Changes for page Lake Travis Ehresman Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 11 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-05-10 19:3 4:52.01 +2017-05-10 19:35:58.0 - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - 4 -JANFEB - Title IX DA1 +JANFEB - Title IX DA
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@ 1 +The advocacy of free speech assumes that all voices have equal access, when in reality power inequities shape who can speak what 2 +Boler 2k Megan Boler (Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and editor of Digital Media and Democracy), "All Speech is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action Pedagogy," Philosophy of Education, 2000 3 +All speech is ... limiting dominant voices. 4 + 5 +AND, the problems within free speech are structural and largely produced via white patriarchal hegemony. Exclusion in discursive spheres happens on the level of subject creation – some marked subjects have less legitimacy than others. 6 +Patton 04 (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 192-194, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629) 7 +The first narrative ... disenfranchised occur frequently. 8 + 9 +Nagging and disrupting the white-male hegemonic institutions in the academy creates a disruption of the language game that exists in the academy. Only by antagonizing the principles of exclusion can we disorient the habitual spaces of whiteness which is a prerequisite to combatting other forms of oppression 10 +Patton 04 (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 197-198, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629) 11 +Through my personal ... set of struggles. 12 + 13 +Thus the alt is to reject the aff and reorient discourse spaces through a method of disempowering historic ethics and endorsing feminist epistemology. Social norms are internalized and become a source of comfort; rejecting social norms is associated with discomfort and unhappiness. The feminist killjoy embraces this discomfort in an attempt to disrupt the social order – unhappiness is key. 14 +Ahmed 10 Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 15 +To be unseated ... We must learn. 16 + 17 +Only when we are free from our masculine restrictions can we then solve for hate speech and its violence against bodies deemed as Other 18 +Hatfield et al. 5 Hatfield, Katherine L., Schafer, Kellie, Stroup, Christopher A., 2005, Atlantic Journal of Communication, “A Dialogic Approach to Combating Hate Speech on College Campuses”, acc. 7/11/16, School of Communication Studies Ohio University, Speech Communication and Dramatic Arts Central Michigan University, School of Communication Studies Ohio University, pp. 43 19 +Owen (1998) wrote that ... the hate messages. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:35:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dominic Henderson, Adam Lipton, Lindsay Willson - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Anderson JT - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +15 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Feminist Killjoy K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,30 @@ 1 +====Text: Indigenous communities should individually decide for themselves whether they want to prohibit the production of nuclear power in their territory commonly known as the United States. ==== 2 + 3 + 4 +====Competition: Mutually exclusive: they decide for themselves, so they don’t actually necessarily ban. The perm is severance. Individually implies that the policy of the action is grouped. Competes through net benefits.==== 5 + 6 +====I’ll defend the CP as unconditional.==== 7 + 8 +====The Counterplan solves better than the plan: consultation leads to the best policies for each clan. Thomas 95 ==== 9 +EDWARD K. THOMAS, 1995 (PRESIDENT CENTRAL COUNCIL OF THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA, May 18, 1995, http://www.archive.org/stream/biataskforcehear00unit/biataskforcehear00unit'djvu.txt) 10 +The opportunity for Tribes to participate in the reorganization process was greatly increased by holding the various meetings close to their Tribal headquarters. Many tribal leaders and Tribal members did attend the meetings and many testified at the times set aside on each agenda for hearing testimony. Witnesses either spoke on the business of the day or on the reorganization plan and the reorganization planning process. Their testimony helped Task Force members in their decision-making. We were better able to understand how they felt on many very important reorganization issues. Their testimony did make a difference in our final product. That is why Tribal consultation is important. Tribes, more than anyone else, know what is best for them. They know better than anyone what policies would be bad for them. 11 + 12 +====Legal discourse about Native populations can never escape the web of coloniality ~~:21 sec~~==== 13 +**Gehres 01** (Edward D. Gehres III*, "Visions of the Ghost Dance: Native American Empowerment and the Neo-Colonial Impulse," Hein Online, 2001, Online, Accessed 8/20/16, Pages 163. *Associate, Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C.; J.D., 2001, University of Virginia School of Law; MA., 1996, The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University; A.B., 1994, University of Michigan.) 14 +The application of these constructs of European derived legal discourse to the issue of a congressional waiver of tribal sovereign immunity reveals that despite intermittent advances in policy that have strengthened tribal sovereignty, the vestiges of colonial legal reasoning still hold strong influence in American legal thought. What has emerged with the instantaneous congressional and judicial reactions to the public backlash surrounding the empowerment of a few Indian nations is the "neo-colonial impulse" in policymaking. The reapplication of backward looking colonial images of Indian nations and culture, combined with the fundamental misconception that Indian nations should not participate in the policymaking surrounding their own sovereign powers of government, has produced a situation that could pose significant threats to the stability of enterprise development efforts by subjecting tribal governments to coercive and frivolous lawsuits from states and citizens seeking redress from the supposedly "unfair" advantages possessed by Indian nations. Tribal governments readily acknowledge that creative solutions must be sought to establish limited waivers and disclosure requirements concerning a tribe's sovereign immunity so that entities dealing with Indian nations will have proper protections and fair notice. Tribal governments need to decide for themselves how much sovereign immunity they must cede and under which circumstances this should be done. The proper scope of their waiver and disclosure requirements ought to reflect the input of their bilateral partners in government and enterprise development, but the ultimate decision over these inherent sovereign powers ought to rest with those possessing them. The perceptions fueled by the misunderstanding of recent economic development success and the fear and anger that have arisen as a result of new Indian empowerment must cede to the creation of new theories for the future of federal-Indian relations. 15 + 16 +====Previous consultation processes prove—Consultation processes make clans full partners in the process—the plan merely continues the legacy of colonization. Chino 95 ==== 17 +WENDELL CHINO, 1995 (MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, http://www.archive.org/stream/biataskforcehear00unit/biataskforcehear00unit'djvu.txt) 18 +The Joint Tribal BIA Tribal Department of the Interior Advisory Task Force on the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs task force was chartered on December 20, 1990 by the Secretary of the Interior. The charter was to develop baseline goals and plans for reorganization to strength the BIA's administration of Indian programs. The creation of the task force was based on a congressional mandate in response to tribal concerns that the Department of the Interior was planning to move forward with the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to appropriate participation and consultation with Indian tribes. The initial task force charter was for 2 years and was extended an additional 2 years by the Secretary of the Interior on November 18, 1992, in order to en- sure that the task force's efforts were tribally driven; yet, at the same time, a joint partnership effort — 36 of the 43 members of the task force were tribal