economic forces <mark>in shaping</mark> <strong>individual and <mark>social agency, if not resistance</mark> itself</strong>.</p><p>The cultural apparatuses owned by the financial elite are largely responsible for the <strong>political and social darkness that engulfs the American public</u></strong>. <u>Americans are inhabiting a new moment in history in which the <strong>symbiosis among cultural institutions, power and everyday life</strong> has shaped the very nature of politics and the broader collective public consciousness with an influence unlike anything we have seen in the past</u>. <u><strong><mark>Economics drives politics </strong>and its</mark> legitimating <mark>apparatuses have become</mark> the great <strong><mark>engines of manufactured ignorance</strong>. This suggests the need</mark> for the left and their allies <mark>to <strong>take seriously how identities, desires and</mark> modes of <mark>agency are produced</strong></mark>, struggled over and taken up</u>. The left and other progressives need to rethink Pierre Bourdieu's insistence that <u><mark>the left "has <strong>underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle</strong> and have not</mark> always <mark>forged appropriate <strong>weapons to fight on this front</mark>"</strong> and in doing so have failed in its responsibility to address the educative nature of politics by challenging modes of domination "that lie on the side of the <strong>symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of struggle</u></strong>." (1) <u><mark>Couple that</mark> understanding <mark>with</mark> the need for a more comprehensive vision of change and the <strong>necessity for <mark>broad-based social movements</strong>, and it may become possible</mark> once again <mark>to develop</mark> new opportunities for <mark>a <strong>new political language</strong></mark>, forms of collective struggle <mark>and a <strong>politics for radical change</mark> rather than cravenly center-right reforms.</p><p></u></strong>As Hannah Arendt and others told us many years ago, there is no democracy without an informed public. This is a lesson the right wing took very seriously after the democratic uprisings of the 1960s. This is not a matter of blaming the public but of trying to understand the role of culture and power as a vital force in politics and how it is linked to massive inequities in wealth and income. <u><mark>The financial state promotes</mark> a form of <strong><mark>ideological terrorism</strong> and the key</mark> issue <mark>is how to <strong>expose</mark> it, <mark>and dismantle its cultural apparatuses</strong></mark> with the use of the social media, diverse apparatuses of communication, new political formations, and ongoing collective educational and political struggles.</p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

We do this through a politics of stealing away – we must refuse interpellation and take back what belongs to the undercommons

Moten and Harney ‘13

Moten and Harney ‘13 (Stefano Harney, Professor of Strategic Management Education at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University and a co-founder of the School for Study and Fred Moten, Helen L. Bevington Professor of Modern Poetry at Duke, “The University and the Undercommons,” The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, pg. 26-28) [m leap]

The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today is a Criminal One To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. certainly, this much is true in the United States: it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, into the Undercommons of Enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong teaching would be performing the work of the university Teaching is merely a profession and an operation of what Jacques Derrida calls the onto-/auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby erased by it it is teaching that brings us in teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university But what would it mean if the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance And what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the Undercommons—this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act it is at the same time, the only possible act . To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, the criminal, matricidal, queer, in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life, the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching. The prophecy that predicts its own organization and has therefore passed, as commons, and the prophecy that exceeds its own organization and therefore as yet can only be organized. Against the prophetic organization of the Undercommons is arrayed its own deadening labor for the university, and beyond that, the negligence of professionalization, and the professionalization of the critical academic. The Undercommons is therefore always an unsafe neighborhood.

The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today is a Criminal One To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal one can sneak into the university and steal what one can. abuse its hospitality spite its mission join its refugee colony the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings She disappears into the Undercommons where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted Teaching is a profession an operation of the auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas And what of those minorities who refuse as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes into the Undercommons this will be regarded as theft a criminal act the only possible act To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and fugitive the criminal, matricidal, queer on the stroll of the stolen life the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others a radical passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood

The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today is a Criminal One. “To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal,” to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us. This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. This may be true of universities everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But certainly, this much is true in the United States: it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. Call out to it as it calls to you. But for the subversive intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men. After all, the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love. Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome. The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings. And on top of all that, she disappears. She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, into the Undercommons of Enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong. What is that work and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to say teaching, one would be performing the work of the university. Teaching is merely a profession and an operation of what Jacques Derrida calls the onto-/auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas. But it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters. The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby erased by it. It is not teaching then that holds this social capacity, but something that produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to call the prophetic organization. But it is teaching that brings us in. Before there are grants, research, conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book, teaching happened. The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually, one should not teach for food. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the university. But if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university. Kant interestingly calls such a stage “self-incurred minority.” He tries to contrast it with having the “determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another.” “Have the courage to use your own intelligence.” But what would it mean if teaching or rather what we might call “the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance? And what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority? Certainly, the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste. But their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment. The waste lives for those moments 102 Moten/Harneybeyond2 teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase— unexpected, no one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the Enlightenment truly better than this? Perhaps the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must. But even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional. And one may be given one last chance to be pragmatic—why steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the Undercommons—this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act. And it is at the same time, the only possible act. In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research. To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, the criminal, matricidal, queer, in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life, the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons. What the beyond2 of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not completing; it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching. The prophecy that predicts its own organization and has therefore passed, as commons, and the prophecy that exceeds its own organization and therefore as yet can only be organized. Against the prophetic organization of the Undercommons is arrayed its own deadening labor for the university, and beyond that, the negligence of professionalization, and the professionalization of the critical academic. The Undercommons is therefore always an unsafe neighborhood.

