Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1		-====~~Tuck and Yang 1~~ Increasing knowledge in the debate space only creates a feeding ground for the academic carnivore. Tales of oppression become commodified and used to uphold the very system the 1AC criticizes. Tuck and Yang 14====
2		-**~~Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. "R-Words: Refusing Research.’’" Humanizing Research (2014): 223-248.~~**
3		-Though one might read these cases as instances of misconduct with which only those in
4		-AND
5		-be language, experiences, and wisdoms better left alone by social science.
6		-====~~Tuck and Yang 2~~ Academic consumption is colonialist subjugation using the tales of oppression as the torch to lead the way. The 1AC’s telling of their story only feeds dominate power structures and forces them back into an unending cycle of pain.** Turns case. Tuck and Yang 2====**
7		-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).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-03-05 01:50:09.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Zane Dille

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-CL Education WJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-8

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Quarry Lane Karavadi Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Tuck and Yang DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-USC