members, 5 were BIA employees and 2 were Department of the Interior employees. The 36 members were 3 rep- resentatives from each of the Bureau's 12 area locations who were nominated by the tribes and appointed by the Secretary. The task force was led by cochairpersons representing the tribal and Federal partnership. The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs was named the Federal cochair by the Secretary, and the tribal representatives elected Wendell Chino, President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, the tribal cochair. The task force held its first of 22 meetings on January 22 through 24 1991, in Crystal City, VA. During the 4 years of its charter every effort was made to con- duct its meetings in different administrative areas to allow as many local tribes to participate as possible. To further ensure that this effort was tribally driven several steps were taken: One, time was set aside at each meeting to listen to the concerns and comments of the tribal leaders; two, tribal task force members were made responsible and held accountable for meeting with their respective tribes; three, each BIA area appointed Federal coordina- tors to facilitate ongoing consolidated sessions with the tribes; four, all tribes were invited to submit written comments for task force consideration. As a result of this participatory consultation process, tribes have been full partners in the recommendations presented. 19 + 20 +====Bringing indigenous views back into the picture is necessary for global survival.==== 21 + **Suagee 92** Dean B. Suagee, 1992 (J.D., University of North Carolina, University of Michigan Law School, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 671, Lexis, Accessed July 6, 2009) 22 +The global environmental crisis has more than adequately demonstrated that business as usual will not and cannot ensure global survival. What is needed is a fundamental shift in consciousness, and this means that the views of indigenous peoples — our laws and rules and relationships to the natural world — have to be brought back into the picture. 23 + 24 +===Grouping NB=== 25 + 26 +====Some indigenous people see waste facilities as good. To clarify, my argument is not that all groups should do this, but they need the option- the aff denies that.==== 27 +**Gover et al**, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American Attorneys at Gover, Stetson and Williams). "Escaping Environmental Paternalism: One Tribe's Approach to Developing a Commercial Waste Disposal Project in Indian Country." University of Colorado Law Review 63 (1992): 933. 28 +The second and more controversial issue facing tribes involves the use of reservation lands as sites for commercial solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Looking at the waste industry as a form of economic development, in many respects it can be a good match for tribal communities. The industry is usually willing to pay the costs of developing new projects without requiring a tribe to put any cash up front. Since most tribes just do not have the money to independently fund large-scale economic development, this makes the industry attractive to Indian communities desperate for development. The waste industry needs isolation and an abundance of land, and, again, because of the overall lack of tribal economic development, undeveloped land is a resource that many tribes have. The waste industry also provides numerous opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, including training in the construction and environmental compliance fields. On most reservations, unemployment is extremely high and opportunities for training Indians very limited. Finally, the waste industry is and must be recognized as an indispensable and legitimate part of the services sector of the economy, and as such, can be an extremely profitable form of development for tribes. All of this means that, under certain circumstances, a solid or hazardous waste disposal project may represent a viable and appropriate form of industrial development for some tribes and can provide extraordinary opportunities for economic development on some reservations. It is not appropriate for every community, and we certainly are not urging tribes to site waste facilities on their reservations. Each tribe must decide for itself if it is interested in such development. Our intent is merely to put things in a more honest perspective and to describe one process that, when and if a tribe seriously considers a commercial waste proposal, it can use to evaluate the proposal effectively and, if it's feasible, plan for its development. 29 + 30 +====Implications. A) Grouping indigenous identities together is much worse- you don’t take into account particularities, which turns case since you just reify native violence by not acknowledging this. B) Also, it does not matter that you read specific authors who do not want nuclear power on their land- that’s just a reason they should ban individually, which solves the aff. But you shouldn’t impose this on other groups.==== - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:38:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPTOCT - Indigenous Autonomy CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@ 1 +====We should use the academic setting to facilitate change, rather than roleplaying as policymakers we should take this chance to challenge the heteronormative structures that pervade the Academy.==== 2 +**Elias 2003** (John Elias, Professor at San Francisco University, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 45, no. 2/3/4, p. 64, 2003) 3 +Akin to organized religion and the biomedical field, the educational system has been a major offender. Wedded to disseminating the idea that heterosexuality is the ultimate and best form of sexuality, "Schools have maintained, by social custom and with reinforcement from the law, the promotion of the heterosexual family as predominant, and therefore the essence of normal. From having been presumed to be ‘normal,’ heterosexual behavior has gained status as the right, good, and ideal lifestyle" (Leck, 1999, p. 259). School culture in general is fraught with heteronormativity. Our society has long viewed queer sexualities as ". . . deviant, sinful, or both, and our schools are populated by adolescent peers and adult educators who share these heterosexual values" (Ginsberg, 1999, p. 55). Simply put, heteronormativity and sexual prejudice pervade the curriculum at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels (for examples of this and ways of intervening, see: Adams, Bell, and Griffin, 1997; Letts and Sears, 1999; Lovaas, Baroudi, and Collins, 2002; Yep, 2002). Besides the hegemonic hold schools have had regarding a heterosexual bias, school culture continues to devote much energy to maintaining ". . . the status quo of our dominant social institutions, which are hierarchical, authoritarian, and unequal, competitive, racist, sexist, and homophobic" (Arnstine, 1995, p. 183). While there has been modest success in addressing various forms of prejudice in schools (Kumashiro, 2001), what is sorely lacking is serious attention to how the intersections of race, class, sexuality and gender are interwoven and dialectically create prejudice (e.g., racism, classism, and hetero~~sexism~~). Schools would be an ideal site to interrogate, and begin to erode, the kind of hegemony upon which heterosexism rests and is supported. To date, not much is being done in a systematic fashion to disrupt the ways in which U.S. schooling has perpetuated such hierarchies. It seems to me that sexuality education is ripe for the opportunity to challenge heterosexism in school culture; however, public school-based sexuality education is presently in serious crisis, as it has turned mostly to the business of pushing for abstinence- only sexuality education. According to federal legislation, states that accept funding for this form of sexuality education require that young people are taught to abstain from sexual activity until they get married. This has numerous implications for relationship construction; a more in-depth description and analysis of this form of sexuality education will follow later in this essay. 