<h4>We do this through a politics of stealing away – we must refuse interpellation and take back what belongs to the undercommons</h4><p><u><strong>Moten and Harney ‘13</u></strong> (Stefano Harney, Professor of Strategic Management Education at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University and a co-founder of the School for Study and Fred Moten, Helen L. Bevington Professor of Modern Poetry at Duke, “The University and the Undercommons,” The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, pg. 26-28)<u> [m leap]</p><p><mark>The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today is a Criminal One</u></mark>. “<u><strong><mark>To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal</u></strong></mark>,” to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us. <u>This is the only possible relationship to the American university today.</u> This may be true of universities everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But <u>certainly, this much is true in the United States:</u> <u>it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment</u>. In the face of these conditions <u><mark>one can </mark>only <strong><mark>sneak into the university</strong> and <strong>steal what one can</u></strong>. <u><strong></mark>To <mark>abuse its hospitality</strong></mark>, to <strong><mark>spite its mission</strong></mark>, to <strong><mark>join its refugee colony</strong></mark>, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of—this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university</u>. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. Call out to it as it calls to you. But for the subversive intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men. After all, <u><mark>the subversive intellectual <strong>came under false pretenses</strong>, with <strong>bad documents</strong>, <strong>out of love</u></strong></mark>. <u>Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome</u>. <u><strong><mark>The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings</u></strong></mark>. And on top of all that, she disappears. <u><mark>She disappears </mark>into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, <mark>into the <strong>Undercommons</strong></mark> of Enlightenment, <mark>where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted</mark>, where the revolution is <strong>still black, still strong</u></strong>. What is that work and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to say <u>teaching</u>, one <u>would be performing the work of the university</u>. <u><strong><mark>Teaching</strong> is</mark> merely <mark>a <strong>profession</strong></mark> and <strong><mark>an operation</strong> of</mark> what Jacques Derrida calls<mark> <strong>the</mark> </strong>onto-<strong>/<mark>auto-encyclopedic circle</strong> of the Universitas</u></mark>. But <u>it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters</u>. <u>The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby <strong>erased by it</u></strong>. It is not teaching then that holds this social capacity, but something that produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to call the prophetic organization. But <u>it is teaching that brings us in</u>. Before there are grants, research, conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book, teaching happened. The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually, one should not teach for food. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the university. But if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and<u> teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university</u>. Kant interestingly calls such a stage “self-incurred minority.” He tries to contrast it with having the “determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another.” “Have the courage to use your own intelligence.” <u>But what would it mean if</u> teaching or rather what we might call “<u>the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance</u>? <u><mark>And what of those minorities who refuse</mark>, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), <mark>as if <strong>they will not be subjects</strong>, as if <strong>they want to think as objects</strong></mark>, as <strong>minority</u></strong>? Certainly, <u>the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste</u>. But <u>their collective labor will always call into question <strong>who truly is taking the orders of the Enlightenment</u></strong>. The waste lives for those moments 102 Moten/Harneybeyond2 teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase— unexpected, no one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the Enlightenment truly better than this? Perhaps <u>the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must</u>. But <u>even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional</u>. And one may be given one last chance to be pragmatic—why steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But <u><strong><mark>if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes</strong></mark> with hands full into the underground of the university, <strong><mark>into the Undercommons</strong></mark>—<mark>this will be <strong>regarded as theft</strong></mark>, as <mark>a <strong>criminal act</u></strong></mark>. And <u>it is at the same time, <strong><mark>the only possible act</u></strong></mark>. In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research<u>. <mark>To enter this space is to <strong>inhabit the ruptural</strong></mark> <mark>and</mark> enraptured disclosure of the commons that <strong><mark>fugitive</strong></mark> enlightenment enacts, <strong><mark>the criminal</strong>, <strong>matricidal</strong>, <strong>queer</strong></mark>, in the cistern, <strong><mark>on the stroll of the stolen life</strong></mark>, <strong><mark>the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back</strong></mark>, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons</u>. What the beyond2 of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not completing; <u><mark>it’s about <strong>allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others</strong></mark>, <strong><mark>a radical</strong></mark> passion and <strong><mark>passivity</strong></mark> <mark>such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood</mark>, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching. The prophecy that predicts its own organization and has therefore passed, as commons, and the prophecy that exceeds its own organization and therefore as yet can only be organized. Against the prophetic organization of the Undercommons is arrayed its own deadening labor for the university, and beyond that, the negligence of professionalization, and the professionalization of the critical academic. The Undercommons is therefore always an <strong>unsafe neighborhood</strong>.</p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt assuasion

Chow 1993

Chow – Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown - 1993

While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in an opposition against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed) but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words The predicament we face in the West Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper?

The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in oppositional against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return claims of oppression and victimization are used to guilt-trip and to control; affirmations of diversities that are made in the name of righteousness create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is not their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed but the privilege that accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper

(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. The question for me is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony (a question that positions them in an oppositional light against dominant power and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), but how they can resist, as Michel Foucault said, “the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse.’ “ Putting it another way, how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used merely to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words. Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are most certainly not directly changing the downtrodden lives of those who seek their survival in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike. What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their victimization by society at large (or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed), but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) The predicament we face in the West, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business, . . . he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses, when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper? How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?

<h4>The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt <strong>assuasion</h4><p><u>Chow</u> </strong>– Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown -<strong> <u>1993</p><p></u></strong>(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) </p><p><u>While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary</u> for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. <u><mark>The question</u></mark> for me <u><mark>is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony</u></mark> (a question that positions them <u><mark>in</mark> an <mark>opposition</u>al</mark> light <u><mark>against dominant power</u></mark> and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), <u><mark>but <strong>how they can resist</u></strong></mark>, as Michel Foucault said, “<u><mark>the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse</u></mark>.’ “ Putting it another way, <u><mark>how do intellectuals struggle against <strong>a hegemony which already includes them</u></strong></mark> and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? <u>As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,”</u> <u>and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and <mark>as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, <strong>many</strong> deep-rooted, <strong>politically reactionary forces return</u></strong></mark> <u>to haunt us.</u> <u>Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested <strong><mark>claims</strong></mark> <strong><mark>of oppression and victimization</strong></mark> that <strong><mark>are used</u></strong></mark> merely <u><strong><mark>to guilt-trip and to control</strong>; </mark>sexist and racist re<mark>affirmations of </mark>sexual and racial <mark>diversities that are made</mark> merely <mark>in the name of righteousness</mark>—all these forces <mark>create new “solidarities whose ideological premises <strong>remain unquestioned</u></strong></mark>. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. <u>The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense,</u> <u>We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are <strong>battles of words</u></strong>. <u><mark>Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are</mark> </u>most certainly <u><strong><mark>not</u></strong></mark> directly<u> <strong><mark>changing the</strong></mark> </u>downtrodden<u> <strong><mark>lives of those who seek</strong></mark> </u>their<u> <strong><mark>survival</strong></mark> </u>in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike.<u> <mark>What academic intellectuals must confront is</mark> thus <mark>not their</mark> </u>victimization by society at large (<u>or their <mark>victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed</mark>)</u>, <u><mark>but the</mark> power, wealth, and <mark>privilege that</mark> Ironically <mark>accumulate <strong>from their</strong> “oppositional” <strong>viewpoint</strong></mark>, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words</u>. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) <u>The predicament we face in the West</u>, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, <u>Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business</u>, . . . <u>he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen.</u> “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? <u><mark>How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses</u></mark>, <u><mark>when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper</mark>?</u> How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?</p>

1NC

Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Their counter-hegemony cannot actually mobilize, it only functions as one more act of protest which actually smooths capitalist relations.

Swyngedouw 08

Erik Swyngedouw. “Where is the Political?” IBG/RGS Conference. March 2008.

For him, radical transformation resides in political activism, the obsessive desire for becoming His emancipatory politics adheres to activism that asks the polity of state and of economy to change It is political acting that aims at changing the elites not at their replacement it is the obsessive activist that holds the promise for radical change for Holloway such politics of resistance has accepted the inevitability of capitalism’s global hegemony and retreats in the bulwark of localised political activism and acts around the provision of a space for the multitude of new subjectivities The demonstrations in Washington against the US attack on Iraq offer an exemplary case of this symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear they don’t agree with the government Those in power profited the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus Bush’s reaction ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here will be possible in Iraq

For him, radical transformation resides in political activism emancipatory politics adheres to activism that asks the polity of state and of economy to change it is the obsessive activist that holds the promise for radical change such politics of resistance has accepted the inevitability of capitalism’s global hegemony and retreats in the bulwark of localised political activism and acts around the provision of a space for the multitude of new subjectivities demonstrations in Washington offer an exemplary case The protesters saved their beautiful souls Those in power profited the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision they also served to legitimise it

I situate my argument of what constitutes the political in the interstices between two great, but radically opposed, perspectives that have galvanised much of progressive and leftist energies over the past few years. The first one is Hardt and Negri’s Empire and the immanent force of the multitude whose energies are liberated through the vicissitudes of empire, which in its womb, already harbours and nurtures the free reign of the multitude that will transgress and revolutionise the very disempowering and unequally constituted constellation of Empire (Hardt and Negri 2001). Indeed, as they could claim at the end of their book, there is an unbearable lightness in being communist as the immanent force of the multitude will realise itself through some sort of mythical energetic force. The multitude as political agent, from their perspective, grows out of and supplants Empire as a necessary, teleological, revolutionary gesture; political subjectivity is barred, annulled; the forces of empire will just do the trick. In this sense, the observation that Hardt and Negri have written the Communist Manifesto for the 21st Century is correct; it breathes the same unrelenting belief in the immanence of the multitude as it will emerge from the debris of a transcended imperial order, and a politics of egalibertarian emancipation is already structurally fermenting within the interstices of rhizomatic and decentred imperial reign. Second, and at the other side of the spectre stands, symbolically speaking, John Holloway’s Change the world without taking power (Holloway 2002). For him, radical transformation resides in continuous political activism, the obsessive desire for becoming that supplants the need for being, for spatialisation. His emancipatory politics adheres to the sort of activism that asks the constituent oligarchic polity of state and of economy to change, to take the demands seriously. It is political acting that aims at changing the elites not at their transformation, let alone their replacement in a different constituent order. While the political is an immanent process borne out of the configurations of empire for Negri, it is the obsessive activist, driven by a desire for justice and an analytical toolkit that situates injustices within the contours of the politico-economic and socio-cultural order that holds the promise for radical change for Holloway. Simon Critchley offers an ethico-philosophical foundation for such anarchic ‘politics of resistance’ (Critchley 2007). For Slavoj Žižek, such politics of resistance has de facto accepted the inevitability of capitalism’s global hegemony and retreats in the bulwark of localised political activism, centred on a critique of what is and acts around the provision of a space for the multitude of new subjectivities. In a review of this position, Zizek (Žižek 2007) states:¶ “The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’”

<h4>Their counter-hegemony cannot actually mobilize, it only functions as one more act of protest which actually smooths capitalist relations.</h4><p>Erik <u><strong>Swyngedouw</u></strong>. “Where is the Political?” IBG/RGS Conference. March 20<u><strong>08</u></strong>.</p><p>I situate my argument of what constitutes the political in the interstices between two great, but radically opposed, perspectives that have galvanised much of progressive and leftist energies over the past few years. The first one is Hardt and Negri’s Empire and the immanent force of the multitude whose energies are liberated through the vicissitudes of empire, which in its womb, already harbours and nurtures the free reign of the multitude that will transgress and revolutionise the very disempowering and unequally constituted constellation of Empire (Hardt and Negri 2001). Indeed, as they could claim at the end of their book, there is an unbearable lightness in being communist as the immanent force of the multitude will realise itself through some sort of mythical energetic force. The multitude as political agent, from their perspective, grows out of and supplants Empire as a necessary, teleological, revolutionary gesture; political subjectivity is barred, annulled; the forces of empire will just do the trick. In this sense, the observation that Hardt and Negri have written the Communist Manifesto for the 21st Century is correct; it breathes the same unrelenting belief in the immanence of the multitude as it will emerge from the debris of a transcended imperial order, and a politics of egalibertarian emancipation is already structurally fermenting within the interstices of rhizomatic and decentred imperial reign. Second, and at the other side of the spectre stands, symbolically speaking, John Holloway’s Change the world without taking power (Holloway 2002). <u><mark>For him, radical transformation resides in</u></mark> continuous <u><mark>political activism</mark>, the obsessive desire for becoming</u> that supplants the need for being, for spatialisation. <u>His <mark>emancipatory politics adheres to</u></mark> the sort of <u><mark>activism that asks the</u></mark> constituent oligarchic <u><mark>polity of state and of economy to change</u></mark>, to take the demands seriously. <u>It is political acting that aims at changing the elites not at their</u> transformation, let alone their <u>replacement</u> in a different constituent order. While the political is an immanent process borne out of the configurations of empire for Negri, <u><mark>it is the obsessive activist</u></mark>, driven by a desire for justice and an analytical toolkit that situates injustices within the contours of the politico-economic and socio-cultural order <u><mark>that holds the promise for radical change</mark> for Holloway</u>. Simon Critchley offers an ethico-philosophical foundation for such anarchic ‘politics of resistance’ (Critchley 2007). For Slavoj Žižek, <u><mark>such politics of resistance has</u></mark> de facto <u><mark>accepted the inevitability of capitalism’s global hegemony and retreats in the bulwark of localised political activism</u></mark>, centred on a critique of what is <u><mark>and acts around the provision of a space for the multitude of new subjectivities</u></mark>. In a review of this position, Zizek (Žižek 2007) states:¶ “<u>The</u> big <u><mark>demonstrations in</u></mark> London and <u><mark>Washington</mark> against the US attack on Iraq</u> a few years ago <u><mark>offer an exemplary case</mark> of this</u> strange <u>symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their</u> paradoxical <u>outcome was that both sides were satisfied. <mark>The protesters saved their beautiful souls</mark>: they made it clear</u> that <u>they don’t agree with the government</u>’s policy on Iraq. <u><mark>Those in power</u></mark> calmly accepted it, even <u><mark>profited</u></mark> from it: not only did <u><mark>the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision</mark> to attack Iraq; <mark>they also served to legitimise it</mark>. Thus</u> George <u>Bush’s reaction</u> to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: <u>‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here</u> – protesting against their government policy – <u>will be possible</u> also <u>in Iraq</u>!’”</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The attempt to make structural suffering accessible with scenes of particular people individuates systemic harms in order to make them manageable – The 1AC packaging facilitates analytic passivity by narrowing the means for legitimate calls to action, deferring structural transformations in exchange for handing off the burden of articulating oppression to those who most directly experience it.