4 + 5 + 6 +====Debate is education. This is a critical site to interrogate heterosexuality ==== 7 +**Elia 03 **Elia, Professor @ San Francisco University, 2003. (John, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 45, no. 2/3/4, p. 64, JCE) 8 +Akin to organized religion and the biomedical field, the educational system has been a major offender. Wedded to disseminating the idea that heterosexuality is the ultimate and best form of sexuality, "Schools have maintained, by social custom and with reinforcement from the law, the promotion of the heterosexual family as predominant, and therefore the essence of normal. From having been presumed to be ‘normal,’ heterosexual behavior has gained status as the right, good, and ideal lifestyle" (Leck, 1999, p. 259). School culture in general is fraught with heteronormativity. Our society has long viewed queer sexualities as ". . . deviant, sinful, or both, and our schools are populated by adolescent peers and adult educators who share these heterosexual values" (Ginsberg, 1999, p. 55). Simply put, heteronormativity and sexual prejudice pervade the curriculum at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels (for examples of this and ways of intervening, see: Adams, Bell, and Griffin, 1997; Letts and Sears, 1999; Lovaas, Baroudi, and Collins, 2002; Yep, 2002). Besides the hegemonic hold schools have had regarding a heterosexual bias, school culture continues to devote much energy to maintaining ". . . the status quo of our dominant social institutions, which are hierarchical, authoritarian, and unequal, competitive, racist, sexist, and homophobic" (Arnstine, 1995, p. 183). While there has been modest success in addressing various forms of prejudice in schools (Kumashiro, 2001), what is sorely lacking is serious attention to how the intersections of race, class, sexuality and gender are interwoven and dialectically create prejudice (e.g., racism, classism, and hetero~~sexism~~). Schools would be an ideal site to interrogate, and begin to erode, the kind of hegemony upon which heterosexism rests and is supported. To date, not much is being done in a systematic fashion to disrupt the ways in which U.S. schooling has perpetuated such hierarchies. It seems to me that sexuality education is ripe for the opportunity to challenge heterosexism in school culture; however, public school-based sexuality education is presently in serious crisis, as it has turned mostly to the business of pushing for abstinence- only sexuality education. According to federal legislation, states that accept funding for this form of sexuality education require that young people are taught to abstain from sexual activity until they get married. This has numerous implications for relationship construction; a more in-depth description and analysis of this form of sexuality education will follow later in this essay. 9 + 10 +===K story === 11 + 12 +====The entirety of the aff is predicated on solving and saving lives – i.e. stopping extinction, and any body count under util calculus – and while these are noble feats the obsession with ending death adheres to the futurist agenda of the squo. Futurism, using the idea to save lives and fear the death drives, only furthers the obsession with heteronormative reproduction and marginalized queer sex. ==== 13 + 14 +====Notions of preserving some sort of future for our species valorize reproductive, heterogenital sex, while subordinating queer sex to nothing more than "meaningless acrobatics." This impregnates heterosexuality with the future of signification, necessitating violence against queerness.==== 15 +**Edelman 2004** (Lee Edelman, Prof. English at Tufts University, "No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive," 2004, pp. 11-13) 16 +Charged, after all, with the task of assuring "that we being dead yet live," the Child, as if by nature (more precisely, as the promise of a natural transcendence of the limits of nature itself), excludes the very pathos from which the narrator of The Children of Men recoils when comes upon the –nonreproductive "pleasures of the mind and senses." For the "pathetic" quality he projectively locates in nongenerative sexual enjoyment – enjoyment that he views in the absence of futurity as empty, substitutive, pathological – exposes the fetishistic figurations of the Child that the narrator pits against it as legible in terms of identical to those for which enjoyment without "hope of posterity" so peremptorily dismissed" legible, that is, as nothing more than "pathetic and crumbling defences shored up against our ruins." How better to characterize the narrative project of Children of Men itself, which ends, as anyone not born yesterday surely expects form the start, with the renewal of our barren and dying race through the miracle of birth? After all, as Walter Wangerin Jr., reviewing the book for the New York Times, approvingly noted in a sentence delicately poised between description and performance of the novel’s pro-creative ideology: "If there is a baby, there is a future, there is redemption." If, however, there is no baby and in consequence, no future, then the blame must fall on the fatal lure of sterile, narcissistic enjoyments understood as inherently destructive of meaning and therefore as responsible for the undoing of social organization, collective reality, and, inevitably, life itself. Given that the author of The Children of Men, like the parents of mankind’s children, succumbs so completely to the narcissism – all pervasive, self-congratulatory, and strategically misrecognized – that animates pronatalism, why should we be the least bit surprised when her narrator, facing the futureless future, laments, with what we must call as straight face, that "sex totally divorced from procreation has to become almost meaninglessly acrobatic"? Which is, of course, to say no more than that sexual practice will continue to allegorize the vicissitudes of meaning so long as the specifically heterosexual alibi of reproductive necessity obscures the drive beyond meaning driving the machinery of sexual meaningfulness: so long, that is, as the biological fact of heterosexual procreation bestows the imprimatur of meaning-production on heterogenital relations. For the Child, whose mere possibility is enough to spirit away the naked truth of heterosexual sex – impregnating heterosexuality, as it were, with the future of signification by conferring upon it the cultural burden of signifying futurity – figures our identification with an always about-to-be-realized identity. It thus denies the constant threat to the social order of meaning inherent to the structure of Symbolic desire that commits us to pursuing fulfillment by way of a meaning unable, as meaning, either to fulfill us or, in turn, to be fulfilled because unable to close the gap in identity, the division incised by the signifier, that "meaning," despite itself. 17 + 18 + 19 +====The rhetoric of "survival" or "fighting against the future" implicitly valorizes the Child and subsequently reproductive sex. This kind of heteronormative discourse constructs a temporal operation to which queerness is inherently antagonistic.==== 20 +**Lippert 08 **Lippert - University Assistant in American Studies @ the University of Vienna – 2008 (Leopold, Utopian Contemporaries: Queer Temporality and America, thesis, November. ~~PDF Online @~~ othes.univie.ac.at/2818/1/2008-11-26'0303723.pdf) Accessed 07.02.11 jfs 21 +Edelman opens his book with what he modestly terms "a simple provocation" (Future, 3), and what encapsulates the futility of an affirmative and assimilationist queer politics. He argues "that queerness names ~~...~~ the side outside the consensus by which all politics confirms the absolute value of reproductive futurism" (Future, 3), and reveals the implicitly homophobic discourse of all the Obamas and O’Sullivans who are fighting for the future of our children and our grandchildren. The futurist bias towards heteronormativity has been fueled, as Judith Butler points out, by "fears about reproductive relations" ("Kinship", 21), by uncanny anxieties over the prospect that queer citizenship may interfere with a nation "imagined for fetuses and children" (Berlant, Queen, 1), and by the fundamental antithesis that the queer and the child embody. The principal concern of futurist America, then, is the fate of its offspring, expressed in a fearful inquiry: "What happens to the child, the child, the poor child, the martyred figure of an ostensibly selfish or dogged social progressivism?" (Butler, "Kinship", 21). Edelman recognizes that the mythical child – is the epitome of a heteronormative future-oriented social – can only be saved by a "marriage of identity to futurity in order to realize the social subject" (Future, 14), which leads him to the ensuing claim that only the linear temporal process of "ever aftering" ("After", 476, emphasis in the original) can keep "society alive" ("After", 476). Heteronormative America, accordingly, is constituted through its own posterity, through a temporal operation to which queerness is inherently antagonistic. In an imagined community that relies on futurism as its life-giving engine, then, "the queer comes to figure the bar to every realization of futurity, the resistance, internal to the social, to every social structure or form" (Edelman, Future, 4). 