Berlant 1996

Berlant – Professor of English @ the University of Chicago – 1996

The double humiliation of protest in the mainstream media subtracts personhood from activists In contrast, political suffering is still palatable when expressed as a trauma or injury to a particular person. This narrowing in the means for making a legitimate claim on public sympathy has had a significant effect in a certain strain of U.S. legal theory But more than this gossip media have helped to make scenes of personal witnessing the only political testimony that counts. It is not that just everybody loves a good sob story. Trauma makes good storytelling and puts a "face" on an otherwise abstract issue.17 Moreover, the sheer scale of the systematically brutal hierarchies that structure national capitalist culture can be overwhelming, leading to a kind of emotional and analytic paralysis [stagnation] in a public that cannot imagine a world without poverty or violence: here too, the facialization of U.S. injustice makes it manageable and enables further deferral of considerations that might force structural transformations of public life. In the meantime the personal complaint form now bears a huge burden for vocalizing and embodying injustice in the United States

The double humiliation of protest in the mainstream media subtracts personhood from activists , political suffering is still palatable when expressed as a trauma or injury to a particular person. This narrowing in the means for making a legitimate claim on public sympathy has had a significant effect in a certain strain of U.S. legal theory gossip media have helped to make scenes of personal witnessing the only political testimony that counts the sheer scale of the systematically brutal hierarchies that structure national capitalist culture can be overwhelming, leading to a kind of emotional and analytic [stagnation] in a public that cannot imagine a world without poverty or violence the personal complaint form now bears a huge burden for vocalizing and embodying injustice in the United States.

(Lauren, “The Face of American and the State of Emergency,” in Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies, Cary Nelson and Dilip Gaonkar (Eds.), pp. 397-440 @ 406-7) Modified for ableist language The double humiliation of protest in the mainstream media, making it both silly and dangerous, subtracts personhood from activists, making their very gestures of citizenship seem proof that their claims arc illegitimate. This is especially germane in the portrayal of pro-life and gay collective actions. In contrast, political suffering is still palatable when expressed as a trauma or injury to a particular person. This narrowing in the means for making a legitimate claim on public sympathy has had a significant effect in a certain strain of U.S. legal theory, where some are arguing that words and images can produce harms to a person as substantial as those made by physical acts of violence, such that violent and cruel talk should be actionable the way physical assault is (Matsuda 1993). But more than this, talk shows and other forms of gossip media have helped to make scenes of personal witnessing the only political testimony that counts. It is not that just everybody loves a good sob story. Trauma makes good storytelling and, as journalistic common sense constantly reminds us, it puts a "face" on an otherwise abstract issue.17 Moreover, the sheer scale of the systematically brutal hierarchies that structure national capitalist culture can be overwhelming, leading to a kind of emotional and analytic paralysis [stagnation] in a public that cannot imagine a world without poverty or violence: here too, the facialization of U.S. injustice makes it manageable and enables further deferral of considerations that might force structural transformations of public life. In the meantime, while the embodied activities of anonymous citizens have taken on the odor of the abject, the personal complaint form now bears a huge burden for vocalizing and embodying injustice in the United States.

<h4>The attempt to make structural suffering accessible with scenes of particular people individuates systemic harms in order to make them manageable – The 1AC packaging facilitates analytic passivity by narrowing the means for legitimate calls to action, deferring structural transformations in exchange for handing off the burden of articulating oppression to those who most directly experience it.</h4><p><u><strong>Berlant</u></strong> – Professor of English @ the University of Chicago – <u><strong>1996</p><p></u></strong>(Lauren, “The Face of American and the State of Emergency,” in Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies, Cary Nelson and Dilip Gaonkar (Eds.), pp. 397-440 @ 406-7) </p><p>Modified for ableist language</p><p><u><mark>The double humiliation of protest in the mainstream media</u></mark>, making it both silly and dangerous, <u><mark>subtracts personhood from activists</u></mark>, making their very gestures of citizenship seem proof that their claims arc illegitimate. This is especially germane in the portrayal of pro-life and gay collective actions. <u>In contrast<mark>, political suffering is still palatable when expressed as a trauma or injury to a particular person. This narrowing in the means for making a legitimate claim on public sympathy has had a significant effect in a certain strain of U.S. legal theory</u></mark>, where some are arguing that words and images can produce harms to a person as substantial as those made by physical acts of violence, such that violent and cruel talk should be actionable the way physical assault is (Matsuda 1993). <u>But more than this</u>, talk shows and other forms of <u><mark>gossip media have helped to make scenes of personal witnessing the only political testimony that counts</mark>. It is not that just everybody loves a good sob story. Trauma makes good storytelling and</u>, as journalistic common sense constantly reminds us, it <u>puts a "face" on an otherwise abstract issue.17 Moreover, <mark>the sheer scale of the systematically brutal hierarchies that structure national capitalist culture can be overwhelming, leading to a kind of emotional and analytic </mark>paralysis <mark>[stagnation] in a public that cannot imagine a world without poverty or violence</mark>: here too, the facialization of U.S. injustice makes it manageable and enables further deferral of considerations that might force structural transformations of public life. In the meantime</u>, while the embodied activities of anonymous citizens have taken on the odor of the abject, <u><mark>the personal complaint form now bears a huge burden for vocalizing and embodying injustice in the United States</u>.</p></mark>

1NC

Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

All the aff does is transform resistance into a form of “transgression” which props up the neo-liberal order.

Swyngedouw 08

Erik Swyngedouw. “Where is the Political?” IBG/RGS Conference. March 2008.

politicization cuts directly against radical politics that characterize resistance. Rather than embracing the multitude of singularities and the plurality of possible modes of becoming rather than reveling in immanence rather than the micropolitics of dispersed resistances, alternative practices, and affects this contribution foregrounds division and exclusion and emphases the ‘passage to the act’ Politics understood as rituals of resistance is doomed to fail politically Radical political practices is conceived as an unending process which can destabilize the power structure, without ever being able to undermine it the goal is to displace the limit of social exclusions, empowering the excluded agents (sexual and ethnic minorities) by creating marginal spaces in which they can articulate and question their identity such tactics not only leave the symbolic order intact and at best ‘tickle’ the police order, they are conducive to the flows of global capital the very field of such ‘transgressions’ are engendered by the hegemomic form

politicization cuts directly against radical politics that characterize resistance. Rather than embracing the multitude of singularities and the plurality of possible modes of becoming rather than the micropolitics of dispersed resistances this contribution foregrounds division and exclusion and emphases the ‘passage to the act’ Politics understood as rituals of resistance is doomed to fail politically conceived as an unending process which can destabilize the power structure, without ever being able to undermine it the goal is to displace the limit of social exclusions, such tactics leave the symbolic order intact they are conducive to the flows of global capital the very field of such ‘transgressions’ are engendered by the hegemomic form”

Badiou defines ‘le passage à l’acte’ as an intervention in the state of the situation that transforms and transgresses the symbolic orders of the existing condition and marks a shift from the old to a new situation, one that cannot any longer be thought of in terms of the old symbolic framings. Žižek insists that such a political act does not start ‘from the art of the possible, but from the art of the impossible’ (Žižek 1999b). Proper politics is thus about enunciating demands that lie beyond the symbolic order of the police; demands that cannot be symbolized within the frame of reference of the police and, therefore, would necessitate a transformation in and of the police to permit symbolization to occur. Yet, these are demands that are eminently sensible and feasible when the frame of the symbolic order is shifted, when the parallax gap between what is (the constituted symbolic order of the police) and what can be (the reconstituted symbolic order made possible through a shift in vantage points, one that starts from the partisan universalizing principle of equality). This is the actual political process through which those that have no part claim their place within the symbolic edifice of the police, become part of the state of the situation. This is were the impossible egalitarian demands are formulated and fought for that express and transgress the partition of the sensible, that require a transformation of socio-physical space and the institution of a radically different partition of the sensible. It is the sort of demands that ‘restructure the entire social space’ (Žižek 1999b: 208), that are impossible to be symbolized within the existing police order. The form of politicization predicated upon universalizing egalibertarian demands cuts directly against the radical politics that characterize so much of the current forms and theorizations of resistance. Rather than embracing the multitude of singularities and the plurality of possible modes of becoming, this approach starts from the suturing attempts of the existing police order and its associated social relations; rather than reveling in the immanence of imperial transformation, an immanence to which there is no outside (à la Hardt and Negri), rather than the micropolitics of dispersed resistances, alternative practices, and affects (à la Holloway or Critchley), the view explored in this contribution foregrounds division and exclusion and emphases the ‘passage to the act’ through a political truth procedure that necessitates taking sides (see (Dean 2006: 115). Politics understood as rituals of resistance is, according to Zizek, doomed to fail politically:¶ “Radical political practices itself is conceived as an unending process which can destabilize, displace, and so on, the power structure, without ever being able to undermine it effectively – the ultimate goal of radical politics is ultimately to displace the limit of social exclusions, empowering the excluded agents (sexual and ethnic minorities) by creating marginal spaces in which they can articulate and question their identity” (Žižek 2002b: 101).¶ The problem with such tactics is not only that they leave the symbolic order intact and at best ‘tickle’ the police order, they are actually conducive to the flows of global capital and can be fully subsumed within it. As Žižek puts it, “these practices of performative reconfiguration/displacement ultimately support what they intend to subvert, since the very field of such ‘transgressions’ are already taken into account, even engendered by the hegemomic form” (Žižek 1999b: 264).

<h4>All the aff does is transform resistance into a form of “transgression” which props up the neo-liberal order.</h4><p>Erik <u><strong>Swyngedouw</u></strong>. “Where is the Political?” IBG/RGS Conference. March 20<u><strong>08</u></strong>.</p><p>Badiou defines ‘le passage à l’acte’ as an intervention in the state of the situation that transforms and transgresses the symbolic orders of the existing condition and marks a shift from the old to a new situation, one that cannot any longer be thought of in terms of the old symbolic framings. Žižek insists that such a political act does not start ‘from the art of the possible, but from the art of the impossible’ (Žižek 1999b). Proper politics is thus about enunciating demands that lie beyond the symbolic order of the police; demands that cannot be symbolized within the frame of reference of the police and, therefore, would necessitate a transformation in and of the police to permit symbolization to occur. Yet, these are demands that are eminently sensible and feasible when the frame of the symbolic order is shifted, when the parallax gap between what is (the constituted symbolic order of the police) and what can be (the reconstituted symbolic order made possible through a shift in vantage points, one that starts from the partisan universalizing principle of equality). This is the actual political process through which those that have no part claim their place within the symbolic edifice of the police, become part of the state of the situation. This is were the impossible egalitarian demands are formulated and fought for that express and transgress the partition of the sensible, that require a transformation of socio-physical space and the institution of a radically different partition of the sensible. It is the sort of demands that ‘restructure the entire social space’ (Žižek 1999b: 208), that are impossible to be symbolized within the existing police order. The form of <u><mark>politicization</u></mark> predicated upon universalizing egalibertarian demands <u><mark>cuts directly against</u></mark> the <u><mark>radical politics that characterize</u></mark> so much of the current forms and theorizations of <u><mark>resistance. Rather than embracing the multitude of singularities and the plurality of possible modes of becoming</u></mark>, this approach starts from the suturing attempts of the existing police order and its associated social relations; <u>rather than reveling in</u> the <u>immanence</u> of imperial transformation, an immanence to which there is no outside (à la Hardt and Negri), <u><mark>rather than the micropolitics of dispersed resistances</mark>, alternative practices, and affects</u> (à la Holloway or Critchley), the view explored in <u><mark>this contribution foregrounds division and exclusion and emphases the ‘passage to the act’</u></mark> through a political truth procedure that necessitates taking sides (see (Dean 2006: 115). <u><mark>Politics understood as rituals of resistance is</u></mark>, according to Zizek, <u><mark>doomed to fail politically</u></mark>:¶ “<u>Radical political practices</u> itself <u>is <mark>conceived as an unending process which can destabilize</u></mark>, displace, and so on, <u><mark>the power structure, without ever being able to undermine it</u></mark> effectively – <u><mark>the</u></mark> ultimate <u><mark>goal</u></mark> of radical politics <u><mark>is</u></mark> ultimately <u><mark>to displace the limit of social exclusions,</mark> empowering the excluded agents (sexual and ethnic minorities) by creating marginal spaces in which they can articulate and question their identity</u>” (Žižek 2002b: 101).¶ The problem with <u><mark>such tactics</u></mark> is <u>not only</u> that they <u><mark>leave the symbolic order intact</mark> and at best ‘tickle’ the police order, <mark>they are</u></mark> actually <u><strong><mark>conducive to the flows of global capital</u></strong></mark> and can be fully subsumed within it. As Žižek puts it, “these practices of performative reconfiguration/displacement ultimately support what they intend to subvert, since <u><mark>the very field of such ‘transgressions’ are</u></mark> already taken into account, even <u><mark>engendered by the hegemomic form</u>”</mark> (Žižek 1999b: 264).</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