22 + 23 + 24 +====Heteronormativity instills a fundamental fear of impurity in society; this amplifies systemic violence against queerness and places our species on a trajectory towards omnicide. ==== 25 +**Sedwick 1990** (Eve Sedgwick, Professor of English CUNY, "Epistemology of the Closet," 1990, pp. 127-130.) 26 +From at least the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorray, scenarios of same-sex desire would seem to have had a privileged, though by no means an exclusive, relation in Western culture to scenarios of both genocide and omnicide. That sodomy, the name by which homosexual acts are known even today to the law of half of the United States and to the Supreme Court of all of them, should already be inscribed with the name of a site of mass extermination is the appropriate trace of a double history. In the first place there is a history of the mortal suppression, legal or subjudicial, of gay acts and gay people, through burning, hounding, physical and chemical castration, concentration camps, bashing—the array of sanctioned fatalities that Louis Crompton records under the name of gay genocide, and whose supposed eugenic motive becomes only the more colorable with the emergence of a distinct, naturalized minority identity in the nineteenth century. In the second place, though, there is the inveterate topos of associating gay acts or 27 + 28 +===Alt=== 29 + 30 +====Vote negative as an act of flourishing via traversing material conditions are the only imaginable way to transgress our constant desire of filling the Lack — allowances of ambivalence and risk allow for us to move through desire-filled states and into a world of pure pleasure==== 31 +**Berlant and Edelman 14 **(Lee, Professor of English at Tufts, Laura, Professor of English at the University of Chicago, "Sex, or the Unbearable," pg 10-12 shr) 32 +I never suggested that flourishing involves a "simple" self- evidence in happiness that demands a detachment from "the bad life": flourishing involves traversing material conditions and then the affective sense of thriving, which is something different from and often incoherently bound to scenes and modes of living. This is why the materially "good life" might not be accompanied by a sense that life is good, why "good sex" might not be something one would want to repeat: without allowing for ambivalence, there is no flour- ishing. It therefore entails a complex navigation of life and noise, and the will to achieve it calls for practices and tendencies beyond mere accommodation to the world’s and our own negativity. Like- wise it isn’t quite right to call psychoanalytic processes "structure" in contrast to the rule of misrule that marks ongoing modes of social domination: both domains of repetition structure, in that they are scenes in which subjects and scenes assume forms that have pre- dictable, not determined, impacts. Structure is a process, not an imprint, of the reproduction of life.¶ De-antinomizing structure and the everyday, for example, one no longer has to see sex only as expressing a relation of power, or someone’s singular pleasures, or the shattering activity of the drives. We wouldn’t have needed Rubin to help us calm down and think about sex, and to think about affirming what’s threatening about it either, if we did not need to figure out how sex reproduces normativity while predictably disorganizing assurance about why we want what we want and what our variety of attachments mean; at the same time, not quite knowing ourselves, we demand all sorts of things on behalf of the appetites, such as the right to anonymity, ag- gression, acknowledgment, pleasure, relief, protection, and, often, repair. Fantasy, formally speaking, is not what glosses over this craziness but that which makes it possible to move within it— sometimes in the blindingly glossy sense of optimism Lee proposes but more formally in the sense its setting provides that ambivalent, incoherent, proximate forces can be moved, moved through, and with. These processes of exposure to power, norm, and desire are structuring in their very variety and variation. As I wrote recently in an essay about the work of Leo Bersani and David Halperin, "When in a romance someone has sex and then says to the lover, ‘You make me feel safe,’ we understand that she means that there’s been an emotional compensation to neutralize how unsafe and close to the abject sex makes her feel. ‘You make me feel safe’ means that I can relax and have fun where I am also not safe, where I am too close to the ridiculous, the disgusting, the merely weird, or—simply too close to having a desire. But some situations are riskier than others, as the meanings of unsafe sex change according to who’s having the sex" (Berlant 2009, 266). That’s where the politics comes in.¶ So when I say that I want to dedramatize our conceptual and em- bodied encounters with sex, I don’t mean that I want to live in the pastoral sex world of Shortbus (Mitchell 2006), cruising like a happy puppy sniffing around a sea of interesting crotches. To some degree Lee is right that my stance is a way of making peace with misrecog- nition. Making peace with it, it seems to me—being a realist of sorts as well—gives us a shot at displacing sex from its normative func- tion as the mechanism of emotional cohesion that sustains aggres- sive heteronormativity. But also, since misrecognition is inevitable, since the fantasmatic projection onto objects of desire that crack you open and give you back to yourself in a way about which you might feel many ways will always happen in any circuit of reciprocity with the world, why fight it? The question is where we move the dramatics of projection, what we can make available for changing their imaginary shape and consequence. I take cues from Lacan and Cavell to see sex as part of a comedy of misrecognition at the same time as it also can be a tragic drama of inflation and deflation. But "comedy" is a technical term here; it does not point to what’s funny or what feels good. Comedy stages explosive and implosive prob- lems of adjustment that are fundamentally affective and political— and survivable, if not affectively too bearable, even beyond the limit. 33 + 34 + 35 +====The Ballot is a performative act – the ballot is a discourse exercising binding power. Every ballot matter – repetition is what confers power on the performative act. ==== 36 +**Butler 93 **Butler, noted for her studies on gender and teaches composition and rhetoric at Berkeley, 93 (Dr. Judith, ‘Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex’) pp. 225 LRP 37 +Performative acts are forms of authoritative speech: most performatives, for instance, are statements that, in the uttering, also perform a certain action and exercise a binding power.4 Implicated in a network of authorization and punishment, performatives tend to include legal sentences, baptisms, inaugurations, declarations of ownership, statements which not only perform an action, but confer a binding power on the action performed. If the power of discourse to produce that which it names is linked with the question of performativity, then the performative is one domain in which power acts as discourse. Importantly, however, there is no power, construed as a subject, that acts, but only, to repeat an earlier phrase, a reiterated acting that is power in its persistence and instability. This is less an "act," singular and deliberate, than a nexus of power and discourse that repeats or mimes the discursive gestures of power. Hence, the judge who authorizes and installs the situation he names invariably cites the law that he applies, and it is the power of this citation that gives the performative its binding or conferring power. And though it may appear that the binding power of his words is derived from the force of his will or from a prior authority, the opposite is more true: it is through the citation of the law that the figure of the judge's "will" is produced and that the "priority" of textual authority is established. Indeed, it is through the invocation of convention that the speech act of the judge derives its binding power; that binding power is to be found neither in the subject of the judge nor in his will, but in the citational legacy by which a contemporary "act" emerges in the context of a chain of binding convention. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:51:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +y - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Edelman K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pflugerville TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,9 @@ 1 +====The aff’s rhetorical performance is premised on the idea of a rational subject with free will who can act upon the law – this normative model of subjectivity is bureaucratic control itself – its essential meaning is the infliction of pain and death==== 2 +**Schlag 90**~|Stanford Law Review November, 1990 Essay "NORMATIVE AND NOWHERE TO GO" Pierre Schlag ~~FNa1~~ Copyright © 1990 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior (https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/'download/repository/SchlagSLR.pdf) A.B. 3 +All of this can seem very funny. That's because it is very funny. It is also deadly serious. It is deadly serious, because all this normative legal thought, as Robert Cover explained, takes place in a field of pain and death. n56 And in a very real sense Cover was right. Yet as it takes place, normative legal thought is playing language games — utterly oblivious to the character of the language games it plays, and thus, utterly uninterested in considering its own rhetorical and political contributions (or lack thereof) to the field of pain and death. To be sure, normative legal thinkers are often genuinely concerned with reducing the pain and the death. However, the problem is not what normative legal thinkers do with normative legal thought, but what normative legal thought does with normative legal thinkers. What is missing in normative legal thought is any serious questioning, let alone tracing, of the relations that the practice, the rhetoric, the routine of normative legal thought have (or do not have) to the field of pain and death. And there is a reason for that: Normative legal thought misunderstands its own situation. Typically, normative legal thought understands itself to be outside the field of pain and death and in charge of organizing and policing that field. It is as if the action of normative legal thought could be separated from the background field of pain and death. This theatrical distinction is what allows normative legal thought its own self-important, self-righteous, self-image — its congratulatory sense of its own accomplishments and effectiveness. All this self-congratulation works very nicely so long as normative legal ~~*188~~ thought continues to imagine itself as outside the field of pain and death and as having effects within that field. n57 Yet it is doubtful this image can be maintained. It is not so much the case that normative legal thought has effects on the field of pain and death — at least not in the direct, originary way it imagines. Rather, it is more the case that normative legal thought is the pattern, is the operation of the bureaucratic distribution and the institutional allocation of the pain and the death. n58 And apart from the leftover ego-centered rationalist rhetoric of the eighteenth century (and our routine), there is nothing at this point to suggest that we, as legal thinkers, are in control of normative legal thought. The problem for us, as legal thinkers, is that the normative APPEAL of normative legal thought systematically TURNS US AWAY from recognizing that normative legal thought is grounded on an utterly unbelievable re-presentation of the field it claims to describe and regulate. The problem for us is that normative legal thought, rather than assisting in the understanding of present political and moral situations, stands in the way. It systematically reinscribes its own aesthetic — its own FANTASTIC UNDERSTANDING of the political and moral scene. n59 Until normative legal thought begins to deal with its own paradoxical postmodern rhetorical situation, it will remain something of an irresponsible enterprise. In its rhetorical structure, it will continue to populate the legal academic world with individual humanist subjects who think themselves empowered Cartesian egos, but who are largely the manipulated constructions of bureaucratic practices — academic and otherwise. 4 + 5 +====We endorse the kritikal strategy of queer pessimism but reject their normative legal project. Affirm the 1ac rhetorical strategy but reject the plan – refusing the temptation to support normative legal thought opens up space to recognize the brutality beneath the liberal humanist mask of the state==== 6 + 7 +====It’s vital that you refuse all reasonable value to their normative legal project – allowing them case leverage is the most effective means of deflecting critical interrogation of normative legal thought ==== 8 +**SCHLAG 91**~| PIERRE, "Symposium THE CRITIQUE OF NORMATIVITY ARTICLES NORMATIVITY AND THE POLITICS OF FORM" (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3741andcontext=penn'law'review) A.B. 9 +It is apparent that virtually all aspects of normative legal thought are suited to the rhetorical reproduction and maintenance of the sovereign individual subject. As Charles Fried put it, "~~b~~efore there is morality there must be the person. We must attain and maintain in our morality a concept of personality such that it makes sense to posit choosing, valuing entities — free, moral beings." n259 This insistence of normative legal thought on the importance of a morally competent, normative subject is quite consonant with the rhetorical construction of the legal thinker as a sovereign individual subject. Indeed, this rationalist rhetorical construction is at once a prefigurement and the entailment of what Fried calls "choosing, valuing entities — free moral beings." The normative enterprise of norm-selection and norm-justification, with their emphases on choice orientation, value orientation, and prescription, is keenly suited to keeping the sovereign individual subject in the driver's seat. Likewise, the single-norm, conclusion-oriented character of legal thought, with its FIXATION ON END-PRODUCTS and its requirements that these end products be non-paradoxical, non-contradictory, complete, self-sufficient, discrete, separable, and transsituational, is conducive to deflecting any serious interrogation of either the rhetorical practices, forms, or processes that constitute the sovereign individual subject or his rhetorical enterprise: Hence, we are drawn toward the meticulous dissection and examination of what the legal subject has produced and whether these END-PRODUCTS have been produced in the right (non-contradictory, non-paradoxical, linear, authority-driven) way. And in turn, this orientation draws attention away from the legal subject who is producing all this stuff in the first place. n260 The action-deferring and reader-centered character of normative legal thought likewise ensure that no serious challenge is posed to the identity or character of the sovereign individual subject. The ~~*901~~ texts of normative legal thought are supposed to have their effect by appealing to the choice and the intellectual faculties of the reader. The texts are supposed to honor the reader's already preformed views, ideas, prejudices, and aesthetic representations of social and political life. There is to be no overt disabling or subversion of her identity or role. For instance, within the rationalist rhetoric of contemporary legal thought, it is permissible to write articles about Derridean deconstruction of legal thought — but to actually practice Derridean deconstruction will simply evoke resistance, misunderstanding, and incomprehension. The expectation is that any author will, of course, explain and justify any significant departure from the default positions and will refrain from any rhetorical exercise that might actually require active change on the part of the reader. Finally, the adversarial advocacy orientation of normative legal thought — which is attributable, at least in part, to the conflation of the role of lawyer and legal academic — does much to insulate the sovereign individual subject and its rhetorical supports from scrutiny. Because so many legal academics understand their legal thought to be positional in character — on behalf of some (intangible, often very worthy but poorly identified) client-surrogate, much of legal thought is produced within the explicit context of adversarial advocacy among academics and is devoted to advancing or defeating this or that position. Many normative legal thinkers understand themselves to be engaged in "passionate advocacy" on behalf of some cause. Now admittedly, there is no tribunal listening; no one is empowered to put all this normative passion into effect. But this does not mean that this passionate advocacy is therefore without effect: on the contrary, it often succeeds in BRACKETING ANY SERIOUS QUESTIONING of the rhetorical systems that enables such aimless passionate advocacy to be produced in the first place. Indeed, when one is engaged in passionate arguments to an imagined tribunal, the last thing one will do is question the argumentative structures that allow the arguments to be framed and presented in the first place. Not only does normative legal thought conduce to the maintenance of the sovereign individual subject and his rationalist rhetoric, but one can see the reverse process at work as well. Indeed, if normative thought occupies so much attention in the legal academy; if normative legal thought seems like the obvious, the "natural" thing to do; if the "what should we do?