N

Wake

6

Emory KS

Brian McBride

1ac was hyperincarceration 1nc was university k plan pik cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was pik and case 2nr was university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round6.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

They define themselves entirely in opposition, positing all violence traceable to an injury enacted by the White Man on all manner of others. This mode of identification ensures ressentiment which means that we are always obsessively concerned with the Male and are never able to live life on our own terms.

Rebecca Stringer. "A Nietzschean Breed': Feminism, Victimology, Ressentiment." Why Nietzsche Still? Reflections on Drama, Culture, Politics. Edited by Alan Schrift. 2000. pages 264-265.

ressentiment is always the product of "interaction" between injured forces and injuring forces and it produces a reactive desire to exact retribution ressentiment "makes sense to a subject who is systematically brutalized and exploited Ressentiment is an economy of negative affect rather than an affect in itself: it is a configuration of emotions wherein pain is constantly remembered and desire for revenge are constantly renewed Ressentiment feminism forms its identity with the tactic of inversion, and its opposition to at the birth of feminist morals when this feminism comes to equate women's powerlessness with women's goodness This feminism will attempt to forge a separation by casting patriarchy as the blameworthy cause of injury, as a force that must be separated from its manifestations (the doer posited beyond the deed) and made accountable for its effects. With the introduction of accountability through accusation, this feminism casts itself and its constituency as the deserving creditors the less obvious companion of this credit claim is an investment in the power relationship from which it is elaborated ressentiment "requires a hostile world to exist" the evils of patriarchy buttress this feminism's moral identity and serve as a necessary resource for its "survival" this indebtedness 'preserv[es] the identity of the oppressed subject it redraw[s] the very configurations and effects of power that [it] seek[s] to vanquish

ressentiment is the product of "interaction" between injured forces and injuring forces it produces a reactive desire to exact retribution Ressentiment is an economy of negative affect rather than an affect in itself configuration of emotions wherein pain is constantly remembered Ressentiment feminism forms its identity with inversion This feminism will attempt to forge separation by casting patriarchy as the blameworthy cause of injury, as a force that must be separated from its manifestations With the introduction of accountability through accusation, this feminism casts itself and its constituency as the deserving creditors ressentiment "requires a hostile world to exist": the evils of patriarchy buttress this feminism's moral identity and serve as a necessary resource for its "survival" this indebtedness 'preserv[es] the identity of the oppressed subject it redraw[s] the very configurations and effects of power that [it] seek[s] to vanquish

The French word ressentiment, from which the English resentment was derived, commonly denotes a state of vengeful rancor produced as an effect of an injurious encounter. The word resent conjugates the prefix re-, which designates both repetition and backward motion, with sent, which comes from the Latin verb sentire, "to feel." Thus ressentiment pertains to reactive feelings repeatedly felt and designates a psychological state that is always and only relational: resentment is always the product of "interaction" between injured forces and injuring forces (from the harmful actions of a tyrannical person the more general condition of human suffering), and it always produces in turn a reactive desire on the part of the injured to exact retribution from the injuring (their assailant, "life"). As Anna Yeatrnan notes, ressentiment "makes sense to a subject who is systematically brutalized and exploited by more powerful forces." Ressentiment is an economy of negative affect rather than an affect in itself: it is a configuration of emotions wherein pain is constantly remembered and revisited, and in which hatred and the desire for revenge are constantly renewed. What is most important for our purposes is the point at which ressentiment becomes "creative": that is, the point at which it becomes a "condition of possibility" and ceases to be simply a "condition."¶ Ressentiment gives birth to morals at the same time that it comes to serve as a means of identity formation, and on the plane of the political the concept can be used to discern the process through which negative and nontransformative political identities are achieved. The feeling of powerlessness and the experience of suffering are always at the root of ressentiment —whether incurred as a result of a loss of power (the noble forced to slavery) or a perpetual state of powerlessness (the "original" slave). In the case of feminism, the "danger" of ressentiment presents itself with the desire to counter the forces that have caused women's oppression historically. Ressentiment feminism can be understood, to use Yeatman's term, as a "reactive project of survival." As such, this feminism forms its political identity in accordance with the tactic of inversion, and its opposition to the sociocultural configurations that have proved injurious to women is motivated by the will to reverse these configurations. This reversal occurs, at an imagined or discursive level— which is not to say that it does not have "real" effects—at the birth of feminist morals or, more specifically, when this feminism comes to equate women's powerlessness with women's goodness. As Yeatman describes, echoing the concerns of the popular press feminists dealt with above, "Such a feminism is committed to discovering what is good in women's distinctive ways of relating and doing things [and] ends up celebrating as virtues all those aspects of the identity of the oppressed which are associated with strategic self-preservation in a condition of weakness.” Similarly, Brown comments that this feminism maneuvers toward attaining "singular purchase on 'the good.'"¶ For this feminism, patriarchy assumes the appearance of a system that enjoys the privilege of unhindered activity: patriarchy is a "force which does not separate itself from its effect or its manifestations." This feminism will attempt to forge such a separation by casting the activity of patriarchy as the blameworthy cause of injury, as a force that must be separated from its manifestations (the doer posited beyond the deed) and made accountable for its effects. With the introduction of accountability through accusation, this feminism casts itself and its constituency as the deserving creditors. However, the less obvious companion of this credit claim is an investment in, or indebtedness to, the power relationship from which it is elaborated. Nietzsche notes that the creature of ressentiment "requires a hostile world in order to exist": here this means that the evils of patriarchy buttress this feminism's moral identity and serve as a necessary resource for its "survival" (GM I:io). In this sense, this feminism is indebted to the configuration of power against which it is situated, an indebtedness that has two effects: for Yeatman, it 'preserv[es] the identity of the oppressed subject"; for Brown, it "inadvertently redraw[s] the very configurations and effects of power that [it] seek[s] to vanquish.” As with the previous set of writers I discussed, Brown, Yeatman, and Tapper share the concern that the politics of ressentiment leads feminists to position themselves "politically" in a morally superior realm outside of power. In this realm—the margins, the bottom of the hierarchy—participating in power is admonished as an unfeminist act that is equated with "undemocratic domination." One of the primary points found in each of their critiques is that this realm is no less implicated in a will to power and no less prone to the desire to dominate than is the center, the top of the hierarchy.

<h4>They define themselves entirely in opposition, positing all violence traceable to an injury enacted by the White Man on all manner of others. This mode of identification ensures ressentiment which means that we are always obsessively concerned with the Male and are never able to live life on our own terms.</h4><p>Rebecca <u>Stringer</u>. "A Nietzschean Breed': Feminism, Victimology, Ressentiment." Why Nietzsche Still? Reflections on Drama, Culture, Politics. Edited by Alan Schrift. <u>2000</u>. pages 264-265.</p><p>The French word ressentiment, from which the English resentment was derived, commonly denotes a state of vengeful rancor produced as an effect of an injurious encounter. The word resent conjugates the prefix re-, which designates both repetition and backward motion, with sent, which comes from the Latin verb sentire, "to feel." Thus <u><mark>ressentiment</mark> </u>pertains to reactive feelings repeatedly felt and designates a psychological state that is always and only relational: resentment <u><mark>is</mark> always <mark>the product of "interaction" between injured forces and injuring forces</mark> </u>(from the harmful actions of a tyrannical person the more general condition of human suffering), <u>and <mark>it</u></mark> always <u><mark>produces</u></mark> in turn <u><mark>a reactive desire</u></mark> on the part of the injured <u><mark>to exact retribution</u></mark> from the injuring (their assailant, "life"). As Anna Yeatrnan notes, <u>ressentiment "makes sense to a subject who is systematically brutalized and exploited</u> by more powerful forces." <u><mark>Ressentiment is an economy of negative affect rather than an affect in itself</mark>: it is a <mark>configuration of emotions wherein pain is constantly remembered</u></mark> and revisited, <u>and</u> in which hatred and the <u>desire for revenge are constantly renewed</u>. What is most important for our purposes is the point at which ressentiment becomes "creative": that is, the point at which it becomes a "condition of possibility" and ceases to be simply a "condition."¶ Ressentiment gives birth to morals at the same time that it comes to serve as a means of identity formation, and on the plane of the political the concept can be used to discern the process through which negative and nontransformative political identities are achieved. The feeling of powerlessness and the experience of suffering are always at the root of ressentiment —whether incurred as a result of a loss of power (the noble forced to slavery) or a perpetual state of powerlessness (the "original" slave). In the case of feminism, the "danger" of ressentiment presents itself with the desire to counter the forces that have caused women's oppression historically. <u><mark>Ressentiment feminism</u></mark> can be understood, to use Yeatman's term, as a "reactive project of survival." As such, this feminism <u><mark>forms its</u></mark> political <u><mark>identity</u></mark> in accordance <u><mark>with</mark> the tactic of <mark>inversion</mark>, and its opposition to</u> the sociocultural configurations that have proved injurious to women is motivated by the will to reverse these configurations. This reversal occurs, at an imagined or discursive level— which is not to say that it does not have "real" effects—<u>at the birth of feminist morals</u> or, more specifically, <u>when this feminism comes to equate women's powerlessness with women's goodness</u>. As Yeatman describes, echoing the concerns of the popular press feminists dealt with above, "Such a feminism is committed to discovering what is good in women's distinctive ways of relating and doing things [and] ends up celebrating as virtues all those aspects of the identity of the oppressed which are associated with strategic self-preservation in a condition of weakness.” Similarly, Brown comments that this feminism maneuvers toward attaining "singular purchase on 'the good.'"¶ For this feminism, patriarchy assumes the appearance of a system that enjoys the privilege of unhindered activity: patriarchy is a "force which does not separate itself from its effect or its manifestations." <u><mark>This feminism will attempt to forge</u></mark> such <u>a <mark>separation by casting</u></mark> the activity of <u><mark>patriarchy as the blameworthy cause of injury, as a force that must be separated from its manifestations</mark> (the doer posited beyond the deed) and made accountable for its effects. <mark>With the introduction of accountability through accusation, this feminism casts itself and its constituency as the deserving creditors</u></mark>. However, <u>the less obvious companion of this credit claim is an investment in</u>, or indebtedness to, <u>the power relationship from which it is elaborated</u>. Nietzsche notes that the creature of <u><mark>ressentiment "requires a hostile world</u></mark> in order <u><mark>to exist"</u>:</mark> here this means that <u><mark>the evils of patriarchy buttress this feminism's moral identity and serve as a necessary resource for its "survival"</u></mark> (GM I:io). In this sense, <u><mark>this</u></mark> feminism is indebted to the configuration of power against which it is situated, an <u><mark>indebtedness</u></mark> that has two effects: for Yeatman, it <u><mark>'preserv[es] the identity of the oppressed subject</u></mark>"; for Brown, <u><mark>it</u></mark> "inadvertently <u><mark>redraw[s] the very configurations and effects of power that [it] seek[s] to vanquish</u></mark>.” As with the previous set of writers I discussed, Brown, Yeatman, and Tapper share the concern that the politics of ressentiment leads feminists to position themselves "politically" in a morally superior realm outside of power. In this realm—the margins, the bottom of the hierarchy—participating in power is admonished as an unfeminist act that is equated with "undemocratic domination." One of the primary points found in each of their critiques is that this realm is no less implicated in a will to power and no less prone to the desire to dominate than is the center, the top of the hierarchy.</p>

1NC

Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Narrative appeals to experience weakens critical thrust of the histories of difference, reaffirms the epistemological frame of hegemonic history, naturalizes difference, displaces resistance outside of discourse and decontextualizes agency, and forecloses any critical examination of the constructiveness of our experience

Scott 1992

Scott 1992 (Joan, “Experience”, Feminists Theorize the Political, Ed. Judith Butler and Joan Scott, pp 24-25, KEL) Ableist language modified.