/what should the law be?" question seems so legitimate, so important; and if normative legal thought seems veritably like law itself, it is because the rhetorical ~~*902~~ situation — the default settings — have already enabled us, constituted our discourse, and configured our roles so that we will produce normative legal thought. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:57:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Queerpess State PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +unknown
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@ 1 +====They think that countries can ever do something in the interest of queer bodies, but the state is always anti-queer. The aff’s faith in legal reforms makes violence inevitable inevitable because the world is founded on the abuse and domination over queer bodies ==== 2 +**The Mary Nardini gang 2009** (criminal queers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin "toward the queerest insurrection" 2009) 3 +A fag is bashed because his gender presentation is far too femme. A poor transman can’t afford his life-saving hormones. A sex worker is murdered by their client. A genderqueer persyn is raped because ze just needed to be "fucked straight". Four black lesbians are sent to prison for daring to defend themselves against a straight-male attacker.1 Cops beat us on the streets and our bodies are being destroyed by pharmaceutical companies because we can’t give them a dime. Queers experience, directly with our bodies, the violence and domination of this world. Class, Race, Gender, Sexuality, Ability; while often these interrelated and overlapping categories of oppression are lost to abstraction, queers are forced to physically understand each. We’ve had our bodies and desires stolen from us, mutilated and sold back to us as a model of living we can never embody. 1 Free the New Jersey 4. And let’s free everyone else while we’re at it. Foucault says that "power must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the processes which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens or reverses them; as the support which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies." We experience the complexity of domination and social control amplified through heterosexuality. When police kill us, we want them dead in turn. When prisons entrap our bodies and rape us because our genders aren’t similarly contained, of course we want fire to them all. When borders are erected to construct a national identity absent of people of color and queers, we see only one solution: every nation and border reduced to rubble. VII The perspective of queers within the heteronormative world is a lens through which we can critique and attack the apparatus of capitalism. We can analyze the ways in which Medicine, the Prison System, the Church, the State, Marriage, the Media, Borders, the Military and Police are used to control and destroy us. More importantly, we can use these cases to articulate a cohesive criticism of every way that we are alienated and dominated. Queer is a position from which to attack the normative - more, a position from which to understand and attack the ways in which normal is reproduced and reiterated. In destabilizing and problematizing normalcy, we can destabilize and become a problem for the Totality. 4 + 5 +====The political will fail – moving within the state causes a sense of pacification where the left believes they have done good while still upholding the existing inequalities—turns case==== 6 +**Mieli 80 (Mario Mieli, **leader in the Italian gay movement, "Towards a gay communism" 1980, https://libcom.org/library/gay-communism-mario-mieli, MMV) 7 +I believe that homosexuals are revolutionary today in as much as we have overcome politics. The revolution for which we are fighting is among other things the negation of all male supremacist political rackets (based among other things on sublimated homosexuality), since it is the negation and overcoming of capital and its politics, which find their way into all groups of the left, sustaining them and making them counter-revolutionary. My arsehole doesn't want to be political, it is not for sale to any racket of the left in exchange for a bit of putrid opportunist political 'protection'. While the arseholes of the 'comrades' in the groups will be revolutionary only when they have managed to enjoy them with others, and when they have stopped covering their behinds with the ideology of tolerance for the queers. As long as they hide behind the shield of politics, the heterosexual 'comrades' will not know what is hidden within their own thighs. As always, it is only rather belatedly, in the wake of the 'enlightened' bourgeoisie, that the left-wing groups have begun to play the game of capitalist tolerance. From declared hangmen, and a thousand times more repugnant than the hustlers and fascists, given all their (ideological) declarations of revolution, the activists of these groups have transformed themselves into 'open' debaters with homosexuals. They fantasise about becoming well-meaning and tolerant protectors of the 'deviant', in this way gratifying their own virile image, already far too much on the decline, at a time when even the ultra-left have suddenly to improvise 'feminist' representatives for 'their' women. Moreover, the fantasy of protectors helps them to exorcise the problem of the repression of their own homoerotic desire. Under it all, the activists of the left always hope to become good policemen. They do not know that real policemen get in there more than they do, and that when this happens, they make love precisely with us gays. When will there be a free homosexual outlet for the activists of the ultra-left ? 8 + 9 +====Their constructions force the queer body into endless violence and exclusion through exile==== 10 +**Mary Nardini gang 2009** (criminal queers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin "toward the queerest insurrection" 2009) 11 +In the discourse of queer, we are talking about a space of struggle against this totality - against normalcy. By "queer", we mean "social war". And when we speak of queer as a conflict with all domination, we mean it. V See, we’ve always been the other, the alien, the criminal. The story of queers in this civilization has always been the narrative of the sexual deviant, the constitutional psychopathic inferior, the traitor, the freak, the moral imbecile. We’ve been excluded at the border, from labor, from familial ties. We’ve been forced into concentration camps, into sex slavery, into prisons. The normal, the straight, the american family has always constructed itself in opposition to the queer. Straight is not queer. White is not of color. Healthy does not have HIV. Man is not woman. The discourses of heterosexuality, whiteness and capitalism reproduce themselves into a model of power. For the rest of us, there is death. In his work, Jean Genet1 asserts that the life of a queer, is one of exile - that all of the totality of this world is constructed to marginalize and exploit us. He posits the queer as the criminal. He glorifies homosexuality2 and criminality as the most beautiful and lovely forms of conflict with the bourgeois world. He writes of the secret worlds of rebellion and joy inhabited by criminals and queers. Quoth Genet, "Excluded by my birth and tastes from the social order, I was not aware of its diversity. Nothing in the world was irrelevant: the stars on a general’s sleeve. the stock-market quotations, the olive harvest, the style of the judiciary, the wheat exchange, flower-beds. Nothing. This order, fearful and feared, whose details were all inter-related, had a meaning: my exile." 12 + 13 +====Vote negative to position the AC as a site of failure as a radical means of rejecting normative notions of success and productivity ==== 14 +**Halberstam 11.** J. J. Jack Halberstam, professor of English at the University of Southern California, The Queer Art of Failure, pg. 2 15 +In this book I range from children’s animation to avant-garde performance and queer art to think about ways of being and knowing that stand outside of conventional understandings of success. I argue that success in a heteronormative, capitalist society equates too easily to specific forms of reproductive maturity combined with wealth accumulation. But these measures of success have come under serious pressure recently, with the collapse of financial markets on the one hand and the epic rise in divorce rates on the other. If the boom and bust years of the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first have taught us anything, we should at least have a healthy critique of static models of success and failure. Rather than just arguing for a reevaluation of these standards of passing and failing, The Queer Art of Failure dismantles the logics of success and failure with which we currently live. Under certain circumstances failing, losing, forgetting, unmaking, undoing, unbecoming, not knowing may in fact offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world. Failing is something queers do and have always done exceptionally well; for queers failure can be a style, to cite Quentin Crisp, or a way of life, to cite Foucault, and it can stand in contrast to the grim scenarios of success that depend upon "trying and trying again." In fact if success requires so much effort, then maybe failure is easier in the long run and offers different rewards. What kinds of reward can failure offer us? Perhaps most obviously, failure allows us to escape the punishing norms that discipline behavior and manage human development with the goal of delivering us from unruly childhoods to orderly and predictable adulthoods. Failure preserves some of the wondrous anarchy of childhood and disturbs the supposedly clean boundaries between adults and children, winners and losers. And while failure certainly comes accompanied by a host of negative affects, such as disappointment, disillusionment, and despair, it also provides the opportunity to use these negative affects to poke holes in the toxic positivity of contemporary life. As Barbara Ehrenreich reminds us in Bright- sided, positive thinking is a North American affliction, "a mass delusion" that emerges out of a combination of American exceptionalism and a desire to believe that success happens to good people and failure is just a consequence of a bad attitude rather than structural conditions (2009: 13). Positive thinking is offered up in the U.S. as a cure for cancer, a path to untold riches, and a surefire way to engineer your own success. Indeed believing that success depends upon one’s attitude is far preferable to Americans than recognizing that their success is the outcome of the tilted scales of race, class, and gender. As Ehrenreich puts it, "If optimism is the key to material success, and if you can achieve an optimistic outlook through the discipline of positive thinking, then there is no excuse for failure." But, she continues, "the flip side of positivity is thus a harsh insistence on personal responsibility," meaning that while capitalism produces some people’s success through other people’s failures, the ideology of positive thinking insists that success depends only upon working hard and failure is always of your own doing (8). We know better of course in an age when the banks that ripped off ordinary people have been deemed "too big to fail" and the people who bought bad mortgages are simply too little to care about. In Bright-sided Ehrenreich uses the example of American women’s application of positive thinking to breast cancer to demonstrate how -dangerous the belief in optimism can be and how deeply Americans want to believe that health is a matter of attitude rather than environmental degradation and that wealth is a matter of visualizing success rather than having the cards stacked in your favor. For the nonbelievers outside the cult of positive thinking, however, the failures and losers, the grouchy, irritable whiners who do not want to "have a nice day" and who do not believe that getting cancer has made them better people, politics offers a better explanatory framework than personal disposition. For these negative thinkers, there are definite advantages to failing. Relieved of the obligation to keep smiling through chemotherapy or bankruptcy, the negative thinker can use the experience of failure to confront the gross inequalities of everyday life in the United States. From the perspective of feminism, failure has often been a better bet than success. Where feminine success is always measured by male standards, and gender failure often means being relieved of the pressure to measure up to patriarchal ideals, not succeeding at womanhood can offer unexpected pleasures. In many ways this has been the message of many renegade feminists in the past. Monique Wittig (1992) argued in the 1970s that if womanhood depends upon a heterosexual framework, then lesbians are not "women," and if lesbians are not "women," then they fall outside of patriarchal norms and can re-create some of the meaning of their genders. Also in the 1970s Valerie Solanas suggested that if "woman" takes on meaning only in relation to "man," then we need to "cut up men" (2004: 72). Perhaps that is a little drastic, but at any rate these kinds of feminisms, what I call shadow feminisms in chapter 5, have long haunted the more acceptable forms of feminism that are oriented to positivity, reform, and accommodation rather than negativity, rejection, and transformation. Shadow feminisms take the form not of becoming, being, and doing but of shady, murky modes of undoing, un- becoming, and violating. 16 + 17 +====Failure is a viable strategy and an artform of its own==== 18 +**Halberstam 11.** J. J. Judith Halberstam, professor of English at the University of Southern California, The Queer Art of Failure, pg. 5 19 +Illegibility, then, has been and remains, a reliable source for political autonomy. —James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State Any book that begins with a quote from SpongeBob SquarePants and is motored by wisdom gleaned from Fantastic Mr. Fox, Chicken Run, and Finding Nemo, among other animated guides to life, runs the risk of not being taken seriously. Yet this is my goal. Being taken seriously means missing out on the chance to be frivolous, promiscuous, and irrelevant. The desire to be taken seriously is precisely what compels people to follow the tried and true paths of knowledge production around which I would like to map a few detours. Indeed terms like serious and rigorous tend to be code words, in academia as well as other contexts, for disciplinary correctness; they signal a form of training and learning that confirms what is already known according to approved methods of knowing, but they do not allow for visionary insights or flights of fancy. Training of any kind, in fact, is a way of refusing a kind of Benjaminian relation to knowing, a stroll down uncharted streets in the "wrong" direction (Benjamin 1996); it is precisely about staying in well-lit territories and about knowing exactly which way to go before you set out. Like many others before me, I propose that instead the goal is to lose one’s way, and indeed to be prepared to lose more than one’s way. Losing, we may agree with Elizabeth Bishop, is an art, and one "that is not too hard to master / Though it may look like a disaster" (2008: 166–167). In the sciences, particularly physics and mathematics, there are many examples of rogue intellectuals, not all of whom are reclusive Unabomber types (although more than a few are just that), who wander off into uncharted territories and refuse the academy because the publish-or-perish pressure of academic life keeps them tethered to conventional knowledge production and its well-traveled byways. Popular mathematics books, for example, revel in stories about unconventional loners who are self- schooled and who make their own way through the world of numbers. For some kooky minds, disciplines actually get in the way of answers and theorems precisely because they offer maps of thought where intuition and blind ~~unscripted~~ fumbling might yield better results. In 2008, for example, The