Documenting the experience of others in this way has been at once a highly successful and limiting strategy for historians of difference. It has been successful because it remains so comfortably within the disciplinary framework of history, working according to rules which permit calling old narratives into question when new evidence is discovered. When the evidence offered is the evidence of "experience," the claim for referentiality is further buttressed – what could be truer It is precisely this kind of appeal to experience as uncontestable evidence and as an originary point of explanation-as a foundation that weakens the critical thrust of histories of difference. By remaining within the epistemological frame of orthodox history, these studies lose the possibility of examining those assumptions and practices that excluded considerations of difference in the first place. They take as self-evident the identities of those whose experience is being documented and thus naturalize their difference. They locate resistance outside its discursive construction, and reify agency as an inherent attribute of individuals, thus decontextualizing it. Questions about the constructed nature of experience, about how subjects are constituted as different in the first place, about how one's vision is structured are left aside evidence of experience then becomes evidence for the fact of difference, rather than a way of exploring how difference is established, how it operates, how and in what ways it constitutes subjects who see and act in the world.

Documenting experience has been limiting it remains comfortably within disciplinary history, working according to rule When the evidence is experience referentiality is buttressed this appeal weakens the critical thrust of difference. By remaining within epistemological orthodox history studies lose possibility of examining assumptions that excluded difference They take as self-evident identities of those being documented and naturalize difference. They locate resistance outside and reify agency as inherent thus decontextualizing it. Questions about constructed experience are left aside experience becomes evidence for difference, rather than exploring how difference is established how it constitutes subjects

Documenting the experience of others in this way has been at once a highly successful and limiting strategy for historians of difference. It has been successful because it remains so comfortably within the disciplinary framework of history, working according to rules which permit calling old narratives into question when new evidence is discovered. The status of evidence is, of course, ambiguous for historians. On the one hand, they acknowledge that "evidence only counts as evidence and is only recognized as such in relation to a potential narrative, so that the narrative can be said to determine the evidence as much as the evidence determines the narrative.”4 On the other hand, their rhetorical treatment of evidence and their use of it to falsify prevailing interpretations, depends on a referential notion of evidence which denies that it is anything but a reflection of the real. 5 When the evidence offered is the evidence of "experience," the claim for referentiality is further buttressed – what could be truer, after all, than a subject's own account of what he or she has lived through? It is precisely this kind of appeal to experience as uncontestable evidence and as an originary point of explanation-as a foundation upon which analysis is based – that weakens the critical thrust of histories of difference. By remaining within the epistemological frame of orthodox history, these studies lose the possibility of examining those assumptions and practices that excluded considerations of difference in the first place. They take as self-evident the identities of those whose experience is being documented and thus naturalize their difference. They locate resistance outside its discursive construction, and reify agency as an inherent attribute of individuals, thus decontextualizing it. When experience is taken as the origin of knowledge, the vision of the individual subject (the person who had the experience or the historian who recounts it) becomes the bedrock of evidence upon which explanation is built. Questions about the constructed nature of experience, about how subjects are constituted as different in the first place, about how one's vision is structured – about language (or discourse) and history – are left aside. The evidence of experience then becomes evidence for the fact of difference, rather than a way of exploring how difference is established, how it operates, how and in what ways it constitutes subjects who see and act in the world.

<h4>Narrative appeals to experience weakens critical thrust of the histories of difference, reaffirms the epistemological frame of hegemonic history, naturalizes difference, displaces resistance outside of discourse and decontextualizes agency, and forecloses any critical examination of the constructiveness of our experience</h4><p><u><strong>Scott 1992</u></strong> (Joan, “Experience”, Feminists Theorize the Political, Ed. Judith Butler and Joan Scott, pp 24-25, KEL) Ableist<u> language modified.</p><p><mark>Documenting</mark> the <mark>experience</mark> of others in this way <mark>has been</mark> at once a highly successful and <mark>limiting</mark> strategy for historians of difference. It has been successful because <mark>it remains</mark> so <mark>comfortably within</mark> the <mark>disciplinary</mark> framework of <mark>history, working according to rule</mark>s which permit calling old narratives into question when new evidence is discovered.</u> The status of evidence is, of course, ambiguous for historians. On the one hand, they acknowledge that "evidence only counts as evidence and is only recognized as such in relation to a potential narrative, so that the narrative can be said to determine the evidence as much as the evidence determines the narrative.”4 On the other hand, their rhetorical treatment of evidence and their use of it to falsify prevailing interpretations, depends on a referential notion of evidence which denies that it is anything but a reflection of the real. 5 <u><mark>When the evidence</mark> offered <mark>is</mark> the evidence of "<mark>experience</mark>," the claim for <mark>referentiality is</mark> further <mark>buttressed</mark> – what could be truer</u>, after all, than a subject's own account of what he or she has lived through? <u>It is precisely <mark>this</mark> kind of <mark>appeal</mark> to experience as uncontestable evidence and as an originary point of explanation-as a foundation</u> upon which analysis is based – <u>that <mark>weakens the critical thrust of</mark> histories of <mark>difference. By remaining within</mark> the <mark>epistemological</mark> frame of <mark>orthodox history</mark>, these <mark>studies lose</mark> the <mark>possibility of examining</mark> those <mark>assumptions</mark> and practices <mark>that excluded</mark> considerations of <mark>difference</mark> in the first place. <mark>They take as self-evident</mark> the <mark>identities of those</mark> whose experience is <mark>being documented and</mark> thus <mark>naturalize</mark> their <mark>difference. They locate resistance outside</mark> its discursive construction, <mark>and reify agency as</mark> an <mark>inherent</mark> attribute of individuals, <mark>thus decontextualizing it.</u></mark> When experience is taken as the origin of knowledge, the vision of the individual subject (the person who had the experience or the historian who recounts it) becomes the bedrock of evidence upon which explanation is built. <u><mark>Questions about</mark> the <mark>constructed</mark> nature of <mark>experience</mark>, about how subjects are constituted as different in the first place, about how one's vision is structured</u> – about language (or discourse) and history – <u><mark>are left aside</u></mark>. The <u>evidence of <mark>experience </mark>then <mark>becomes evidence for</mark> the fact of <mark>difference, rather than</mark> a way of <mark>exploring how difference is established</mark>, how it operates, <mark>how</mark> and in what ways <mark>it constitutes subjects</mark> who see and act in the world.</p></u>

1NC

Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx

N

Wake

4

GMU JT

Max Bugrov

1ac was feminist rage 1nc was university k cap k and case 2nc was university 1nr was case 2nr was case and the university

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Wake-Round4.docx