New Yorker featured a story about an oddball physicist who, like many ambitious physicists and mathematicians, was in hot pursuit of a grand theory, a "theory of everything." This thinker, Garrett Lisi, had dropped out of academic physics because string theory dominated the field at that time and he thought the answers lay elsewhere. As an outsider to the discipline, writes Benjamin Wallace-Wells, Lisi "built his theory as an outsider might, relying on a grab bag of component parts: a hand-built mathematical structure, an unconventional way of describing gravity, and a mysterious mathematical entity known as E8."1 In the end Lisi’s "theory of everything" fell short of expectations, but it nonetheless yielded a whole terrain of new questions and methods. Similarly the computer scientists who pioneered new programs to produce computer-generated imagery (CGI), as many accounts of the rise of Pixar have chronicled, were academic rejects or dropouts who created independent institutes in order to explore their dreams of animated worlds.2 These alternative cultural and academic realms, the areas beside academia rather than within it, the intellectual worlds conjured by losers, failures, dropouts, and refuseniks, often serve as the launching pad for alternatives precisely when the university cannot. This is not a bad time to experiment with disciplinary transformation on behalf of the project of generating new forms of knowing, since the fields that were assembled over one hundred years ago to respond to new market economies and the demand for narrow expertise, as Foucault de- scribed them, are now losing relevance and failing to respond either to real-world knowledge projects or student interests. As the big disciplines begin to crumble like banks that have invested in bad securities we might ask more broadly, Do we really want to shore up the ragged boundaries of our shared interests and intellectual commitments, or might we rather take this opportunity to rethink the project of learning and thinking altogether? Just as the standardized tests that the U.S. favors as a guide to intellectual advancement in high schools tend to identify people who are good at standardized exams (as opposed to, say, intellectual visionaries), so in universities grades, exams, and knowledge of canons identify scholars with an aptitude for maintaining and conforming to the dictates of the discipline. This book, a stroll out of the confines of conventional knowledge and into the unregulated territories of failure, loss, and unbecoming, must make a long detour around disciplines and ordinary ways of thinking. Let me explain how universities (and by implication high schools) squash rather than promote quirky and original thought. Disciplinarity, as de- fined by Foucault (1995), is a technique of modern power: it depends upon and deploys normalization, routines, convention, tradition, and regularity, and it produces experts and administrative forms of governance. The university structure that houses the disciplines and jealously guards their boundaries now stands at a crossroads, not of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, past and future, national and transnational; the crossroads at which the rapidly disintegrating bandwagon of disciplines, subfields, and interdisciplines has arrived offer a choice between the university as corporation and investment opportunity and the university as a new kind of public sphere with a different investment in knowledge, in ideas, and in thought and politics. A radical take on disciplinarity and the university that presumes both the breakdown of the disciplines and the closing of gaps between fields conventionally presumed to be separated can be found in a manifesto published by Fred Moten and Stefano Harney in 2004 in Social Text titled "The University and the Undercommons: Seven Theses." Their essay is a searing critique directed at the intellectual and the critical intellectual, the professional scholar and the "critical academic professionals." For Moten and Harney, the critical academic is not the answer to encroaching professionalization but an extension of it, using the very same tools and legitimating strategies to become "an ally of professional education." Moten and Harney prefer to pitch their tent with the "subversive intellectuals," a maroon community of outcast thinkers who refuse, resist, and renege on the demands of "rigor," "excellence," and "productivity." They tell us to "steal from the university," to "steal the enlightenment for others" (112), and to act against "what Foucault called the Conquest, the unspoken war that founded, and with the force of law refounds, society" (113). And what does the undercommons of the university want to be? It wants to constitute an unprofessional force of fugitive knowers, with a set of intellectual practices not bound by examination systems and test scores. The goal for this unprofessionalization is not to abolish; in fact Moten and Harney set the fugitive intellectual against the elimination or abolition of this, the founding or refounding of that: "Not so much the abolition of prisons but the abolition of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society" (113). Not the elimination of anything but the founding of a new society. And why not? Why not think in terms of a different kind of society than the one that first created and then abolished slavery? The social worlds we inhabit, after all, as so many thinkers have reminded us, are not inevitable; they were not always bound to turn out this way, and what’s more, in the process of producing this reality, many other realities, fields of knowledge, and ways of being have been discarded and, to cite Fou- cault again, "disqualified." A few visionary books, produced alongside disciplinary knowledge, show us the paths not taken. For example, in a book that itself began as a detour, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1999), James C. Scott details the ways the modern state has run roughshod over local, customary, and undisciplined forms of knowledge in order to rationalize and simplify social, agricultural, and political practices that have profit as their primary motivation. In the process, says Scott, certain ways of seeing the world are established as normal or natural, as obvious and necessary, even though they are often entirely counterintuitive and socially engineered. Seeing Like a State began as a study of "why the state has always seemed to be the enemy of ‘people who move around,’" but quickly became a study of the demand by the state for legibility through the imposition of methods of standardization and uniformity (1). While Dean Spade (2008) and other queer scholars use Scott’s book to think about how we came to insist upon the documentation of gender identity on all govern- mental documentation, I want to use his monumental study to pick up some of the discarded local knowledges that are trampled underfoot in the rush to bureaucratize and rationalize an economic order that privileges profit over all kinds of other motivations for being and doing. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:57:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Queerpess State K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +unknown
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +22,23 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:35:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dominic Henderson, Adam Lipton, Lindsay Willson - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Anderson JT - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Octas - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Mouffe AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:37:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Natives AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:42:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +25 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:51:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +y - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +util aff with extinction and nuke war imps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pflugerville TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +26,27 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:57:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +queerpess 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +unknown
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 19:58:46.900 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Deleuze AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks