Vampire K

West p oint ’o 6 do the vampir e
p. 1 of 59 .
DO THE VAMPIRE DA
THE SHELL
Do the Vampire DA............................................................................................................................1
1nc shell (1 of 6).................................................................................................................................3
1nc shell (2 of 6).................................................................................................................................4
1nc shell (3 of 6).................................................................................................................................6
1nc shell (4 of 6).................................................................................................................................7
1nc shell (5 of 6).................................................................................................................................8
1nc shell (6 of 6).................................................................................................................................9
Link Block........................................................................................................................................10
Biopower da: worldwatch................................................................................................................11
Biopower DA...................................................................................................................................12
Link: Animal Rights (1 of 2)............................................................................................................13
Link: Animal Rights (2 of 2)............................................................................................................14
**Link: Animal Rights**.................................................................................................................15
**Link: Extinction rhetoric**..........................................................................................................17
Link: Nature Protection....................................................................................................................18
Nature protection = anthro...............................................................................................................19
Link: Biodiversity (= commodification)..........................................................................................20
Link: Weather prediction (1 of 2).....................................................................................................21
Link: Weather prediction (2 of 2).....................................................................................................22
Link: Weather prediction = citizenship (biopower)..........................................................................23
**Climate Link**.............................................................................................................................24
**AT: “Nature recovers/regenrates”**.............................................................................................25
AT: return to nature (Vampires now)................................................................................................26
Link: Insecurity................................................................................................................................27
Link: Disease....................................................................................................................................28
Link: Danger....................................................................................................................................29
Link: Danger....................................................................................................................................30
**Link: Security **..........................................................................................................................31
Impact: **Foucault `seventy-eight**...............................................................................................32
Impact: Biopower = atomic death....................................................................................................33
Impact: **Racism = pre-condition for violence **..........................................................................34
Impact: Racism and BP = root cause of war....................................................................................35
Science reps = K...............................................................................................................................36
Reps and shit....................................................................................................................................37
Biology reps = Biopower.................................................................................................................38
Biological language = key ...............................................................................................................39
Biology is a practice.........................................................................................................................40
Alt: Vampire solvency......................................................................................................................41
Alt: solves biopower........................................................................................................................42
Alt: Solves Biopower.......................................................................................................................43
Alt: Vampire is liberating.................................................................................................................44
Alt: Vampire solves modernity impacts (1 of 2)..............................................................................45
Alt: Vampire solves modernity impacts (2 of 2)..............................................................................46
Alt: Vampire solves racism, sexism, hetsxm (1 of 2).......................................................................47
Alt: Vampire solves racism, sexism, hetsxm (2 of 2).......................................................................48
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

p. 2 of 59 .
AT: Vampire bad (you’re just paranoid)...........................................................................................49
AT: Pomo Bad (byers)......................................................................................................................50
AT: Haraway = just word play.........................................................................................................51
AT: Cyborg bad -vampire better than `borg ....................................................................................52
AT: `borg promotes tech (we’re not the cyborg)..............................................................................53
QT: Nature = elites..........................................................................................................................54
**QT: Nature = white, male, straight**...........................................................................................55
QT: Nature = straight, white.............................................................................................................56
QT: Nature = racist, sexist................................................................................................................57
QT Impact: Heterosexism  Omnicide (1 of 2)..............................................................................58
QT Impact: Heterosexism  Omnicide (2 of 2)..............................................................................59

p. 3 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (1 OF 6)
THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM’S NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIONS PRE-SUPPOSE THAT SOMETHING GROWS
ROTTEN IN THE WORLD, THAT THERE IS SOMETHING DANGEROUS AND THREATENING TO THE NATURAL ORDER. HOWEVER,
THESE REPRESENTATIONS VIOLENTLY REDUCE NATURE TO A MERE OBJECT OF CONTROL, AND THEY ALSO MISS THE
FUNDAMENTAL HETEROGENEITY CONSTITUTIVE OF THE WORLD. WE CAN NEVER RETURN TO A PRE-MODERN GARDEN OF
EDEN, AND THE DISCOURSE OF PURITY CAN QUICKLY BECOME THE DISCOURSE OF GENOCIDAL VIOLENCE. RATHER THAN
IDENTIFYING WITH THE PURE, VIRGINAL VICTIM, WE SHOULD REALIZE WE ARE ALL ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN A VAMPIRE-
LIKE REALITY OF CONSTANT CONTAMINATION.
BARTSCH IN `01 (INGRID, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY AT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH
FLORIDA, CAROLYN DIPALMA, WOMEN'S STUDIES AND POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA,
AND LAURA SELLS, SPEECH COMMUNICATION AT LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, "WITNESSING THE POSTMODERN
JEREMIAD: (MIS)UNDERSTANDING DONNA HARAWAY'S METHOD OF INQUIRY," CONFIGURATIONS 9.1 (2001) 127-
164, MUSE)
Whether the end of the world results from global racial tensions or from environmental destruction, both threats hang
on the problem of categories that frame the social and natural world. Like race, nature "is the kind of category about
which no one is neutral, no one unscathed, no one sure of their ground if there is a ground. . . . Race, like nature, is
about roots, pollution, and origins. [extended quote] An inherently dubious notion, race, like sex, is about the purity of
lineage; the legitimacy of passage; and the drama of inheritance of bodies, property, and stories. I believe that, like nature,
race haunts us <213> who call ourselves Americans. All of our rational denials only deepen the suppurating puncture
wound of a racialized history, past and present.
Inheriting the whirlwind it sowed as founding seeds in slavery, dispossession, and genocide as well as in immigration,
democracy, and liberty, the republic of the United States is a society consumed by ideas of racial purity and racial denial.
Therefore, the United States is also replete with fascination with racial mixing and racial difference. Fascination with mixing
and unity is a symptom of preoccupation with purity and decomposition. [end]"78 Haraway reminds us that our inability to
recognize the fluid connections between the metaphorical and the material for either racial or natural categories
determines our incapacity to survive difference. Nature is not merely a scientific category, an object of science, but a
subject that can and should participate in civic culture; thus her idea of civic or social nature, or nature as a part of the
body politic.
Just like racial categories, categories of the natural world are demanded by political battles and are therefore
necessary, no matter how fictional. Notions of preserved, Edenic authenticity fund identity politics in which fixed
ideas of gender, race, and sexual orientation are carefully tended. This desire for authenticity parallels the impulse to
preserve the taxonomies of naturalized scientific categories in botanical and zoological gardens, national parks, theme
parks, state fairs, and even suburban gardens. Preserving the natural world entails defining it, putting a border or fence
around it, and giving it its own color on the Rand McNally map. Mapping natural categories is both necessary and
reductive, requiring and creating the natural world as a garden, one tended and maintained by very particular
interests--few of which include the natural world as a material semiotic actant. The objectification of nature remains a
key tenet in Haraway's politics of faith.
If we take Haraway's argument seriously, then feminists need desperately to rearticulate identity politics based on
blood, kinship, and kind toward more vampiric notions of identity based on relationality. Vampiric identity compels
humans to include nature as part of the relationality. Vampiric kinship with nature is not a nostalgic hunger for a romanticized "real"
nature or an equally romanticized "oneness" with nature. Rather, relationality with nature recognizes human connectedness with nature as a
fluctuating, tense, and responsible interdependence, construed along the vectors of power that define civic life. As mentioned earlier, Grosz argues
for metaphors that "implicate the subject in the object," metaphors that force a relational perspective not only between women and other women but
between humanity and nature, metaphors that promote nature as part of public culture. Grosz's critique of how mechanistic metaphors such as the
cyborg promote relativism and the mastery of the body applies as well to the body politic of nature, a body subject to political and discursive
categories and their violence. 79
Vampiric and Cyborgian Wetlands: The Politics of Mitigating Nature
In Florida, where the three of us live, work, and write squarely amid a host of natural theme parks, we cannot help but think of this violence, and as
a result, seriously deploying Haraway's method becomes an imperative. 80

p. 4 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (2 OF 6)
Walking through theme parks in west central Florida, tourists find large-scale commercial terrariums where California date palms grow next to
Hawaiian hibiscus and Australian eucalyptus, planted side by side in a von Humboldtian attempt to reconstruct biogeographic categories. 81 These
(un)natural theme parks [End Page 149] create a living, multicultural, biological diorama of Costa Rican birds, Japanese goldfish, and Indonesian
amphibians. Within the colonized, landscape mosaic of these terrariums, West Indian seagrass beds reside comfortably next to Antarctic ice floes
and Key West beaches. The temperate coastal tidal-pool displays encourage children to handle and displace unsuspecting sea urchins and sea stars
from their artificial-natural habitats. "Nature" in these parks always means a romanticized, Edenic aesthetic centered on the visible signifiers of
nature--green leaves, water, birds. In the guise of appreciating a nature that, ironically, follows the dictates of this garden aesthetic rather than any
alleged natural order, children and their families learn the god-trick of a naïve, colonialist omnipotence, all for the price of forty dollars.
The politics of artificially created ecosystems extends well beyond Florida theme-park tourism, however. It is painfully obvious in the political and
scientific discursive battles over defining the only endangered and legally protected ecosystem in the United States, wetlands. The battle over
wetlands illustrates the way that ecosystems are political subjects: subjects to be violated by the politics of categories and also subjects in their own
right, who act in their own interests in a civic nature. The legislation, regulation, and definition of wetlands and their restoration reveal the political
nature of wetlands.
Just as the generic category of woman flattens the differences among and between women, the generic category of
"wetlands" reduces the complexity of wetlands as an ecosystem. Yet, like vampires, mestiza, 82 and other
inappropriate/d others, wetlands are transitional bodies that interface two terrains--in this case, the more classic and
conventional terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Bridging land and water, and taking characteristics of both
simultaneously, wetlands are relational entities whose boundaries are themselves rather messy to categorize,
challenging to define, and difficult to pin down. Wetland boundaries shift and fluctuate seasonally and annually
depending on their hydrology, or water cycle. Like blood vessels, the hydrologic cycle technically acts as a circulatory
system by introducing, transporting, and delivering essential elements to the functioning parts of the wetland. In this
unique ecosystem the water table remains consistently at or close to the surface of the earth, which allows the
flourishing of plants that are tolerant of standing water near their roots. Formal definitions of wetlands recognize these
features.
Recalcitrant juridical subjects and vampiric by nature, wetlands must be defined and redefined through repeatedly
modified legislation. Because the U.S. legal and regulatory system requires fixed, identifiable boundaries, the
definition of wetlands is legislated according to the most visible characteristic--water. The presence, absence, and
movement of water--the lifeblood of the wetland--becomes the signifier, the quantum blood measure that
policymakers use to draw fixed boundaries delineating wetlands from other systems. 84 Understanding hydrology is,
therefore, key to understanding the identity and civic politics of wetlands. This matters, of course, because wetlands
are threatened by development projects, regulated by government agencies, and restored by legislative mandate.
Vampiric wetlands are literally and figuratively a terrain of struggle for government agencies, developers,
environmentalists, environmental scientists, and ducks, all of whom have competing interests in questions of
definition, jurisdiction, regulation, and control.
(TWENTY THREE PARAGRAPHS LATER)
Vampiric Infections: Politics of the Postmodern Jeremiad
Our argument has been that cyborgs are useful to name shifting categories that occur when material and metaphor,
fact and fiction, science and science fiction collide. This naming, however, is sterile, in that all names eventually settle
down as tyrants over their constituents. To make categories travel, to practice a form of identity politics that features
relationality rather than relativism, Haraway turns to the infectious capacity of the vampire.
The political praxis of vampiric identity politics takes its inspiration from two important connotations of the vampire
metaphor: its ability to infect, and its suspension in the realm of the undead. First, a vampire's Dark Gift that infects
the blood supply invites a discussion of relationality. By infecting categories, the generational pollution of the vampire
combats an essentialist identity politics based on an additive rather than a dynamic and simultaneous orientation to
multiple identities. By allowing the subject simultaneously to infect and be infected by the object, the vampire
challenges essentialist identities and the politics that attend them and instead promotes a notion of identity defined
neither by its own unique essence nor by its resistance to the essence of a dominant identity. Instead, identity is
continually and dynamically redefined in tense relation to other identities within shifting social and historical contexts.
Identity here does not rely on blood alone, but on blood in the context of power relations. With the Dark Gift traveling

in the bloodstream, the infectious and simultaneous nature of relationality allows the vampire p. 5 of categories
to make 59 .
travel.

p. 6 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (3 OF 6)
THE FANTASY OF A PERFECTLY ORDERED ENVIRONMENTAL UTOPIA IS SELF-DEFEATING PROVIDING THE

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VIOLENT ERADICATION OF NATURE ITSELF – THIS IS THE BASIS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST
THOSE LABELED ABNORMAL AND PERVERSE.
STAVRAKAKIS IN `99 (YANNIS, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX, LACAN AND THE POLITICAL, P. 62-65)
In order to illustrate further this point let us return to the example of our constructions of nature, a nature which is still
generally thought as a hard reality, existing and being accessible independently of any fantasmatic scenario. This idea
of nature is closely associated with an overwhelming consensus, forming the foundation of the science of ecology, that
the 'natural', original state of nature was balance (a consensus that was hegemonic until a new generation of ecologists
began to question all these old ideas and metaphors and to assert that nature is inherently unbalanced or chaotic -
Worster, 1994: 389). The fact that this view of nature had to repress all the evidence for any other representation of
nature, until that proved to be impossible (when chaos kept boiling out from nowhere, breaking down order and
balance (Worster, 1994: 389), shows that, for humans, reality needs to be coherent, and since it does not seem to be by
itself it has to be constructed as a coherent harmonious whole (at least a harmonious whole in the making). Of course,
this harmony can be of many different forms. In the construction of nature, for example, one can trace a movement
from the divine order of nature in Linnean ecology to the romantic holistic and animistic conception of nature. This
trajectory culminates, within modern ecology, in the organismic idea of a climax of nature introduced by Clements, in
Odum's 'ecosystemic' view and Lovelock's Gala. No matter how different these representations of nature were they are
all positing a harmonious nature. Take for example Worster's point about Odum and Clements, two of the most
important figures in the science of ecology:
Eugene Odum may have used different terms than his predecessor Frederic Clements, and he may even have
had a radically different picture of nature; but he did not depart from Clements' notion that the law of organic
nature was to bring order and harmony out of the chaotic materials of existence.
(Worster, 1994: 367)
Mac Arthur, Odum and Clements, like Isaac Newton, 'had tried to make nature into single coherent picture where all
the pieces fitted firmly together'. All of them tried to reduce the disorderliness or the unknown qualities of nature to a
single all-encompassing metaphysical idea (Worster, T4: 400). Even conceptions of nature stressing the element of
conflict, such as the Darwinian one, sometimes feel the need to subject this nonperfect image to some discernible goal
of nature (for example the 'constantly increasing diversity of organic types in one area' (Worster, 1994: 161) which
introduces a certain harmony through the back door.
What constantly emerges from this exposition is that when harmony is not present it has to be somehow introduced in
order for our reality to be coherent. It has to be introduced through a fantasmatic social construction.19 One should
not get the impression though that this is a mere philosophical discussion. In so far as our constructions of reality
influence our behaviour – and this is what they basically do - our fixation on harmony has direct social and political
consequences. Reality construction does not take place on a superstructural level. Reality is forced to conform to our
constructions of it not only at the spiritual or the intellectual, but also at the material level. But why does it have to b
forced to conform? This is due, for instance, to the gap between our harmonious fantasmatic constructions of nature
and nature itself, between reality and the real. Our constructions of reality are so strong that nature has to conform to
them and not they to nature; reality is conceived as mastering the real. But there is always a certain leftover, a
disturbing element destabilising our constructions of nature. This has to be stigmatised, made into a scapegoat and
<63> exterminated. The more beatific and harmonious is a social fantasy the more this repressed destabilising element
will be excluded from its symbolisation - without, however, ever disappearing.
In this regard, a vignette from the history of nature conservation can be revealing. As is well known nature
conservation was developed first in the United States; what is not so well known is that 'a major feature of the crusade
for resource conservation was a deliberate campaign to destroy wild animals - one of the most efficient, well
organized, and well-financed such efforts in all of man's history' (Worster, 1994: 261). All this, although not solely
attributable to it, was part of a 'progressive' moralistic ideology which conceived of nature together with society as
harbouring ruthless exploiters and criminals who should be banished from the land (Worster, 1994: 265).

p. 7 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (4 OF 6)
The driving force behind this enterprise was clearly a particular ethically distinctive construction of nature articulated
within the framework of a conservation ideology. According to this construction what was had to conform to what
should be and what ‘should be,’ that is to say nature without vermin (coyotes and other wild preditors), was accepted
as more natural more harmonious than what 'was' 'These conservationists were dedicated to reorganizing the natural
economy in a way that would fulfil their own ideal vision of what nature should be like' (Worster, 1994: 266). This
construction was accepted by the Roosevelt administration in the USA (1901-9) and led to the formation of an official
programme to exterminate vermin. The job was given to a government agency, the Bureau of the Biological Survey
(BBS) in the Department of Agriculture, and a ruthless war started (in 1907 alone, 1,700 wolves and 23,000 coyotes
were killed in the National Parks and this policy continued and expanded for years) (Worster, 1994: 263).
What is this dialectic between the beatific fantasy of nature and the demonised vermin doing if not illustrating the
Lacanian dialectic between the two sides of fantasy or between fantasy and symptom? Since we will explore the first
of these two Lacanian approaches to fantasy in Chapter 4, we will concentrate here on the fantasy/symptom axis.2° As
far as the promise of filling the lack in the Other is concerned, fantasy can be better understood in its relation to the
Lacanian conception of the symptom; according to one possible reading, fantasy and symptom are two interimplicated
terms. It is the symptom that interrupts the consistency of the field of our constructions of reality, of the object of
identification, by embodying the repressed jouissance, the destabilising part of nature excluded from its harmonious
symbolisation. The symptom here is a real kernel of enjoyment; it is the repressed jouissance that returns and does not
ever 'stop in imposing itself [on us]' (Soler, 1991: 214). If fantasy is 'the support that gives consistency to what we call
reality' (Zi2ek, 1989: 49) on the other hand reality is always a symptom (Ziiek, 1992). Here we are insisting on the
late Lacanian conception of the symptom as sinthome. In this conception, a signifier is married to jouissance, a
signifier is instituted in the real, outside the signifying chain but at the same time internal to it. This paradoxical role
of the symptom can help us understand the paradoxical role of fantasy. Fantasy gives discourse its consistency
because it opposes the symptom (Ragland-Sullivan, 1991: 16). Hence, if the symptom is an encounter with the real,
with a traumatic point that resists symbolisation, and if the discursive has to arrest the real and repress jouissance in
order to produce reality, then the negation of the real within fantasy can only be thought in terms of opposing, of
stigmatising the symptom. This is then the relation between symptom and fantasy. The self-consistency of a symbolic
construction of reality depends on the harmony instituted by fantasy. This fantasmatic harmony can only be sustained
by the neutralisation of the symptom and of the real, by a negation of the generalised lack that crosses the field of the
social.
But how is this done? If social fantasy produces the self-consistency of a certain construction it can do so only by
presenting the symptom as 'an alien, disturbing intrusion, and not as the point of eruption of the otherwise hidden truth
of the existing social order' (Ziiek, l991a: 40). The social fantasy of a harmonious social or natural order can only be
sustained if all the persisting disorders can be attributed to an alien intruder. To return to our example, the illusory
character of our harmonious construction of nature is shown in the fact that there is a part of the real which escapes its
schema and assumes a symptomatic form (vermin, etc.); in order for this fantasy to remain coherent, this real
symptom has to be stigmatised and eliminated. It cannot be accepted as the excluded truth of nature; such a
recognition would lead to a dislocation of the fantasy in question. When, however, the dependence of fantasy on the
symptom is revealed, then the play - the relation - between the symptom and fantasy reveals itself as another mode of
the play between the real and the symbolic/imaginary nexus producing reality. 7

p. 8 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (5 OF 6)
WHILE WE CAN FUNDAMENTALLY AGREE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE’S DEMAND FOR ACTION, WE DISAGREE WITH
THE POLITICAL METAPHORS AND REPRESENTATIONS THEY USE TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS. RATHER, WE WILL
ENDORSE THE ALTERNATIVE FIGURE OF THE VAMPIRE: THE VAMPIRE ESCAPES RATIONAL BIOLOGICAL AND
BLOOD-BASED CATEGORIZATION, RESISTING THE VIOLENCE OF METAPHYSICS AND THE BIOPOLITICAL ORDERING
OF SOCIETY
HARAWAY IN `97 (DONNA, HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT UC-SANTA CRUZ,

MODEST_WITNESS@SECOND_MILLENNNIUM. FEMALEMAN_MEETS_ ONCOMOUSE, P. 213-217)
Lurching beyond the symptom in the first paragraphs, however, I acknowledge that a specific figure animates this essay. The
figure is the vampire: the one who pollutes lineages on the wedding night; the one who effects category trans formations by
illegitimate passages of substance; the one who drinks and infuses blood in a paradigmatic act of infecting whatever poses as
pure; the one that eschews sun worship and does its work at night; the one who is undead, unnatural, and perversely
incorruptible. In this essay, I am instructed by the vampire, and my questions are about the vectors of infection that trouble
racial categories in twentieth-century bioscientific constructions of universal humanity. For better and for worse, vampires
are vectors of category transformation in a racialized, historical, national unconscious. A figure that both promises and
threatens racial and sexual mixing, the vampire feeds off the normalized human, and the monster finds such contaminated
food to be nutritious. The vampire also insists on the nightmare of racial violence behind the fantasy of purity in the rituals
of kinship.1
<214>
It is impossible to have a settled judgment about vampires. Defined by their categorical ambiguity and troubling mobility,
vampires do not rest easy (or easily) in the boxes labeled good and bad. Always transported and shifting, the vampire's
native soil is more nutritious, and more unheimlich, than that. Deeply shaped by murderous ideologies since their modern
popularization in European accounts in the late eighteenth century—especially racism, sexism, and homophobia— stories of
the undead also exceed and invert each of those systems of discrimination to show the violence infesting supposedly
wholesome life and nature and the revivifying promise of what is supposed to be decadent and against nature.
Just when one feels secure in condemning the toothy monster's violations of the integrity of the body and the community,
history forces one to remember that the vampire is the figure of the Jew accused of the blood crime of polluting the
wellsprings of European germ plasm and bringing both bodily plague and national decay, or that it is the figure of the
diseased prostitute, or the gender pervert, or the aliens and the travelers of all sorts who cast doubt on the certainties of the
self-identical and well-rooted ones who have natural rights and stable homes. The vampires are the immigrants, the
dislocated ones, accused of sucking the blood of the rightful possessors of the land and of raping the virgin who must
embody the purity of race and culture. So, in an orgy of solidarity with all the oppressed, one identifies firmly with the
outlaws who have been the vampires in the perfervid imaginations of the upstanding members of the whole, natural, truly
human, organic communities. But then one is forced to remember that the vampire is also the marauding figure of
unnaturally breeding capital, which penetrates every whole being and sucks it dry in the lusty production and vastly unequal
accumulation of wealth.Yet the conjunction of Jew, capitalist, queer, and alien is freighted with too much literal genocide to
allow even the jeremiad against transnational capital to carry the old-time conviction of moral certainty and historical truth.
The vampire is the cosmopolitan, the one who speaks too many languages and cannot remember the native tongue, and the
scientist who forces open the parochial dogmas of those who are sure they know what nature is. In short, once touched by
the figure of this monster, one is forced to inhabit the swirling semantic field of vampire stories. In those zones, uninvited
associations and dissociations are sure to undo one's sense of the self same, which is always neatly prelabeled to forestall
moral, epistemological, and political scrutiny. So, I need the undead and non-innocent figure of the vampire to enter the
fraught constructions of human unity and racial difference in the twentieth-cen tury United States. Painted in interaction with
an earlier version of this chapter, Lynn Randolph's 1995 painting Transfusions sets my visual text for proceeding [Figure 6.1.
Transfusions]. A blue-clad dancer's body lies prone on a stark whiteoperating table, her neck penetrated by a vampire bat
whose wing vessels pulse with her red blood. A transfusion bag on a medical stand ties into the circulation of the woman and
the bat, which is linked in swirling time-lapse photographic repetitions to the teleoperator chamber in the top right hand
quadrant of the painting. Inside the chamber and operating its controls is the rat-toothed figure of Count Graf Orlock from
Nosfemtu, F.W. Murneau's 1922 German Expressionist silent film, which was the first vampire movie. The fingernails on the
hands of the mad doctor-vampire are clawed, and the chamber is swathed in the sterilizing light of blues, purples, and
ultraviolets. The black field of the painting is transected by the bright white of the slab and punctuated by the reticulations
and pools of red blood. The surrealist traffic of informatics and biologies in the circulating fluids of the cables and joysticks
of the remote control machine, the dancing bats, and the prone woman infuse the visual field. Remembering the toxic
cocktail of organicism, anti-Semitism, anticapitalism, and anti-intellectualism that percolates through vampire stories, I
cannot see Randolph's painting as a simple affirmation of the woman and indictment of the techno-vampire.

p. 9 of 59 .
1NC SHELL (6 OF 6)
Rather, drawing on her practice of metaphoric realism, Randolph uses the vampire-cyborg mythology to interrogate the
undead psychoanalytic, spiritual, and mundane zones where bio-medicine, information technology, and the techno-organic
stories of kinship converge. This is the kinship exchange system in which gender, race, and species—animal and machine—
are all at stake. Joining the pulsing fluids of blood and data, Transfusions guides us through the interrogation of universal
donors.
I approach the universal through a particular discourse, the science of biology. Biology's epistemological and technical task
has been to produce a historically specific kind of human unity: namely, membership in a single species, the human race,
Homo sapiens. Biology discursively establishes and performs what will count as human in powerful domains of knowledge
and technique. A striking product of early biological discourse, race, like sex and nature, is about the apparatuses for
fabricating and distributing life and death in the modern regimes of biopower. Like nature and sex, at least from the
nineteenth century race was constituted as an object of knowledge by the life sciences, especially biology, physical
anthropology, and medicine. The institutions, research projects, measuring instruments, publication practices, and circuits of
money and people that made up the life sciences were the machine tools that crafted "race" as an object of scientific
knowledge over the past 20 years. Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, the biological and medical sciences began to
disown their deadly achievement and worked like Sisyphus to roll the rock qf race out of the upscale hillside neighborhoods
being built in post-World War II prosperous times to house the new categories of good natural science. All too predictably,
the new universals, like the suburbs and the laboratories, were all too white.
Biology is not the body itself but a discourse on the body. "My biology," a common expression in daily life for members of
the U.S. white middle class, is not the juicy mortal flesh itself, but a linguistic sign for a complex structure of belief and
practice through which I and many of my fellow citizens organize a great deal of life. Biology is also not a culture-free
universal discourse, for all that it has considerable cultural, economic, and technical power to establish what will count as
nature throughout the planet Earth. Biology is not everyone's discourse about human, animal, and vegetable flesh, life, and
nature; indeed, flesh, life, and nature are no less rooted in specific histories, practices, languages, and peoples than biology
itself. Biologists are not ventriloquists speaking for the Earth itself and all its inhabitants, reporting on what organic life
really is in all its evolved diversity and DNA-soaked order. No natural object-world speaks its metaphor-free and story-free
truth through the sober objectivity of culture-free and so universal science. Biology does not reach back into the mists of
time, to Aristotle or beyond. It is, rather, a complex web of semiotic-material practices that emerged over the past 200 years
or so, beginning in "the West" and traveling globally. Biology emerged in the midst of major inventions and reworkings of
categories of nation, family, type, civility, species, sex, humanity, nature, and, race.
That biology—at every layer of the onion—is a discourse with a contingent his tory does not mean that its accounts are
matters of"opinion" or merely "stories." It does mean that the material-semiotic tissues are inextricably intermeshed.
Discourses are not just "words"; they are material-semiotic practices through which objects of attention and knowing
subjects are both constituted. Now a transnational discourse like the other natural sciences, biology is a knowledge-
producing practice that I value; want to participate in and make better; and believe to be culturally, politically, and
epistemologically important. It matters to contest for a livable biology, as for a livable nature. Both contestations require that
we think long and hard about the permutations of racial discourse in the life sci ences in this century. This chapter is a small
contribution to that end.

p. 10 of 59 .
LINK BLOCK
1: PURIFYING POLLUTION. THE 1AC ASSUMES THAT THE ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN DEFILED BY POLLUTING TECHNOLOGIES AND
FOSSIL FUELS – IMPLICITLY ASSUMES THAT THERE ONCE EXISTED A PRE-TECHNOLOGICAL PAST THAT WAS CLEAN AND UNTHREATENED
THAT WE MUST RETURN TO. THIS QUEST IS IMPOSSIBLE AND WILL FAIL, LEADING TO RESENTMENT AND VIOLENCE, AS OUR
STAVRAKAKIS EVIDENCE POINTS OUT.
2: MODELS OF MANAGEMENT. THEY ASK US TO MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT UNTIL IT REACHES AN IDEAL, NORMALIZING STATUS.
TARGET CONSUMPTIONS LEVELS AND STANDARDIZED EFFICIENCY REQUIRE THE PARTICIPATION OF EVERYONE. NO CONSUMER OR
INDIVIDUAL CAN ESCAPE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE, OR ELSE THEY ARE VIOLENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE NORM.
3: STATISTICAL SCIENCE. NUMBER-BASED MODELS REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENT INTO STATISTICS-BASED LIFE PROCESSES, GIVING
SCIENTISTS THE PRETENSE OF MATHEMATICAL OBJECTIVITY AND THE LEGITIMACY TO DEMARCATE DISEASES AND THREATS TO THE
SOCIAL BODY … IMAGES OF GREEDY JEWS, HYSTERICAL WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUAL PERVERTS WERE ALL THE CREATIONS OF
REDUCTIONIST SCIENCE..
4: PREDICTION = PRE-EMPTION. DESCRIBING UNREALISTIC AND APOCALYPTIC SCENARIOS MAKES US FEAR ENVIRONMENTAL
FLUCTUATIONS, AND IT TAUTOLOGICALLY GIVES THE STATE LEGITIMACY TO ACT IN THE NAME OF NATURE AND CIVILIZATION,
JUSTIFYING VIOLENCE. …GEORGE BUSH SR. INVADED IRAQ TO “PROTECT” THE KURDS, BUT HE ALSO CHASTISED JAPAN AND
GERMANY FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL “FAILURES” – THESE ARE THE BANNER ISSUES OF FOREIGN POLICY.
5: ONE WORLD, ONE PEOPLE. THE 1AC IGNORES DIFFERENCES IN “NATURE,” ERASING DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES ALONG FAULTLINES
OF CLASS, RACE, GENDER AND SEXUALITY. (FOR EXAMPLE, THE INNER CITY IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY GREENHOUSE GASES BUT
WILL NEVER BECOME A PRISTINE STATE OF NATURE, WHICH MEANS MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTALISTS WILL FOCUS MORE ON
ANWR THAN THEY WILL ON THE POOR, MINORITIES OF SOUTH COMPTON.)

p. 11 of 59 .
BIOPOWER DA: WORLDWATCH
THE ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE TO DEFINE AND PROTECT A NORMAL VERSION OF ‘NATURE’ IS JUSTIFICATION
FOR MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE OVER LIFE AND BIOPOLITICAL CONTROL
LUKE IN `97 (TIM, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE
UNIVERSITY, “THE (UN)WISE (AB)USE OF NATURE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AS GLOBALIZED
CONSUMERISM?” HTTP://WWW.CDDC.VT.EDU/TIM/TIMS/TIM528.HTM)
Human beings must slow their increasing mass populations, halt wasteful resource-intensive modes of production, and limit
excessive levels of material consumption. All of these ends, in turn, require a measure of surveillance and degree of navigational
steering beyond the powers of modern nation-states, but perhaps not beyond those exercised by some postmodern worldwatch
engaged in the disciplinary tasks of equilibriating the "net primary production" of solar energy fixed by photosynthesis in the four
systems to global consummativity as consummation. Natural resources in the total solar economy of food stocks, fisheries, forest
preserves, and grass lands are rhetorically ripped from Nature only to be returned as consummationally-framed environmental
resources, enveloped in accounting procedures and encircled by managerial programs. Worldwatching presumes to know all of this,
and in knowing it, to have mastered all of its economic/ecological implications through its authoritative technical analysis to perfect
consumption as the would-be warden of this planetary solar economy. By questioning the old truth regime of mere consumptive
growth, a new regime of consummation for a much more sophisticated ecological economy stands ready to reintegrate human
production and consumption in balance with the four biological systems.
No longer Nature, not merely ecosystem, the terraforming of our world under this kind of watch truly reduces it to strategic spaces.
As "an environment," ringed by many ecological knowledge centers dedicated to the rational management of its assets, the global
ecosystem is to be understood through the disciplinary codes of green operational planning. The health of global populations as
well as the survival of the planet itself allegedly necessitate that a bioeconomic spreadsheet be draped over consummativity on
Earth, generating an elaborate set of accounts for a terraforming economy of global reach and local scope. Hovering over the world
in their scientifically-centered astropanopticon of green surveillance, the disciplinary grids of efficiency and waste, health and
disease, poverty and wealth as well as employment and unemployment. Fusing geo-economics with geo-politics, Brown, Flavin
and Postel declare "the once separate issues of environment and development are now inextricably linked."80 Indeed, they are, at
least, in the discourses of Worldwatch Institute as its experts survey Nature-in-crisis by auditing levels of topsoil depletion, air
pollution, acid rain, global warming, ozone destruction, water pollution, forest reduction, and species extinction brought on by
excessive mass consumption.
Worldwatch terraforming would govern through things, and the ends things serve, by restructuring today's ecologically unsound
system of objects through elaborate managerial designs to realize tomorrow's environmentally sustainable economy in the
ecologically perfected objects of that environmentalized system. The shape of an environmental economy would emerge from a
reengineered economy of environmentalizing practices vetted by worldwatching codes. The individual human subject of today, and
all of his or her things with their unsustainable practices, would be reshaped through a consummational environmentality,
redirected by practices, discourses, and ensembles of administration that more efficiently synchronize the bio-powers of
populations with the geo-powers of environments. To police global carrying capacity, in turn, this environmentalizing logic would
direct each human subject to assume the much less capacious carriage of disciplinary frugality instead of affluent suburban
abundance. All of the world must come under this watch, and the global watch would police its human charges to dispose of their
things and arrange their ends--in reengineered spaces using new energies at new jobs and leisures--around these post-consumptive
agendas.
Sustainability, like sexuality, would become another expert discourse about exerting power over life.81 What the biopower
strategies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries helped fabricate in terms of human sexuality now must be reimagined for
humanity in worsening global conditions of survival as a perfected consummative survivalism. How development might "invest life
through and through" becomes a new sustainability challenge, once biopolitical relations are established, in making these
investments permanently profitable as consummational systems of objects.82 Thus, the Worldwatch Institute issues pamphlet after
monograph after book on the supreme virtues of bicycles, solar power, windmills, urban planning, or organic agriculture to reveal
the higher forms of consumer goods perfection attainable by the system of objects. Moreover, sustainability more or less presumes
that some level of material and cultural existence has been attained that is indeed worth sustaining. This formation, then, constitutes
"a new distribution of pleasures, discourses, truths, and powers; it has to be seen as the self-affirmation of one class rather than the
enslavement of another: a defense, a protection, a strengthening, and an exaltation...as a means of social control and political
subjugation."83 Sustainable development means developing new consummative powers through defining a new model of green
subjectivity organized around sustaining both new object worlds in a more survivable second nature and new consummational
systems for their surviving subjects.

p. 12 of 59 .
BIOPOWER DA
ATTACHING NORMATIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE STATE JUSTIFIES MASSIVE
REGULATION OVER LIFE, REDUCING US TO SUBJECTS OF BIOPOWER
Newer ecological discourses about total cost accounting, lifecycle management, or environmental justice may simply
articulate more refined efforts to sustainably develop these bigger global processes of universal capitalization by
accepting small correctives against particular capitalist interests. Admitting that poor people have been treated unjustly
in siting decisions for environmental bads lets rich people redistribute these ecological costs across more sites so that
they might benefit from the material and symbolic goods created by being just so environmental. Environmental
justice movements perhaps are not so much about attaining environmental justice as they are about moving injustices
more freely around in the environment, assuring the birth of new consumerisms for increased efficiency at risk
management and broader participation ecological degradation in our terraformed Nature.
In conclusion, Foucault is correct about the network of governmentality arrangements in the modern state. State power
is not "an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence,"
because its power/knowledge has indeed evolved "as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be
integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very
specific patterns."116 Producing discourses of ecological living, articulating designs of sustainable development, and
propagating definitions of environmental literary for contemporary individuals simply adds new twists to the "very
specific patterns" by which the state formation constitutes "a modern matrix of individualization."117 The emergent
regime of ecologized bio-powers, in turn, operates through ethical systems of identity as much as it does in the policy
machinations of governmental bureaux within any discretely bordered territory. Ecology merely echoes the effects
from "one of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the eighteenth century," namely, "the emergence of
'population' as an economic and political problem."118
Once demography emerges as a science of statist administration, it is statistical attitudes can diffuse into the numerical
surveillance of Nature, or Earth and its nonhuman inhabitants, as well as the study of culture, or society and its human
members, giving us ecographies written by the Worldwatchers steering effects exerted from their astropanopticons
through every technoscientific space.119 Government, and now, most importantly, superpowered statist ecology,
preoccupies itself with "the conduct of conduct," particularly in consumerism's "buying of buying" or "purchasing of
purchasing." Habitus is habitat, as any good product semanticist or psychodemographer knows all too well. The
ethical concerns of family, community and nation previously might have guided how conduct was to be conducted;
yet, at this juncture, "the environment" serves increasingly as the most decisive ground for normalizing each
individual's behavior.
Environments are spaces under police supervision, expert management, risk avoidance, or technocratic control. By
bringing environmentalistic agendas into the heart of corporate and government policy, one finds the ultimate meaning
of a police state fulfilled. If police, as they bound and observed space, were empowered to watch over religion,
morals, health, supplies, roads, town buildings, public safety, liberal arts, trade, factories, labor supplies, and the poor,
then why not add ecology--or the totality of all interactions between organisms and their surroundings--to the police
zones of the state? The conduct of any person's environmental conduct becomes the initial limit on other's ecological
enjoyments, so too does the conduct of the social body's conduct necessitate that the state always be an effective
"environmental protection agency." The ecological domain is the ultimate domain of unifying together all of the most
critical forms of life that states must now produce, protect, and police in eliciting bio-power: it is the center of their
enviro-discipline, eco-knowledge, geo-power.120 Few sites in the system of objects unify these forces as thoroughly
as the purchase of objects from the system of purchases.

p. 13 of 59 .
LINK: ANIMAL RIGHTS (1 OF 2)
THE PROMOTION OF NON-HUMAN RIGHTS IS THE AUDOBONIZATION OF LIFE: THE EXTENSION OF A BIOPOLITICAL
DISCOURSE THAT SEEKS TO KNOW, WATCH AND ADMINISTER LIFE PROCESSES. IT IS ANTHROPOCENTRIC AND HUMAN-
BASED, JUSTIFYING PANOPTIC SURVEILLANCE THAT RENDERS NATURE INTO PASSIVE OBJECTS 4 CONTROL
LUKE IN `2K (TIMOTHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY,“BEYOND
BIRDS: BIOPOWER AND BIRDWATCHING IN THE WORLD OF AUDUBON,” CAPITALISM, NATURE, SOCIALISM, SEPTEMBER,
PROQUEST)
At the root of Audubonization is a discourse of pathos and a discipline of surveillance that turns birds into more
performative sources of biopower. Beautiful but pitiable, the beleaguered bird life of the nation is to be continuously
watched, monitored, and counted so that human beings might feel sorrow from their destruction as well as feel moved
in their pathos to protect any survivors. Instead of confidently asserting dominion over bird life through physical acts
of violence to take possession of these feathered animals by collecting their eggs and skin, as commercial or scientific
ornithologists once did, new birding practices emerged in the 1880s and 1890s under pressure from Audubon Society
chapters. Worries about mass extinctions, like those caused by the market hunting of passenger pigeons or
feathercollecting from egrets, herons, and terns, coupled with anxieties over the closing of America's Western frontier,
where the buffalo and Native American no longer could roam, brought talk of mercy, humane respect, and rights
by Audubon Society members to the discussion of bird life.3
The development of the NAS in the 20th century, then, is one more sign of the changing nature of power, territory, and
sovereignty in the 19th century. After the American and French revolutions, as Foucault suggests, sovereignty shifts
from a domain overshadowed by the autocratic infliction of death to one tied back to a distributed system of managing
life through continuously operating regulatory mechanisms. With the protection of birds, which many still kill for their
feathers and flesh, power found in avian preservationism a kind of nature conservationism that provided, first, new
means for "distributing the living in the domain of value and utility,"4 and articulated, second, the requisite forms of
authority that "made an essentially normalizing power acceptable."5 Fearing the loss of more birds, and believing their
loss would only enrich slob hunters, nest raiders, and hat makers, the National Audubon Society intervened directly

into everyday American life by advocating something strange: the equally important nonhuman rights of birds
to their own nonhuman life, health, happiness as biotic populations . Audubonization here articulates "a whole

series of different tactics that combined in varying proportions the objective of disciplining the body and that of

regulating populations"6 by focusing upon the bodies of birds and birdlife populations. Once given this respect,
avian biopower could perform its vital ecological purposes in the human world's food chains.
Audubonization, then, begins to change the stark objecthood of animals and plants into one of codependent
intersubjectivity with humans in relation to Audubonized care . Instead of being little better than bacteria,
birds

become nearly as good as people . And, their populations acquire biopower in human ecologies of agriculture,
horticulture, and silviculture, which justifies their surveillance, protection, and administration. More recently,
the NAS has allowed other animals also to enjoy Audubonization. In contemporary Audubon Society literatures,
frogs, for example, have become fascinating little technicolored beings with world ecological significance in Nature's
balance of life. No longer slimy little nothings, frogs are transformed by science and journalism into an amphibian
marker of the human degradation of Nature.

p. 14 of 59 .
LINK: ANIMAL RIGHTS (2 OF 2)
With such grants, every issue of Audubon magazine enlists new readers and old members to enter "the world of
Audubon" where they can meet and greet these Audubonized nonhuman beings whose continued existence is
amplified/extended/valorized by Audubonized attention. The NAS, then, seeks to protect birds as well as other forms
of wildlife because of the crucial roles they play in the human foodchain. Every action that the NAS takes ultimately is
meant to discipline animal bodies and regulate wildlife populations, as its Member's Guide asserts, "for the benefit of
humanity and the Earth's biological diversity."s These organizational goals articulate the ends of Audubonization very
effectively: sustainable development for economic growth and social control for political legitimacy.
Audubonizing , first, bird life, and then, later,
all animal life in the United States, essentially expresses another

effect from "one of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the 18th century," that is, "the
emergence of `population' as an economic and political problem."9 Audubonization is not about the
preservation of Nature for its own sake. It is instead pitched at the articulation of new power relations and
performative modalities of control, which pertain to the realms of human society, into the conservation of useful
nonhuman populations and valued natural sites. Discovering the exciting world of Audubon in the U.S. is about
finding "one world" human and nonhuman excited by panoptic surveillances
, population dynamics, and multiple

powers for American managerial elites intent upon imposing those practices and precepts in all other world.
This study examines these contradictory qualities in the NAS from its beginnings in the 19th century to the present.
After reviewing how and why the Audubon movement began, the analysis discusses the Audubonization of American
society over the past century. At the same time, it explores how Audubonizing this nation articulated, in part, deeper
dynamics from America's consumer capitalism and national democracy. Finally, it suggests that the "audubonding"
institutions of the NAS are trapped in nationalistic and anthropocentric approaches to conservation that make this
organization unlikely to realize fully the preservationist goals it professes to its membership.

p. 15 of 59 .
**LINK: ANIMAL RIGHTS**
ANIMAL RIGHTS FRAME NATURE THROUGH HUMANISTIC LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO LEGITIMIZE SCIENCE’S AUTHORITY
OVER THE BODY, JUSTIFYING WHOLESALE REGULATION OF ALL POPULATIONS
PROQUEST)
John James Audubon's remarkable anthropomorphic bird life studies in Birds of America, however, began to
reimagine the everyday existence of birds in very humanistic tropes. These odd images ironically made each individual
bird seem worthy of respect and entire bird populations quite worth preserving. Once positioned within these narrative
frames, birds were much more difficult to treat simply as economic objects useful only for their feathers or flesh.
Instead such avian anthropomorphs could be cast by naturalists in moralistic melodramas of nest robbing, senseless
slaughter, and feathertaking to incite human pathos.
Just as print capitalism was helping enlightened elites to invent nations with particular national subjects, so too was it
promoting the construction of particular forms of Nature, which was populated with its own unique natural subjects.
Like nations, Nature needed boundaries, identities, narratives, and politics. Audubon's life studies of feathered
creatures in the U.S. easily provided some of these by creating animal life forms worthy of coexisting with, if not
because of, modern humanity. The creation of "Man" in these postEnlightenment times virtually required the
coevolution of humanity with other creatures, like Audubon's idealized "Birds."31 Audubonization in this fashion
becomes another disciplinary dimension in the processes of cultural modernization that alters the existing social
discourses for defining and dealing with Nature. Indeed, Audubon's anthropomorphic renderings of birds
ironically reflect the redrawing of power dynamics in the 18th and 19th centuries. The traditional prerogatives in
juridical systems of power laid claim on the bodies of subjects through deadly force and compulsory labor, while the
newer systems of productive power were accepting the rights of individuals to their own bodies, happiness, and health
inasmuch as they acknowledged the normalizing use of discipline and discourse as technologies of life.32 The
enthusiasm of human actors in search of abstract agency as autonomous human beings quickly gained reflexive
rearticulations in many efforts, like those of the National Audubon Society, to map such quasisubjective statuses over
to birds, bees, forests or trees, especially if their survival served more performative outcomes in the ecosystem. These
acts, as Foucault (1980) argues, advance "the entire political technology of life" by investing birds, bees, forests, and
trees with a new sovereign right to survive, and maybe even thrive, under caring guidance by organizations like the
NAS in the U.S.33
Birdwatching as a new analytical means for scientific ornithology stressed not only looking at individual birds, but
also counting their overall populations and assessing their position in the food chain or ecosystemic balance.
Therefore, the NAS's work with birds can be regarded as being disciplinary, and it contributed to reinventing
"birdness." Watching birds in the wild as niche players in the biotic order instead of killing them, taking their eggs,
and stuffing them into curiosity cabinets at home is the result of a new type of Man coming into new fields of nature
to concentrate the biopower
of birds in various ecologies, food chains, and countries to benefit humanity.
Audubonization was tied on the one hand,
To the disciplines of the body: the harnessing, intensification, and distribution of forces, the adjustment and economy
of energies. On the other hand, it was applied to the regulation of populations, through all the farreaching effects of its
activity. It fitted in both categories at once, giving rise to infinitesimal surveillances, permanent controls, extremely
meticulous orderings of space, indeterminate medical or psychological examination, to an entire micropower

p. 16 of 59 .
concerned with the body.34 (Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. I: An Introduction (New York:
Vintage, 1980), p. 145146.)

p. 17 of 59 .
**LINK: EXTINCTION RHETORIC**
THE LANGUAGE OF EXTINCTION IS CONTROLLED BY INSTITUTIONS OF POWER THAT SEEK TO

LEGITIMIZE THE CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE OF NATURAL BODIES, EXTENDING BIOPOLITICAL
PENETRATION TO ALL LIFE
PROQUEST)
The technologies of Audubonization become a complicated series of different tactics to discipline the body of birds
and regulate bird populations as part of an ecological administration of Nature's biosystemic services, which focuses
on the performativity of species in biotic energy and matter exchanges to safeguard humanity's social reproduction.
The specter of extinction is real, and its reality was brought home more frequently in the U.S. during the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. A scientist working for the Museum of Comparative Zoology in the 1870s, J. A. Allen, began
writing extensively in the popular press and for scientific audiences about the decline of the buffalo and the
destruction of many bird species. "Unless something is done to awaken public opinion in this direction," Allen
asserted, and to enlist the sympathies of the people in behalf of our persecuted birds, the close of the next halfcentury
will witness a large increase in the list of wholly exterminated species."35 To awaken the public and find sympathetic
allies, Allen reimagined all bird life in North America as innocent, beautiful, and defenseless victims of human
cruelty. This cult of birds as pathetic fauna caught the imagination, first, of sportsmen, who feared the demise of their
sport in the vanishing of game birds; second, of humanitarians, who wanted to allay or end the suffering of birds at
human hands; and, third, of middleclass women, who stripped bird plumage from their hats and clothes in sympathy
with these tiny beings. All of these interests believed they might truly halt the extinction
of birds by their efforts.
Allen's vision of birds as the little innocent victims of human arrogance and avarice also became a bedrock foundation
for new groups like the National Audubon Society. He then challenged the nation to form special societies "whose
express object should be the protection throughout the country of not only....innocent and pleasuregiving species, but
also the totally innocuous herons, terns, and gulls, whose extermination is progressing with needless and fearful
rapidity."36
Amidst the second coming of the Audubon movement, "ultraprotectionists," like the nature writer Leander Keyser,
suggested scientific ornithologists should not continue to shoot birds and rob their nests for feathered skins and eggs.
Instead they must study "birds in all the varied phases of their lives" and "set the example of mercy" to preserve bird
populations that could then be observed in life studies.37 Wittier Stone in a report to the Bird Protection Committee of
the AOU in 1898 seconded these sentiments when he protested that this "sacrifice of birds to science" should not be
"conscientiously ignored" any longer.38 He followed these claims in 1899 in a pamphlet "Hints to Young Bird
Students" that urged young egg collectors not to succumb to the commodity fetishist quest for complete series of egg
sets, because "there is nothing to be gained from the collecting of series, excepting the extermination of birds, which
surely is not your object."39
Rather than stalking, shooting, and stuffing birds to produce boxes of scientific specimens gauged by size, color, and
plumage, this new vision of avifaunal study called upon all ornithologists amateur and professional to start
watching. Looking at birds in their wild environs was what birding should become. Life studies of the truly wild
became the only means for understanding "bird life" as living beings in their natural environments. Once this move
was made, a new appreciation of the ecological services performed by birds in food chain dynamics, biome
maintenance, and habitat stability also turned most ornithologists and their science in new directions that benefited
humanity.

p. 18 of 59 .
LINK: NATURE PROTECTION
THE LANGUAGE OF NATURE PROTECTION IS A DISCIPLINARY TACTIC TO GIVE SCIENCE

WHOLESALE AUTHORITY OVER THE BODY
LUKE IN `2K (TIMOTHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE
UNIVERSITY,“BEYOND BIRDS: BIOPOWER AND BIRDWATCHING IN THE WORLD OF AUDUBON,” CAPITALISM,
NATURE, SOCIALISM, SEPTEMBER, PROQUEST)
Once avifauna were respected enough as Philippine natives to be protected, it is clear that their biopower would
become accepted as an essential component in the larger web of life that all could observe. Mass birdwatching by
amateurs, school children, and homeowners completed these lines of legitimation.
This ethic of surveillance was advanced further by the introduction of Bird Day after being first proposed by C. A.
Babock in 1894 as an imitation of Arbor Day. After studying birds for months, children were urged to go out into the
field and observe birds in their native habitat in order to better recognize "the value of our native birds and the best
means of protecting them."41 William butcher saw this developing new regime of pathetic aviculture as being the most
potent form of bird protection:
Legislation may be of vast benefit in protecting all bird life, yet we firmly believe that the true solution to the problem
will be the education of children of our schools, both public an private. They should be taught in every grade, from
kindergarten to the college, not only the aesthetic but the economical value of birds....when we have educated our
children, laws will be unnecessary 42
The discourse of pathos, the teachings of biological and economical sciences, and the discipline of panoptic
observation all combined in Audubonization into a self managed means of education for humans to come to
their full respect for the avian biopower of bird populations.
The emergence of the Audubon Society also came at a time when the theory and practice of ornithology as a science
were being sharply disputed by their practitioners and audiences. For decades, scientific ornithologists had been
devoted collectors of individual bird species their eggs, nests, and hides in elaborate taxonomic campaigns that
compared and contrasted beak shapes, plumage patterns, body colorations, egg sizes, and nest forms. Tied to amateur
naturalist practices that filled both curiosity cabinets at home and major museums downtown with dead stuffed birds, a
few ornithologists were among the first scientists to worry about animal extinctions caused by mindless forms of
primitive accumulation and wonder what role their normal scientific procedures might play in contributing to the loss
of species. By the turn of the 19th century, many scientific ornithologists and amateur naturalists believed that
watching bird life, observing the interactions of all bird populations, and surveying bird/habitat connections provided a
new operational method for their science. Audubonization in ornithological science let these amateur birdwatchers and
government wildlife officials bring birds to another juncture where their closely watched populations became "a
datum," serving "as a field of intervention and as an objective of governmental techniques" that society and the state
now had "to be able to govern effectively in a rational and conscious manner."43

p. 19 of 59 .
NATURE PROTECTION = ANTHRO
NATURE PROTECTION IS A HUMANISTIC AND ANTHROPOCENTRIC DISCOURSE THAT REDUCES

ORGANISMS TO COMMODIFIED PROPERTY, AND IT JUSTIFIES LARGER REGIMES OF BIOPOLITICS
LUKE IN `2K (TIMOTHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE
UNIVERSITY,“BEYOND BIRDS: BIOPOWER AND BIRDWATCHING IN THE WORLD OF AUDUBON,” CAPITALISM,
NATURE, SOCIALISM. PROQUEST)
In a society obsessed with private property rights, nature preservationists, as the Audubon Society learned long ago,
must adapt to the rigorous demands of commercial commodification to succeed. The reimagination of birding to cut
its operational ties to primitive accumulation and reestablish itself as a maker of experiences and manager of their
documentation is a perfect case in point. Likewise, the reduction of bird life to imperiled fugitives from pesticides,
predators, and people has enabled birders to push for the creation of many different types of bird refuges where these
fugitives might, along with other imperiled animals, live comparatively unthreatened lives to perpetuate their
performance of necessary ecological services. With both strategies, the unmovable moving precept of private property
rights induced creative resistances by the NAS, first, to invent closely related, but still quite innovative, new property
definition and possession rites in the panoptic practices of avian biopower, and, second, to become the wright of new
private property tracts occupied by bird refuges.
Bringing "life and its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations" through scientific knowledge clearly led to
"transformation of human life" in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yet, these same techniques also could be used in other
revolutions, which soon led to the transformation of many forms of animal and plant life as well. Audubonization
represents these revolutionary shifts for bird life as scientific observation and technical regulation colonized the space
in Nature that birds occupied, while new generations of ornithologists both amateur and professional started
"broadening and organizing that space, methods of power and knowledge assumed responsibility for the life processes
and undertook to control and modify them."84 Mainstream environmental organizations, like the National Audubon
Society, simply organize themselves to survive in the mainstream environments of American society, which have been,
in turn, defined by industrial democracy, suburban consumerism, and scientific realism.

Birding before Audubonization meant death to bird life. In a sport modeled on big game hunting, amateur and
professional ornithologists killed, captured, or acquired birds and their eggs, so birders were not unlike butterfly or
beetle collectors. The pressures of human predation, however, came to be seen as a threat to all bird life over the past
hundred years, and birding has changed into a type of governmentalizing
biopolitics. These changes are not
accidental. Rather they articulate broader transformations in social order and cultural understanding that have meshed
well with America's emergent consumer capitalism and national democracy. These values, however, are not
biocentric. On the contrary, the NAS's views about avian biopower are quite managerial and manipulative.
The

"exciting world of Audubon" ultimately is centered upon human needs and interests, which require highly
performative avian biopower in humans' food chains, rather than a selfless concern for Nature as such, in order to
survive and succeed.

p. 20 of 59 .
LINK: BIODIVERSITY (= COMMODIFICATION)
THE LANGUAGE OF BIODIVERSITY IS MOBILIZED FOR THE COMMODIFICATION AND CONSUMPTION OF

CAPITALISM
Faced by an extinction wave of greater pervasiveness than any confronted during recorded history, the WWF-US
mobilizes the assets of biocelebrity to leverage its limited guardianship over the planet's biodiversity, because we may
see as much as one quarter of the Earth's biodiversity going extinct in twenty or thirty years. Even so, the WWF fails
to realize how closely its defense of the rational, efficient use of precious natural resources as third wave
environmentalism may contribute to the extinction of biodiversity. And, the conspicuous consternation of the WWF
permits a focused fixation upon biocelebrities to occlude this fact for those who truly care about Nature--as long as it
is equated with rhinos, tigers, and elephants.
WWF ecotourism remanufactures Nature into consummational reserves, transforming habitat into assets, flora and
fauna into operating plant, and indigenous communities into entrepreneurial stakeholders or, even worse, underpaid
site managers, for global ecoconsummation. Nature conservation becomes a game, and everyone involved becomes a
player for the WWF. In fact, the WWF's worldwide banking powers over Nature's biological riches as interdependent
mutual funds collateralizes the ecotourism bargain. As the WWF declares, the deal is dangerous, but potentially very
rewarding, inasmuch as "for many rural communities and local and national governments, the booming travel industry
is a rich resource for cash-starved economies and an important development tool that can foster conservation by
giving communities an economic stake in the nonconsumptive use of their natural resources."102
The WWF-US believes pushing economies beyond primary and secondary sectors of production into tertiary
"nonconsumptive uses of natural resources" in the leisure and recreation business will provide jobs that offer "people
financial incentives to protect, rather than exploit or destroy, natural resources."103 From the WWF's global
perspective of providing local regulation via global conservation, these planned means of consummational
appropriation are the "wise use" of Nature, because "these jobs are often better and last longer than occupations like
logging and mining because they focus on the preservation and wise use of natural resources, not their extraction."104
From a WWF's regulationist perspective, these jobs are usually worse and longer suffering, because they pay much
less than logging or mining, and lock local economies into low-yield, low-value adding, low-status service sector
activities. Nonetheless, the ecotouristic strategy does reveal how one dimension in the WWF's vision of nature's "wise
use" works. An (un)wise (mis)use of extractive industries promoting the hyperconsumptive use of natural resources
cannot be taken seriously as "wise use." Instead, the protection of ecosystems in Nature preserves, which host low-
impact sustainable cultivation of flora and fauna in traditional economies or high-traffic flows of conscientious
ecotourists, becomes the sine qua non of "wise use" for WWF wildlife fund managers worldwide.
As coequals in the circle of life coevolving in the webs of biodiversity, human beings nobly become another animal
being responsible for other animal beings. Thus, the World Wildlife Fund, becomes the key trustee of an international
family of mutual funds for creating and operating these little wildlife worlds all over the planet. Its consummational
agenda for a transnational ecocolonialism pays out as a post-consumptive environmental reservation system where the
Earth's last remaining wilderness and wildlife become the tamelife habitats and inhabitants of exotic biodiversity.
This is pathetic, but it is where whatever was once "wild nature" is now left. The wise use of Nature boils down to
containing only a few of the most egregious instances of the unwise abuse of select charismatic megafauna by
detaining a few survivors in little wildlife worlds all over the planet. And, in the current political environment, which
increasingly favors legislative moves to rollback any serious Nature preservation initiative, even this ecocolonialist
work of the WWF now can only be applauded. The WWF is caught within the same global capitalistic economy that
promotes pollution, poaching, and profit, but its consummational good deeds advance the reproduction of global
capitalism at all other unpreserved sites, shifting the role of the WWF from that of anti-consumptive resistance on a
local level to one of pro-consummational rationalization on a global scale.

p. 21 of 59 .
LINK: WEATHER PREDICTION (1 OF 2)
WEATHER AND CLIMATE PREDICTION IS A DISCOURSE THAT ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL AND ORDER NATURE BY
LOCATING IT AS AN OBJECT TO BE EXAMINED, UNDERSTOOD AND FEARED
STURKEN IN `01 (MARITA, USC ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS, “DESIRING THE WEATHER:
EL NINO, THE MEDIA, AND CALIFORNIA IDENTITY,” PUBLIC CULTURE - VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2, MUSE)
Controlling the Weather: The Rise of Weather Media
Throughout history, the relationship of humans to the weather has been dictated by narratives of control. Weather has
long been understood as the primary symptom of nature, the way that nature speaks to its occupants. Nature has been
defined historically in both religious and gendered terms, with centuries' worth of analogies of nature as female and
science/technology as male. 2 Natural disasters have been understood as the result of man's fall from nature, and
hence a form of punishment, as well as the work of an unforthcoming and vengeful female nature.
One of the primary narratives governing the weather is that of revenge. Originally a Christian narrative about the
weather as a punishment for sins, this story has evolved in contemporary environmental politics into the weather as
nature's anger at humans for all the ills they have perpetrated upon it. 3 The idea of nature's revenge thus provides a
contemporary secular theme for the weather: nature's "fury" is aimed at the negligence and indifference of humankind
toward the environmental consequences of its actions. Its current manifestation is the compelling argument that the
weather upheaval of the late twentieth century is the result of global warming caused by pollution.
Control of the weather has often been understood in terms of replicating its actions. Much of the scientific
understanding of weather has come from experiments of simulated weather, which range from, for instance, Francis
Bacon's sixteenth-century attempts to artificially create snow, rain, and hail under experimental methods to
contemporary computer simulations. 4 However, narratives of the weather ascribe to it particular powers of spectacle
and viewership precisely [End Page 163] because it is understood as uncontrollable. A fascination with chaos theory's
"butterfly effect"--the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings over China can affect the development of winter storms
over the Atlantic Ocean a few days later--indicates the thrill of weather as an unpredictable force. The fantasy of
controlling the weather by actually changing it has never been realized, and it is precisely this uncontrollability that
situates the weather as a site of displaced desire.
Controlling the weather also takes the form of measuring its activity, defining its source, and naming it. Within
nationalist discourses, weather is most often defined as coming from elsewhere. In the western United States, weather
is understood to come from the Pacific and Asia, and in the Midwestern and eastern states, it is seen to arrive from an
undifferentiated territory above the border (otherwise known as Canada). The naming of weather phenomena (whether
for climate variations, such as El Niño and La Niña, or for hurricanes and typhoons) and the creation of logos (Storm
Track 97, El Niño Watch, and so on) serves to domesticate and familiarize weather. In the case of El Niño, the
name gives this periodic event of warming Pacific waters a dynamic personality, one it cannot maintain when it is
defined by science with its other name, ENSO: El Niño-Southern Oscillation. 5 The name El Niño comes from
nineteenth-century Peruvian fishermen, who noticed that fish became scarce as waters warmed off the coast in
December. Because of this occurrence at Christmastime, the fishermen termed this phenomenon "El Niño," which is
Spanish for the Christ child (and more generally for a male child). The warm ocean conditions are not only associated
with this effect on fishing but also with more general effects on weather conditions, often causing rain in dry areas and
drought in normally wet climates. In most years, El Niño's impact is limited to the western South American coast, but
larger El Niño systems move north and cause changes in weather systems worldwide--among other things, bringing
winter storms and cold temperatures to Southern California. La Niña refers to El Niño's reverse, with waters cooling
off the Pacific coast and producing equally unpredictable changes in weather. A La Niña followed the 1997-98 El
Niño into 2000 and was referred to as El Niño's "ornery" little sister. 6 [End Page 164]

p. 22 of 59 .
LINK: WEATHER PREDICTION (2 OF 2)
This Spanish nomenclature allows El Niño to be defined as a foreign entity that is visited upon the United States. Just
as the "Asian" or the "Hong Kong" flu (or the West Nile virus) reinforce the sense of siege among Americans toward
diseases that come from elsewhere (replicated in media portrayals of the 1990s Asian economic crisis as the "Asian
contagion"), the 1997-98 El Niño was read in the popular media in ways that allowed it to remain foreign in origin. In
California, the fear of an approaching El Niño, which is understood to arrive from South America and Mexico, has
inevitable associations with xenophobic concerns about immigration. Hence, the Spanish name, which provided much
fodder for newspaper headline writers and cartoonists, was also a metaphor for the fear of the constant flow of illegal
immigrants into Southern California and fears about the impact of those immigrants on the economy and social
services.
Defined as coming from elsewhere, yet with California as its ultimate goal, the weather story of El Niño began with
an extraordinary set of predictions about both the past and the future. El Niño was given credit in retrospect for having
contributed to the Black Death of the 1340s and the French Revolution of 1789. In addition, fall 1997 predictions
stated that it could potentially cause the following: the starvation of 1 million people in Indonesia; a hundred-year
flood in Los Angeles; a drought that could kill as many as 25 million Africans; a huge flood in Somalia, the survivors
of which would be threatened by poisonous snakes, crocodiles, and hippos; the migration of record numbers of rats
into Los Angeles homes; and plagues, locusts, and other disasters that will produce future global unrest. 7 An
increasingly complex media environment in which the weather is a profitable global, national, and local story fueled
these predictions.
The emergence of weather media in the late twentieth century provides a shift in the concept of weather control. The
science of meteorology, which focuses on weather prediction, is a contemporary version of centuries of Western
science that attempted to, in Bacon's words, "penetrate" nature in order to unveil "her" secrets. 8 Yet, the proliferation
of weather media is based not so much on the idea of controlling weather through prediction as on creating the
experience of control through monitoring the weather--via live broadcasts, satellite images, and endless readouts of
scientific data about what the weather is doing. [End Page 165]
The rise of weather media is predicated on the weather being part of "hard" news. As long as the weather was "soft"
news, it was of minimal interest. Until quite recently, the softness of the weather report was provided for the most part
by "weather girls" who gave the local forecast and told a joke or two. David Letterman still gets joke mileage out of
the fact that he began his career doing the weather for local news in Indiana. The weatherperson was also the source of
comedy because even the technology came at their expense as they pretended that they were actually pointing at a
weather map rather than a blue screen, often missing the crucial spot. A stereotype of the female news anchor is the
former weather girl who worked her way up the network ladder, a story that is told in such films as To Die For (Gus
Van Sant, 1995) and Up Close and Personal (Jon Avnet, 1996).
The expansion of cable and the advent of satellite technology in the 1980s and the increasingly high-tech aspects of
meteorology have transformed the weather from a local into a global story and have made it a central part of hard
news. 9 The proliferation of multiple cable channels, set up for narrowcasting to targeted audiences, has produced not
only several twenty-four-hour news channels in which weather is a regular story, but also, in 1982, the Weather
Channel, devoted to the weather twenty-four hours a day. Satellite technology has allowed for both an increasingly
sophisticated tracking of weather systems and a broader dissemination of the weather story, with the capacity to show
live footage of weather around the world. The Weather Channel and national and local news stations have all invested
in complex and expensive systems of weather radar imaging systems, such as Doppler radar. These high-tech gadgets
offer new forms of visualizing weather in ways that allow it to appear technologically contained. They include a range
of three-dimensional imaging techniques, multicolored radar imaging of precipitation, and complex mapping systems
that can identify the weather on a particular street corner. It is crucial to these devices that the images they generate
are more interesting when there is dramatic weather. In other words, such a device can seem like a poor investment in
a place such as Southern California where the sun shines relentlessly for nine months a year. I have seen Los Angeles
television meteorologists on the air regularly scan up to Montana on their mapping systems in order to show rainfall,
which is the most visually arresting effect that can be imaged on their three-dimensional systems. In this new [End
Page 166] media environment, the weatherperson is at one with the technology rather than at its mercy.

p. 23 of 59 .
LINK: WEATHER PREDICTION = CITIZENSHIP (BIOPOWER)
GLOBAL WEATHER NARRATIVES SEEK TO CONNECT THE WORLD INTO A SINGLE CITIZEN POPULACE THAT CAN
BE EASILY MOBILIZED IN THE NAME OF A CIVIC INITIATIVE
STURKEN IN `01 (MARITA, USC ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS, “DESIRING THE WEATHER:
EL NINO, THE MEDIA, AND CALIFORNIA IDENTITY,” PUBLIC CULTURE - VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2, MUSE)
Weather is also one of the means through which people situate themselves in the world, not only as local citizens but
as national and global citizens. In cold weather climates, such as the Midwest, for instance, the capacity to survive
long cold winters is an important aspect of local pride, as is the sunshine of the Southwest and California. Today,
satellite technology is a central aspect not only of how the weather is visualized but also of how viewers locate
themselves regionally, nationally, and globally. A satellite image situates the viewer from a point of view in space. In
that most local news weather maps define weather within a hundred-mile radius, this emphasizes a regional situation
for viewers. But for many viewers of cable channels such as the Weather Channel, this emphasizes a positioning
within the nation and the globe. This is one of the consequences of the fact that, as Jody Berland puts it, we now view
the skies looking down, rather than up. 18 Indeed, it is remarkable on the Weather Channel how rarely one sees weather at ground level.
Satellite images not only situate us geographically, they also offer both a broader narrative of global unity and planetary connection and a full range
of aesthetic pleasures. 19 Like photographs of space, satellite photographs demonstrate a pleasure in large-scale mapping and fulfill the modernist
[End Page 171] promise of the photographic camera to see beyond the human eye. As Berland writes, "For satellite views of the earth's surface
show us not only the weather (if you are trained to read them) but also the following: this is one planet, one life, one world, one dream. This is the
view of the globe from the eye of god. . . . This is the gorgeous, metaphysical triumph of the technological sublime, displaying itself in perfect
harmony with the arcane laws of nature." 20 The technological achievement of the satellite image is its capacity to establish a singular perspective
from space at which the weather consumers are invited to place themselves as omniscient viewers.
The construction of the weather citizen is also specifically about the activity of weather watching as one of civic duty.
Here, weather media taps into a long tradition of weather volunteerism. Over the last century, the National Weather
Service has deployed thousands of volunteers to measure their local weather in its Cooperative Weather Observer
Program. This activity of recording data was envisioned from the onset as a patriotic activity, inspired by the writings
of Thomas Jefferson, who had imagined a "republic of yeoman farmers, all gathering and sharing agricultural data
about storms and the dates of the first and last frosts, all for the good of the country." 21 While many of the weather
stations are now automated, there remain 11,000 volunteers today. Weather observation activity is also incorporated
into local news shows in which viewers often call in from around the region to report on events in weather
emergencies--an activity that is presented in the weather newscast as an act of citizenship, particularly when the
volunteers are young.
(CONTINUED 3 PARAGRAPHS LATER)

It is the very establishment of meaning, some meaning, that matters. In creating an overreaching narrative for the
weather, El Niño provided an explanation for that thing which is perceived to be the most uncontrollable, the most
arbitrary, and the most chaotic. It established a continuum of events across the world, from the drought and forest fires
in Indonesia to ice storms in Canada, from West Coast storms and mud slides to fires in Mexico and the tornadoes and
hurricanes in Florida. The message was more than a simple one of global unity--nature has a coherent story and we are
all connected by weather/nature--it was a story that made sense of the irrational aspects of tragic events, the violence
of difference, and the arbitrariness of death. Hence, viewing El Niño through the media's lens became a form of
witnessing. This was weather with a purpose, and, as such, an indicator of a larger purpose in life. As witnesses to El
Niño, viewers were not only able to exercise their voyeuristic tendencies in seeing tragedy and disaster wreaked on
others, they also were allowed to feel like witnesses to history, witnesses to the end of the twentieth century, and,
finally, witnesses to some moment of significance.
The weather is the site of a production of knowledge that functions as a means to erase political agency and to
substitute the activity of witnessing in its place. Watching it becomes the central experience; indeed it subsumes all
other experiences. The weather viewer feels connected to the world of weather twenty-four hours a day, with the
Weather Channel as a place where one is safe and protected by technology. The weather citizen is interpellated within
a set of narratives that range from the duties of consumerism to the vagaries of fate. The weather, we are told, is
uncontrollable, dramatic, and exciting, yet science has given us the capacity to predict it. The government and the
media have it under control. Prediction, it is stated, will save us. Prediction, a form of knowledge that is short-lived
and of limited capacity, is seen as a shield against the future. If only, we are asked to think, we could be prepared.

p. 24 of 59 .
**CLIMATE LINK**
THE AFFIRMATIVE’S ASSUMPTION OF A STABLE CLIMATE THAT FEARS ABNORMAL AND PERVERSE WEATHER PATTERNS IS A
MANIFESTATION OF THEIR DESIRE TO NORMALIZE AND STABILIZE NATURE. IT IS A VIOLENT IMPOSITION OF MODELS OVER
LIVING BEINGS.
DALBY IN 2002 [SIMON, GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, CARLETON COLLEGE, ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY,
PG. 69-70]
'ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY
Much of the focus in the environmental security discussion has been on projecting current trends into the future to
anticipate likely disasters and instabilities that hopefully can be avoided by adopting appropriate policies in advance
or, in Kaplan's case, by being prepared for the coming chaos. This has been usefully challenged by Thomas Homer-
Dixon's insistence that environmental disruptions are already, in part, causing political conflict. But the questions
raised by investigations of environmental history have yet to be comprehensively incorporated into the discussions of
either the larger questions of environment and security or the more focused scholarly investigation of the
environmental degradation leading to political conflict hypothesis. They also need to be linked to discussions of
security because environmental history suggests that assumptions of normal weather patterns or stable and predictable
climates are not an adequate premise for discussing matters of environmental change. Change within fairly wide
parameters is the long-term norm in ecological phenomena, so arguments that try to normalize particular patterns may
operate to obscure natural fluctuations.
Mike Davis's harsh critique of the failures of environmental planning in the Los Angeles area and the politics of
environmental threats there makes the implications of this especially clear. He suggests that cultural assumptions of a
relatively stable, wet, and benign environment that English and New England settlers brought with them to Southern
California might be termed the "humid fallacy." "Imaginary 'norms' and 'averages' are constantly invoked, while the
weather is ceaselessly berated for its perversity" in a region that has a climate that is highly variable and where
annual rainfall is only within 25 percent of the "average" 17 percent of the time." Not surprisingly, as he notes, the
rich homeowners who build luxury houses in the historic routes of chaparral fires through the Malibu Canyon, and
elsewhere in the mountains outside Los Angeles, react with outrage and demand government disaster relief when the
eventual fires sweep through their subdivisions destroying their dream houses and, if they don't drive away in time,
their luxury sport utility vehicles.
That there will be such fires, despite the mose intense efforts at fire prevention, is inevitable in the circumstances,
although not predictable in advance for any particular year. Long-term variability only assures the residents that it will
burn, eventually, in the Santa Monicas.

p. 25 of 59 .
**AT: “NATURE RECOVERS/REGENRATES”**
ASSUMPTIONS THAT NATURE WILL RETURN TO A HEALTHY, PRE-TECHNOLOGICAL STATE ARE NOT ONLY FALSE
BUT ALSO SELF-DEFEATING
DALBY IN 2002 [SIMON, GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, CARLETON COLLEGE, ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY,
PG. 130-131]
Recent research in ecology has suggested that at least Commoner's third law, "nature knows best," is flawed in terms
of how its role in conservation is commonly understood. Insofar as it suggests that disrupted ecosystems will
eventually naturally recover to a situation where a climax state reasserts itself, the logic of this argument is
inadequate, both because assumptions of the necessary ubiquity of climax successions are false and because
disruptions by human action are so widespread as to often call into question the possibilities of "leaving nature alone"
to recover to a natural state.24 Beyond this Daniel Botkin in particular has argued that ecology needs further
rethinking because of its failure to depart from overly mechanistic assumptions, mathematical models of
oversimplified ecosystem models, and nonscientific premises of stable and equilibrium natural states as the
benchmark for evaluating environmental change and resource management options.
When ecosystems are understood as more variable and less predictable systems that are open rather than closed, and
hence vulnerable to interactions on larger scales, it suggests that harmonious assumptions and equilibrium states are
not appropriate premises for resources management. The lack of predictability and the multiplicity of operant factors
suggest the deed for incorporating much complexity in dealing with natural fecundity. Organismic metaphors and
discussions on ecosystem health based on equilibrium assumptions are not adequate to consider change and long-term
disruptions.25 Most crucially, Botkin points to the necessity of deciding what kind of nature "we" want, what is to be
conserved, and what managed to produce what effect. Clearly we need far more thoughtful, long-term research on
ecological systems because the simplistic models of stable ecosystems are not adequate for understanding or useful
tools for ecosystem conservation and sustainable management.
The drastic disruptions of ecologies by the European colonial processes of the last millennium also suggest that
simply leaving nature alone to recover is impossible given the scale of the disruptions that have already occurred.26
Further, this point emphasizes that in the case of center-periphery conflicts the assumptions that tribal peoples live in
relatively untouched environments that have to be protected from external depredations does not adequately explain
the conditions of many peoples struggling over environmental issues. In the case of the resistance in the Narmada
valley, Amita Baviskar warns of the dangers of intellectuals romanticizing traditional ways of life in precisely this
way, not only because it misrepresents the struggles of local peoples, but because it may also lead to political
decisions that are inappropriate for either the peoples or their modes of resistance.27
These criticisms of traditional ecological research, especially of many resource and conservation management
practices, on the basis of problems within their widely accepted ontological premises, make the simple appropriation
of ecological thinking and its applicability to reformulating state-based notions of security a dubious procedure that is
less likely to be helpful in rethinking security than it seems at first glance. The analogies, however, suggest some
facets of concern to international security, not least long-term changes and unpredictable contingencies. The collapse
of states is not unheard of, and the disappearance of the conditions for the reestablishment of state rule is a concern of
scholars who have discerned a phenomenon of failed states in the contemporary world. Suggestions that new political
arrangements unlike the traditional state may be necessary are also under discussion, but these analogies are stretching
the point somewhat.

p. 26 of 59 .
AT: RETURN TO NATURE (VAMPIRES NOW)
WE CAN’T RETURN TO INNOCENT NATURE: WE ARE ALL ALWAYS ALREADY VAMPIRES
164, MUSE)
The uncomfortable collapse of "real nature" with "constructed nature" illustrated in cyborg wetlands restates the
dilemma of the literal and figurative, of the essentialist and antiessentialist positions that Haraway's vampire attempts
to rearticulate. Put differently, this critique of wetland legislation and mitigation leads to the difficult spot of either
advocating a romanticized nature that compels feminists to "return to Eden" and "speak for the fishes," or valorizing
for the sake of textual play the imploded, hyperreal nature commodified in late capitalism's theme parks--from Disney
to Yosemite. As with the categories of identity read either essentially or antiessentially, literally or figuratively, so too
are the categories of nature constrained by the political pull of these two mutually constitutive and politically (and
ironically) necessary positions. Just as the relative categories of identity rely on necessary fictions that allow the
survival of families, kinships, and communities, so too does nature depend on similar fictions for its very existence in
a world prone to violence against nature. Neither essentialism nor antiessentialism is adequate to answer the call of
Haraway's postmodern jeremiad.
Advocating a "real" untouched nature over a mitigated wetland that cannot be self-sustaining is an essentialist position
that reads nature literally. This position is impossible because, in a material sense, the scope of human and
technological intervention into the natural world precludes the existence of untouched nature. Even if we could return
to such a nature, language itself presumes the very category of nature, a presumption in which nature is always
already produced by human intervention. In either case, there is no such thing as an innocent nature. [End Page
157]

p. 27 of 59 .
LINK: INSECURITY
DISCOURSES OF WAR CONSTRUCT THE SECURITY ANALYST AS A DOCTOR DIAGNOSING

IMPURITIES AND THREATS TO THE NATIONAL BODY, IMPLYING A RELATIONSHIP OF POWER THAT
JUSTIFES MORE VIOLENCE
CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 95-96)
The effects of what we might call socio-medical discourse infiltrate the realms of both clinical medicine and
political practice. Haraway and others have noted the salience of military metaphors within immunology.54
Equally, the panoply of military metaphors that permeates the medical discourse on cancer - references to attack
and counterattack, invasion and defense, cells that colonize, patients that are bombarded, or bodies that are
subverted - has manifest consequences for understanding and treating that disease.55 By constituting the disease
as the 'barbarian within,' and by producing a discourse which is taken in some contexts to impute guilt, prescribe
punishments, and incite violence, the figurative nature of medical discourse has consequences for clinical
practice.56 This should not come as much of a surprise: there is no reason why medical discourse should be
immune (so to speak) from the tropical nature of language. Indeed, given <96> the encounters with the unknown
in the discoveries of scientific and medical research - encounters that can only be made available for under-
standing through metaphor - scientific discourse may be particularly prone to tropical discourse.57 But there is an
important implication to be drawn from the symmetry of medical and military discourses.
As Canguilhem's argument made clear, the regulative ideal of normal/ pathological was not derived from or
grounded in the knowledge of medicine; on the contrary, the scientific caste of this regulative ideal is a
consequence of its social efficacy. Equally, the symmetry of medical and military discourse is not a situation
brought about by the inherent truth value of one or other of these domains. To be sure, our culture regards few
arenas as more 'real' than the practice of medicine or the conduct of war, yet neither can escape the tropical
character of representation. The authority of each thus stems from a mutual referentiality in which the
representations of one authorize the other: the imputed realism of military discourse brings meaning to medical
practice just as the assumed facticity of medicine legitimates certain forces in the social and political field.
Indeed, it is the overtly tropical nature of medical discourse which enables it to be so effectively marshalled
against those who constitute a danger. Consider Ronald Reagan's declaration - in response to the 1985 hijacking
of a TWA aircraft in Beirut, when he was considering the option of military retaliation - that 'When terrorism
strikes, civilization itself is under attack. No nation is immune ... If we permit it to succeed anywhere it will
spread like a cancer, eating away at civilized societies and sowing fear and chaos everywhere.' 58 In such
discourse, there are no gray areas, no complexities, no historicized understandings, no doubts about the self, and
no qualms about the nature of the response.
The performative nature of the bipolarity of normal/pathological in socio-medical discourse means that it does
not depend upon either a disease to be tremendously infectious or in actual existence for it to effect exclusions
and command responses. For example, leprosy - which is rarely fatal, difficult to transmit, and relatively easy to
cure - has been one of the most stigmatized of diseases. 59 Because of the visibility of its degenerative impact on
the body, leprosy became a metaphor for social corruption and decay. And when it disappeared from Europe at
the end of the Middle Ages it left behind a legacy that remained potent: an interpretative framework suffused
with the 'formulas of exclusion' which established 'the values and images attached to the figure of the leper as
well as the meaning of his exclusion.' 60 The disease passed on, but its social logic and representational apparatus
remained, to be employed later in the confinement of a range of social dangers including 'madness.' Even
without a referent for its <97> valuations, this interpretative framework associated with leprosy waited,
'soliciting with strange incantations a new incarnation of disease, another grimace of terror, renewed rites of
purification.'61

p. 28 of 59 .
LINK: DISEASE
DISEASE IS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTERNAL POPULATIONS THAT MUST BE SINGLED OUT AND
ERADICATED
What has been and remains central to the logic of socio-medical discourse is thus not the biological nature of
disease, but a sense that disease is always from somewhere else. As Sontag notes, 'there is a link between
imagining disease and imagining foreignness.' Indeed, when syphilis reached epidemic proportions in fifteenth-
century Europe, 'It was the 'French pox' to the English, morbus Germanicus to the Parisians, the Naples sickness
to the Florentines, [and] the Chinese disease to the Japanese.' 62 But 'foreignness' does not necessarily coincide
with places distant and removed: the foreign can also reside within; something that is evident when (as in the
United States) disease is more readily diagnosed in the elderly, the poor, or the working class, even when other
groups exhibit many more identifiably biological pathologies.63 In the same manner, we can note how various
groups within American and European domestic society have been constituted as marginal through the
figurations of socio-medical discourse. Women, blacks, and Jews have at one time or another all been
understood as uniquely susceptible to certain disorders. Women were diagnosed as exhibiting a high incidence of
hysteria; Jews in general were believed to be prone to psychological disorders; Jewish men were thought to
menstruate like women and thus be a source of social 'pollution'; blacks were overwhelmingly considered
insane. And for each of these groups, sexuality was medicalized as pathology and indicted as a threat to the
integrity of the body politic.64
In sum, two things are particularly striking about these examples of the historical operation of socio-medical
discourse. Firstly, it has often been able to function either without any empirical referent from which its
valuations are theoretically derived, or it has accomplished its task in direct contradistinction to available
empirical sources. The moral characteristics of leprosy lived on after its demise; neither women, nor blacks, nor
Jews were any more vulnerable to psychological disorders than any other groups; and Jewish men certainly did
not menstruate.65 Secondly, the modes of representation through which these groups are marked as social
dangers effectively blend and fuse together various stigmata of difference, such that each figuration of difference
functions, not as an image derived from a correspondence relationship, but as an indicator of the various images
with which it has some perceived affinity. Or, as Hayden White suggests of metaphor generally, it 'functions as a
symbol, rather than as a sign: which is to say that it does not give us either a description or an icon of the thing it
represents, but tells us what images to look for in our culturally encoded <98> experience in order to determine
how we should feel about the thing represented.'66
In other words, by conflating the stigmata of difference, the tropes and metaphors of socio-medical discourse
call to mind certain sensations, dispositions, impressions, and - given the negative valence of such
representations - doubts, concerns, anxieties, and suspicions, to be associated with those groups who are the
objects of attention. We need only consider contemporary representations of AIDS - in which iconography
associated with syphilis, homosexuals, Africans, drug addicts, and inner-city residents is melded into an all-
encompassing discursive formation so as to inscribe a boundary between the heterosexual, non-IV drug using,
white community (i.e. those who are 'normal') and those at risk - to appreciate the continued saliency of these
representations.67 Indeed, the boundary-producing effects of the discourse surrounding AIDS recently took a
literal turn when the US Immigration and Naturalization Service overruled the Health and Human Services
Department and reinstated the presence of HIV as grounds for excluding tourists and immigrants from the
United States. With over one million Americans already infected with this virus, such an exclusion 'conveys the
message that the danger is outside the US., is a foreigner, a stranger.'68

p. 29 of 59 .
LINK: DANGER
INVOCATIONS OF DANGER DRAW MORAL BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE NORMAL AND CIVILIZED VERSUS THE ABNORMAL AND
SAVAGE (REPLICATING THE VIOLENCE OF THE 1NC)
The performative constitution of identity: that has been the fundamental theme in this argument. Whether at the level
of the body, the individual, the state - or some other articulation - this theme has focused attention upon the boundary-
producing practices that instantiate the identity in whose name they operate. Sometimes these practices will affirm
more than they will abjure; at other times they will contain rather than constitute. Foreign policy, being those practices
of differentiation implicated in all confrontations between a self and other, embraces both positive and negative
valences. In contrast, Foreign Policy, understood as one of the practices which contingently constructs through
stylized and regulated performances the identity of the state in whose name it operates, is more obviously dependent
upon discourses of fear and danger. The concern of this chapter is with how difference is figured and danger is
represented through foreign policy/Foreign Policy.
THE MORAL SPACE OF IDENTITY
Danger constitutes more than the boundary which demarcates a space; to have a threat requires enforcing a closure
upon the community which is threatened. A notion of what 'we' are is intrinsic to an understanding of what 'we' fear.
What this highlights is that there is an axiological level which proffers a range of moral valuations that are implicit in
any spatialization.! The construction of social space that emerges from practices associated with the paradigm of
sovereignty thus exceeds a simple geographical partitioning: it results in a conception of divergent moral spaces. In
other words, the social space of inside/outside is both made possible by and helps constitute a moral space of
superior/inferior, which can be animated in terms of any number of figurations of higher/lower. For example, in
delineating the domain of the rational, ordered polity from the dangerous, anarchic world in which it was situated,
Hobbes did more than draw a boundary: he <85> enumerated the character of each realm by arguing that the former
was the residence of good, sane, sober, modest, and civilized people, while the^ latter was populated by evil, mad,
drunk, arrogant, and savage characters.II
Identity is therefore more than something which derives its meaning solely from being positioned in contradistinction
to difference; identity is a condition that has depth, is multi-layered, possesses texture, and comprises many
dimensions. As such, identity is a condition for which there can be cataloged no single point of origin or myth of
genesis; the manifold, diverse, and eclectic ingredients that comprise a settled identity cannot be reduced to any single
spatial or temporal source. None of this diminishes the role of difference in the logic of identity. But it does suggest
that we might consider all the characteristics or traits or distinctions which are understood as difference as being
unequal in their identity-effects. Moreover, this might also suggest that some of the dispositions we combine under the
category of 'difference' - especially insofar as that term is often used to refer to entries in a register of marginality,
such as race, class, gender, ethnicity etc. - are basic to the construction of the discursive field upon which the
dichotomy of identity/difference is itself erected.
Whether or not these reflections might possess some veracity in terms of the general problematic of identity would
need further consideration. But in terms of the question of state identity, they do allow us to bring to the fore the way
in which the paradigm of sovereignty has historically inscribed parameters of the moral content of identity at the same
time as it has disciplined ambiguity in terms of the spatial form of inside/outside. Most important in this regard is the
gendered figure of 'reasoning man' highlighted by Ashley. As described in chapter three, the figure of 'reasoning man'
as origin of language, the maker of history, and the source of meaning - as transcendental, yet implicated in history - is
the sovereign presence, the foundational premise, from which we derive the contours of our social and political life.
To be sure, this articulation of our horizons is not determinative: the question of the more precise content and nature of
identity that emerges from the operations of this modem sovereign is open. Indeed, there are in principle an almost
endless range of possible interpretations of 'reasoning man,' and these are dependent upon the articulation of the form
of 'reasoning man' in specific historical contexts. 2 But the figure of 'reasoning man' can be said to exhibit tendencies
that favor the gendered understanding of reason, rationalism, and enlightenment values as the defining orientations of
our existence.

p. 30 of 59 .
LINK: DANGER
SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF DANGER TO THE SOCIAL BODY CREATE THE ASSUMPTION OF A

CLEAN, BIOLOGICAL BODY TO BE PROTECTED FROM DISEASE
Furthermore, the representation of the social as a body involves gendered discourses of power, and the
transformations surrounding the concept of corpus mysticum are replete with references to the dominance of the
'male' over the 'female.' Indeed, the body of the body politic is taken to have a 'female' identity to which the head
(the 'male' ruler) is married. As one jurist (Cynus of Pistoia) wrote in the fourteenth century: 'the comparison
between the corporeal matrimony and the intellectual one is good: for just as the husband is called the defender
of his wife ... so is the emperor the defender of that respublica^ In a similar vein, Lucas de Penna wrote that 'The
man is the head of the wife, and the wife the body of the man . . . After the same fashion, the Prince is the head
of the realm, and the realm the body of the Prince.'20 In medieval England, the marriage metaphor was
reproduced when James I declared to parliament (in 1609) that 'What God hath conjoined then, let no man
separate. I am the husband, and all the whole island is my lawful wife; I am the head, and it is my body; I am the
shepherd, and it is my flock.'21 Equally, Machiavelli figured the body politic as 'female.'22 And in the
contemporary period, such patriarchal understandings can be observed when violence by one state against
another (such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990) is represented as 'rape.'
Persistent though it has been, the representation of the social as a body has not been devoid of changes.
Catherine Gallagher's discussion of the impact of Thomas Malthus' theorization of the body's place in social
discourse - whereby it is healthy and fecund bodies, rather than sick and decaying bodies, which are the greatest
threat to the survival of the polity -points to an important development which had considerable import for
Victorian social thought.23 Equally, Donna Haraway's elaboration of the shift from the hierarchical and organic
body of earlier medical discourses, to the understanding of the body within recent biomedical discourses as 'a
coded text, organized as an engineered communications system, ordered by a fluid and dispersed command-
control-intelligence network [the immune system],'24 contends that we could be currently located in the midst of
a transformation which might have an impact upon our political theorizations. These developments have meant
that what now counts as a unit or actor is highly problematic: while notions of 'organism' and 'individual' have
not <91> disappeared, from the vantage point of the biologist they have been fully 'denaturalized' and exist only
as 'ontologically contingent constructs.'25 In Haraway's terms, the contingent ontology of being means that 'Life
is a window of vulnerability,' such that identity and (more particularly) individuality are 'a strategic defense
problem' which seeks to effect the containment of contingency.26
Haraway's deployment of military metaphors highlights the symbiotic relationship between biomedical
discourses and strategic discourses: each uses concepts derived from the other to present its argument. 27 Most
importantly, such figurations suggest that whatever transformations there have been in the representation of the
social as a body, one of its central functions has been to permit and commission the representation of danger to
the social body in terms associated with the representation of danger to the physiological body. In some
circumstances, the representation of danger to the body will be in terms that function as codes for gender and
sexuality, such as anarchy, insanity, passion, or wildness. At other times, 'Because the body is the most potent
metaphor of society, it [will] not [be] surprising that disease is the most salient metaphor of structural crisis. All
disease is disorder- metaphorically, literally, socially and politically.'28

p. 31 of 59 .
**LINK: SECURITY **
FOREIGN POLICY THREATS CREATE DANGER IN ORDER TO REPRODUCE THE MYTH OF A CLEAN
AND PURE BODY, SIMULTANEOUSLY JUSTIFYING SOVEREIGN ECONOMIES OF VIOLENCE AND WAR
REPRESENTING DANGER
Danger, argues Mary Douglas, is always present at the border. Danger might involve pressure on the external
boundaries; it might involve the violation of internal boundaries; it might be located in the margins of the
boundary; or danger might arise with contradictions from within.29 Were there no borders, there would be no
danger - but such a condition is at odds with the logic of identity, for the condition of possibility for experience
entails (at least to some extent) the disciplining of ambiguity, the containment of contingency, and the
delineation of borders. In other words, given that difference is a requisite for identity, danger is inherent to that
relationship: 'Where there is no differentiation there is no defilement.'30 As such, danger is not an external
condition that can be either tempered or transcended; danger is a part of all our relationships with the world. And
as Jean Delumeau concluded with respect to fear, danger can be experienced positively as well as negatively: it
can be a creative force, 'a call to being,' that provides access to the world. 31 The issue, then, is how do we orient
ourselves to danger, particularly at an historical juncture in which many novel dangers seem to abound? Can we
do more than simply extend the old register of security to cover the new domains? What modes of being and
forms of life could we or should we adopt? Do we have an alternative to <92> the continued reproduction of
sovereign communities in an economy of violence?
However one might begin to fathom the many issues located within those challenges, our current situation leaves
us with one certainty: because we cannot escape the logic of differentiation we are often tempted by the logic of
defilement. To say as much, however, it not to argue that we are imprisoned within a particular and permanent
system of representations. To be sure, danger is more often than not represented as disease, dirt, or pollution. As
one medical text argues: 'Disease is shock and danger for existence.' 32 Or as Karl Jaspers maintains: 'Disease is a
general concept of non-value which includes all possible negative values.'33 But such concerns have less to do
with the intrinsic qualities of those conditions than the modernist requirements of order and stability: 'Dirt
offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative moment, but a positive effort to organize the
environment.'34 One might suggest that it is the extent to which we want to organize the environment - the extent
to which we want to purify our domain - that determines how likely it is that we represent danger in terms of dirt
or disease. Tightly defined order and strictly enforced stability, undergirded by notions of purity, are not a priori
conditions of existence; some order and some stability might be required for existence as we know it (i.e., in
some form of extensive political community), but it is the degree of tightness, the measure of strictness, and the
extent of the desire for purity which constitutes danger as dirt or disease.
But the temptation of the logic of defilement as a means of orienting ourselves to danger has more often than not
been overpowering, largely because it is founded upon a particular conceptualization of 'the body'; in its use
since at least the eighteenth century, this conceptualization demands purity as a condition of health and thus
makes the temptation to defilement a 'natural' characteristic. This has endowed us with a mode of representation
in which health and cleanliness serves the logic of stability, and disorder is rendered as disease and dirt. In the
eighteenth century - when state forms were becoming the most prevalent articulations of extensive political
community - these modes of representation began to take a new turn which intensified the capacity of
representations of disease to act as discourses of danger to the social.

p. 32 of 59 .
IMPACT: **FOUCAULT `SEVENTY-EIGHT**
BIOPOWER LEADS TO WARS, HOLOCAUSTS AND NUCLEAR OMNICIDE
FOUCAULT, CHAIR OF HISTORY OF SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT AT THE COLLEGE OF FRANCE, 1978 [MICHEL,
THE HISTORY OF SEXUALITY, VOLUME 1: AN INTRODUCTION, P. 136-137]
Since the classical age the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of
power. "Deduction" has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element among
others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a power
bent on generating forces, making them grow, and on ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding
them; making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift in the right of death, or at
least tendency to align its with the exigencies of a life-administering power and to define itself accordingly.
This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the reverse of the right
of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody as they have been
since the nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes visit such holocausts on
their own populations. But this formidable power of death—and this is perhaps what accounts for part of its
force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits—now presents itself as the
counterpart of a power that exert a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize, and
multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in
the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone;
entire populations are mobilized for the purposes of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity;
massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many
regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that
closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction,
the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the
naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to
expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued
existence. The principle underlying the tactics of battle—that one has to be capable of killing in order to go
on living—has become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the existence in question is no
longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide
is indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is
because war is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale
phenomena of the population.

p. 33 of 59 .
IMPACT: BIOPOWER = ATOMIC DEATH
[THE NORMALIZATION OF BODIES THROUGH] BIOPOWER JUSTIFIES THE PARADOXICAL ABILITY TO KILL LIFE
ITSELF IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING IT.
FOUCAULT IN `76 (MICHEL, BRILLIANT, SOCIETY MUST BE DEFENDED, P. 252-254)

In more general terms still, we can say that there is one element that will circulate between the disciplinary and the
regulatory, which will also be applied to body and population alike, which will make it possible to control both the
disciplinary order of the body and the aleatory events that occur in the biological multiplicity. The element <253> that
circulates between the two is the norm. The norm is something that can be applied to both a body one wishes to
discipline and a population one wishes to regularize. The normalizing society is therefore not, under these conditions,
a sort of generalized disciplinary society whose disciplinary institutions have swarmed and finally taken over
everything-that, I think, is no more than a first and inadequate interpretation of a normalizing society. The normalizing
society is a society in which the norm of discipline and the norm of regulation intersect along an orthogonal
articulation. To say that power took possession of life in the nineteenth century, or to say that power at least takes life
under its care in the nineteenth century, is to say that it has, thanks to the play of technologies of discipline on the one
hand and technologies of regulation on the other, succeeded in covering the whole surface that lies between the
organic and the biological, between body and population.
We are, then, in a power that has taken control of both the body and life or that has, if you like, taken control of life in
general-with the body as one pole and the population as the other. We can therefore immediately identify the
paradoxes that appear at the points where the exercise of this biopower reaches its limits. The paradoxes become
apparent if we look, on the one hand, at atomic power, which is not simply the power to kill, in accordance with the
rights that are granted to any sovereign, millions and hundreds of millions of people (after all, that is traditional). The
workings of contemporary political power are such that atomic power represents a paradox that is difficult, if not
impossible, to get around. The power to manufacture and use the atom bomb represents the deployment of a sovereign
power that kills, but it is also the power to kill life itself. So the power that is being exercised in this atomic power is
exercised in such a way that it is capable of suppressing life itself. And, therefore, to suppress itself insofar as it is the
power that guarantees life. Either it is sovereign and uses the atom bomb, and therefore cannot be power, biopower, or
the power to guarantee life, as it has been ever since the nineteenth century. Or, at the opposite extreme, you no longer
have a sovereign right that is in excess of biopower, but a <254> biopower that is in excess of sovereign right. This
excess of biopower appears when it becomes technologically and politically possible for man not only to manage life
but to make it proliferate, to create living matter, to build the monster, and, ultimately, to build viruses that cannot be
controlled and that are universally destructive. This formidable extension of biopower, unlike what I was just saying
about atomic power, will put it beyond all human sovereignty.

p. 34 of 59 .
IMPACT: **RACISM = PRE-CONDITION FOR VIOLENCE **
RACISM THROUGH BIOPOWER IS THE PRE-CONDITION OF ALL VIOLENCE IN OUR SOCIETY

Given that this power's objective is essentially to make live, how can it let die? How can the power of death, the
function of death, be exercised in a political system centered upon biopower?
It is, I think, at this point that racism intervenes. I am certainly not saying that racism was invented at this time. It had
already been in existence for a very long time. But I think it functioned elsewhere. It is indeed the emergence of this
biopower that inscribes it in the mechanisms of the State. It is at this moment that racism is inscribed as the basic
mechanism of power, as it is exercised in modern Stares. As a result, the modern State can scarcely function without
becoming involved with racism at some point, within certain limits and subject to certain conditions.
What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under power's
control: the break between what must live and what must die. The appearance within the <255> biological continuum
of the human race of races, the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain races are described
as good and that others, in contrast, are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological
that power controls. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population. It is, in short, a way of
establishing a biologicaltype caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. This will allow power
to treat that population as a mixture of races, or to be more accurate, to treat the species, to subdivide the species it
controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races. That is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create
caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower.
Racism also has a second function. Its role is, if you like, to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type:
"The more you kill, the more deaths you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live
more." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live, you must take lives, you must be able to kill") was not
invented by either racism or the modern State. It is the relationship of war: "In order to live, you must destroy your
enemies." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die"-function in a way
that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand, racism makes it
possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike
relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal
individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more I-as species
rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." The
fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of
the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate, or the abnormal) is something that will
make life in general healthier: healthier and purer.
This is not, then, a military, warlike, or political relationship, but <256> a biological relationship. And the reason this
mechanism can come into play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political
sense of the term; they are threats, either external or internal, to the population and for the population. In the biopower
system, in other words, killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political
adversaries, but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race. There is a
direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society, race or racism is the precondition that makes killing
acceptable. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least superficially, in the first
instance, or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed,
that allows others to be killed. Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous
function of the State.
So you can understand the importance-I almost said the vital importance-of racism to the exercise of such a power: it
is the precondition for exercising the right to kill. If the power of normalization wished to exercise the old sovereign
right to kill, it must become racist. And if, conversely, a power of sovereignty, or in other words, a power that has the
right of life and death, wishes to work with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it too must
become racist. When I say "killing," I obviously do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect
murder: the fact of exposing someone to death, increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political
death, expulsion, rejection, and so on.

p. 35 of 59 .
IMPACT: RACISM AND BP = ROOT CAUSE OF WAR
RACISM AND BIOPOWER ARE THE PRE-CONDITION FOR WAR
War. How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war, and let them be
killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second
half of the nineteenth century), except by activating the theme of racism? From this point onward, war is about two
things: it is not simply a matter of destroying a political adversary, but of destroying the enemy race, of destroying that
[sort] of biological threat that those people over there represent to our race. In one sense, this is of course no more
than a biological extrapolation from the theme of the political enemy. But there is more to it than that. In the
nineteenth century-and this is completely new-war will be seen not only as a way of improving one's own race by
eliminating the enemy race (in accordance with the themes of natural selection and the struggle for existence), but also
as a way of regenerating one's own race. As more and more of our number die, the race to which we belong will
become all the purer.
At the end of the nineteenth century, we have then a new racism modeled on war. It was, I think, required because a
biopower that wished to wage war had to articulate the will to destroy the adversary with the risk that it might kill
those whose lives it had, by definition, to protect, manage, and multiply. The same could be said of criminality. Once
the mechanism of biocriminal was called upon to make it possible to execute or banish criminals, criminality was
conceptualized in racist terms. The same applies to madness, and the same applies to various anomalies.
I think that, broadly speaking, racism justifies the death-function in the economy of biopower by appealing to the
principle that the death of others makes one biologically stronger insofar as one is a member of a race or a population,
insofar as one is an element in a unitary living plurality. You can see that, here, we are far removed from the ordinary
racism that takes the traditional form of mutual contempt or hatred between races. We are also far removed from the
racism that can be seen as a sort of ideological operation that allows States, or a class, to displace the hostility that is
directed toward [them}, or which is tormenting the social body, onto a mythical adversary. I think that this is
something much deeper than an old tradition, much deeper than a new ideology, that it is something else. The
specificity of modern racism, or what gives it its specificity, is not bound up with mentalities, ideologies, or the lies of
power.
It is bound up with the technique of power, with the technology of power. It is bound up with this, and that takes us as
far away as possible from the race war and the intelligibility of history. We are dealing with a mechanism that allows
biopower to work. So racism is bound up with the workings of a State that is obliged to use race, the elimination of
races and the purification of the race, to exercise its sovereign power. The juxtaposition of-or the way biopower
functions through-the old sovereign power of life and death implies the workings, the introduction and activation, of
racism. And it is, I think, here that we find the actual roots of racism.
So you can understand how and why, given these conditions, the most murderous States are also, of necessity, the
most racist. Here, of <258> course, we have to take the example of Nazism. After all, Nazism was in fact the
paroxysmal development of the new power mechanisms that had been established since the eighteenth century. Of
course, no State could have more disciplinary power than the Nazi regime. Nor was there any other State in which the
biological was so tightly, so insistently, regulated.
Disciplinary power and biopower: all this permeated, underpinned, Nazi society (control over the biological, of
procreation and of heredity; control over illness and accidents too). No society could be more disciplinary or more
concerned with providing insurance than that established, or at least planned, by the Nazis. Controlling the random
clement inherent in biological processes was one of the regime's immediate objectives.

p. 36 of 59 .
SCIENCE REPS = K
LANGUAGE AND REPRESENTATIONS OF SCIENCE ARE ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT. SCIENTIFIC CATEGORIES HAVE
RELIED UPON CULTURAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT MANIFEST THEMSELVES THROUGH VIOLENCE MORE THAN ANY
OTHER DISCOURSE.

To be sure, in the early twentieth century Franz Boas and social-cultural anthropology broadly
were laying the foundations of a different epistemological order for thinking about race. But,
encompassing immigration policy, mental-health assessments, military conscription, labor
patterns, nature conservation, museum design, school and university curricula, penal practices,
field studies of both wild and laboratory animals, literary evaluation, the music industry, religious
doctrine, and much more, race—and its venereal infections and ties to sexual hygiene—was real,
fundamental, and bloody. If the skeptic of poststruc-turalist analysis still needs to be convinced by
an example of the inextricable weave of historically specific discursive, scientific, and physical
reality, race is the place to look. The discursive has never been lived with any greater vitality than
in the always undead corpus of race and sex. For many in the first decades of the twentieth
century, race mixing was a venereal disease of the social body, producing doomed progeny whose
reproductive issue was as tainted as that of lesbians, sodomites, Jews, overeducated women,
prostitutes, criminals, masturbators, oralcoholics. These were the subjects, literal and literary, of
the commodious discourse of eugenics, where intraracial hygiene and interracial taxonomy were
two faces of the same coin.5
Even radicals and liberals, to name them anachronistically, who fought the reproductive narrative
and social equations named in the preceding paragraph, accepted race as a meaningful object of
scientific knowledge. They had litde choice. These writers and activists worked to reshape race
into a different picture of collective human health (Stepan and Oilman 1993).6 Scientific racial
discourse—in the sense that did not insist on the separation of the physical and the cultural and
spoke in the idiom of organic health, efficiency, and familial solidarity—accommodated writers
from great American liberators such as W. E. B. Du Bois and Charlotte Perkins Gilman to middle-
of-the-road, Progressive Era, unabashed racists such as Madison Grant.7 Du Bois is particularly
interesting because he most consistently rejected "biologism" in his approach to race and racism,
but the broad discourse that assimilated race feeling to family feeling and invited discussion on the
childhood and maturity of collective human groups called races was inescapable (Du Bois
1989:8). Although he retracted such language a decade or so later, in 1897 Du Bois wrote that the
history of the world is the history of races: "What is race? It is a vast family ... generally of
common blood and language, always of common history" (Du Bois 1971:19; see also Appiah
1985; 1990:16n3; Stepan and Oilman 1993:192n7).

p. 37 of 59 .
REPS AND SHIT
SCIENTIFIC REPRESENTATIONS ARE NOT NEUTRAL

MODEST_WITNESS@SECOND_MILLENNNIUM. FEMALEMAN_MEETS_ ONCOMOUSE, P 64)
I call attention to the figures and stories that run riot throughout the domains of technoscience. Not only is no
language, including mathematics, ever free of tmping; not only is facticity always saturated with metaphoricity; but
also, any sustained account of the world is dense with storytelling. "Reality" is not compromised by the pervasiveness
of narrative; one gives up nothing, except the illusion of epistemological transcendence, by attending closely to
stories. I am consumed with interest in the stories that inhabit us and that we inhabit; such - inhabiting is finally what
constitutes this "we" among whom communication is tobhpossible. --71
SCIENCE IS A CULTURAL DISCOURSE; IT IS NOT OBJECTIVE OR NEUTRAL

MODEST_WITNESS@SECOND_MILLENNNIUM. FEMALEMAN_MEETS_ ONCOMOUSE, P. 66)
Third, with many others doing contemporary technoscience studies, I believe that science is cultural
practice and practical culture.14 The laboratory is, a special place, not for any epistemological reasons that
might still comfort positivist philosophers, dyspeptic mathematicians, and their molecular biological
sidekicks but because the laboratory is an arrangement and concentration of human and nonhusnan actors,
action, and results that change entities, meanings, and lives on a global scale. And the laboratory is not the
only site for shaping technoscience.
Far from depleting scientific materiality; worldliness, and authority in establishing knowledge, the
"cultural" claim is about the presence, reality; dynamism, contingency; and thickness of technoscience.
Culture denotes not the irrational but the meaningful.

p. 38 of 59 .
BIOLOGY REPS = BIOPOWER
WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF BIOLOGY, OR ELSE WE RISK REPEATING MODERN
INSTITUTIONS OF BIOPOWER

I approach the universal through a particular discourse, the science of biology. Biology's epistemological
and technical task has been to produce a historically specific kind of human unity: namely, membership in a
single species, the human race, Homo sapiens. Biology discursively establishes and performs what will
count as human in powerful domains of knowledge and technique. A striking product of early biological
discourse, race, like sex and nature, is about the apparatuses for fabricating and distributing life and death
in the modern regimes of biopower. Like nature and sex, at least from the nineteenth century race was
constituted as an object of knowledge by the life sciences, especially biology, physical anthropology, and
medicine. The institutions, research projects, measuring instruments, publication practices, and circuits of
money and people that made up the life sciences were the machine tools that crafted "race" as an object of
scientific knowledge over the past 20 years. Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, the biological and
medical sciences began to disown their deadly achievement and worked like Sisyphus to roll the rock qf
race out of the upscale hillside neighborhoods being built in post-World War II prosperous times to house
the new categories of good natural science. All too predictably, the new universals, like the suburbs and the
laboratories, were all too white.

p. 39 of 59 .
BIOLOGICAL LANGUAGE = KEY
BIOLOGICAL LANGUAGE IS THE CENTER OF OUR CULTURAL DISCOURSE. WE MUST EXAMINE IT.

Biology is not the body itself but a discourse on the body. "My biology," a common expression in daily life
for members of the U.S. white middle class, is not the juicy mortal flesh itself, but a linguistic sign for a
complex structure of belief and practice through which I and many of my fellow citizens organize a great
deal of life. Biology is also not a culture-free universal discourse, for all that it has considerable cultural,
economic, and technical power to establish what will count as nature throughout the planet Earth. Biology
is not everyone's discourse about human, animal, and vegetable flesh, life, and nature; indeed, flesh, life,
and nature are no less rooted in specific histories, practices, languages, and peoples than biology itself.
Biologists are not ventriloquists speaking for the Earth itself and all its inhabitants, reporting on what
organic life really is in all its evolved diversity and DNA-soaked order. No natural object-world speaks its
metaphor-free and story-free truth through the sober objectivity of culture-free and so universal science.
Biology does not reach back into the mists of time, to Aristotle or beyond. It is, rather, a complex web of
semiotic-material practices that emerged over the past 200 years or so, beginning in "the West" and
traveling globally. Biology emerged in the midst of major inventions and reworkings of categories of
nation, family, type, civility, species, sex, humanity, nature, and, race.
That biology—at every layer of the onion—is a discourse with a contingent history does not mean that its
accounts are matters of"opinion" or merely "stories." It does mean that the material-semiotic tissues are
inextricably intermeshed. Discourses are not just "words"; they are material-semiotic practices through
which objects of attention and knowing subjects are both constituted. Now a transnational discourse like
the other natural sciences, biology is a knowledge-producing practice that I value; want to participate in and
make better; and believe to be culturally, politically, and epistemologically important. It matters to contest
for a livable biology, as for a livable nature. Both contestations require that we think long and hard about
the permutations of racial discourse in the life sciences in this century. This chapter is a small contribution
to that end.
In the United States in the twentieth century, the categories of biology often become universal donors in the
circulatory systems of meanings and practices that link the family, state, commerce, nature, entertainment,
education, and industry. Apparently culture-free categories are like type O- blood; without a marker
indicating their origin, they travel into many kinds of bodies. Transfused into the body politic, these
categories shape what millions of people consider common sense in thinking about human nature. In this
chapter, I will pay attention to three twentieth-century configurations of bioscientific thinking about the
categories of unity and difference that constitute the human species. Claiming to be troubled by clear and
distinct categories, I will nonetheless nervously work with a wordy chart, a crude taxonomic device to keep
my columns neatly divided and my rows suggestively linked.

p. 40 of 59 .
BIOLOGY IS A PRACTICE
BIOLOGY IS NOT OBJECTIVE; IT IS PRACTICED

Of course, practices, ideas, and institutions spill from one period into the next, but I think "real-world"
patterns of power and authority shift within the paradigmatic configurations detailed in the rows within
each period. The illusion of progressing from one period to the next with no carryovers and uncanny
repetitions might be tempered by imagining setting "periodic boundary conditions" on that table, to change
the topology of the flat table so that it wraps around on itself to form a cylinder or even a torus. Also, many
other practices, ideas, and institutions fill these time periods but find no place on this chart. A paradigmatic
category for some communities of practice is contested by other communities, and from various other
points of view, what looks like a paradigm to me could look trivial or just wrong. Learning how to get at a
point of view in constructing and using a chart is part of my purpose. Unlike a perspective drawing that
geometrically constructs the unique point from which to see into the composition, Table 6.1 invites the
reader to evaluate contending locations as an intrinsic aspect of participating in scientific culture on the
charged topics of race, sex, and nature. One way to do this is to make the chart into a narrative device, that
is, to use it to construct a story. Stories are not "fictions" in the sense of being "made up." Rather, narratives
are devices to produce certain kinds of meaning. I try to use stories to tell what I think is the truth—a
located, embodied, contingent, and therefore real truth.
My chart does not argue that "forces" such as political developments "influenced" biology from the
"outside," or vice versa; nor does it imply that life science, or anything else, is the summation of its
determinations. Biology is complex cultural practice engaged in by real people, not bundles of determina-
tions just waiting for the analyst's clever discovery. Biology might be politics by other means, but the
means are specific to the located practice of the life sciences. These means are usually more about things
like genes, graphs, and blood than about legislatures or supposed social interests of scientists.

p. 41 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE SOLVENCY
REPRESENTATIONS OF TIES THROUGH BLOOD HAVE BEEN FAR TOO BLOODY THROUGHOUT HISTORY. SELF-
IDENTIFYING WITH THE MONSTROUS VAMPIRE IS AN IMPORTANT SHIFT AWAY FROM THE DANGERS OF
BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM.

Alongside a photo of the imaging specialist, labeled with a classically orientalist caption, "Lam creates a mysterious
image," That's managing editor tells us still more about the cybergenesis of the woman on the cover:"A combination
of the racial and ethnic features of the women used to produce the chart, she is: 15% Anglo-Saxon, 17.5% Middle
Eastern, 17.5% African, 7.5% Asian, 35% Southern European and 7.5% Hispanic. Little did we know what we had
wrought As onlookers watched the image of our new Eve begin to appear on the computer screen, several staff
members fell in love. Said one:'It really breaks my heart that she doesn't exist.' We sympathize with our own lovelorn
colleagues, but even technology has its limits. This is a love that must forever remain unrequited." Themes running
throughout the essay implode in this unlikely black hole. Early-century racislized ethnic categories reappear as entries
in an electronic database for a truly odd statistical population analysis. A virtual woman is the result, fathered like
Galatea, Pygmalion's creature, with which he fell in love. The curious erotics of single-parent,masculine,technophilic
reproduction cannot be missed. SinsEve is like Zeus's Athena, child only of the seminal mind-of mass and of a
computer program. The law of the nation, like that laid down by Athena for Athens in the Orestian trilogy, will be the
Law of the Father. The Furies in cyberspace will not be pleased. In the narrative of romantic love, SiniEve forever
excites a desire that cannot be flilfilled. This is precisely the myth infusing dreams of technological transcendence of
the body. In these odd, but conventional, technoscientific erotics, the actual limits of technology only spur the desire
to love that which cannot and does not exist. SisnEve is the new universal human, mother of the new race, figure of
the nation; and she is a computergenerated composite, like the human genome itself. She is the secondand third-order
othpring of the ramifying code of codes. She ensures the difference of no difference in the human family, PostScdpttM
Throughout this chapter, racial discourse has persistently pivoted on sexual hygiene, and the therapeutic scene has
been the theater of nature in the city of science. I am tick to death of bonding through kinship and "the family," and I
long for models of solidarity and human unity and difference rooted in friendship, work, partially shared purposes,
intractable collective pain, inescapable 2 mortality, and persistent hope. It is time to theorize an "unfanuliar"
unconscious, a different primal scene, where everything does not stem from the dramas of identity and reproduction.
Ties through blood-including blood recast in the coin of genes and information-have been bloody enough already. I
believe that there will be no racial or sexual peace, no livable nature, until we learn to produce humanity through
something more and less than kinship. I think lam on the side of the vampires, or at least some of them. But, then,
since when does one get to choose which vampire will trouble one's dreams?

p. 42 of 59 .
ALT: SOLVES BIOPOWER
HARAWAY’S ANTI-HUMANIST FIGURES DEFY BIOPOWER BECAUSE THEY DEFY NORMALIZING CATEGORIES
HARAWAY IN `91 (DONNA, UC-SANTA CRUZ, "A CYBORG MANIFESTO: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND
SOCIALIST-FEMINISM IN THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY," IN SIMIANS, CYBORGS AND WOMEN: THE
REINVENTION OF NATURE, P. 149-181,
HTTP://WWW.STANFORD.EDU/DEPT/HPS/HARAWAY/CYBORGMANIFESTO.HTML)
Likewise for race, ideologies about human diversity have to be formulated in terms of frequencies of parameters, like
blood groups or intelligence scores. It is 'irrational' to invoke concepts like primitive and civilized. For liberals and
radicals, the search for integrated social systems gives way to a new practice called 'experimental ethnography' in
which an organic object dissipates in attention to the play of writing. At the level of ideology, we see translations of
racism and colonialism into languages of development and under-development, rates and constraints of
modernization. Any objects or persons can be reasonably thought of in terms of disassembly and reassembly; no
'natural' architectures constrain system design. The financial districts in all the world's cities, as well as the export-
processing and free-trade zones, proclaim this elementary fact of'late capitalism'. The entire universe of objects that
can be known scientifically must be formulated as problems incommunications engineering (for the managers) or
theories of the text (for those who would resist). Both are cyborg semiologies.
One should expect control strategies to concentrate on boundary conditions and interfaces, on rates of flow across
boundaries-- and not on the integrity of natural objects. 'Integrity' or 'sincerity' of the Western self gives way to
decision procedures and expert systems. For example, control strategies applied to women's capacities to give birth to
new human beings will be developed in the languages of population control and maximization of goal achievement for
individual decision-makers. Control strategies will be formulated in terms of rates, costs of constraints, degrees of
freedom. Human beings, like any other component or subsystem, must be localized in a system architecture whose
basic modes of operation are probabilistic, statistical. No objects, spaces, or bodies are sacred in themselves; any
component can be interfaced with any other if the proper standard, the proper code, can be constructed for processing
signals in a common language. Exchange in this world transcends the universal translation effected by capitalist
markets that Marx analysed so well. The privileged pathology affecting all kinds of components in this universe is
stress - communications breakdown (Hogness, 1983). The cyborg is not subject to Foucault's biopolitics; the cyborg
simulates politics, a much more potent field of operations.

p. 43 of 59 .
ALT: SOLVES BIOPOWER
HARAWAY’S METAPHORS OF NON-HUMAN LIFE REFUSE THE ORGANIZING LOGIC OF BIOPOWER

I Time and Space
Figures always bring with them some temporal modality that organizes interpretive practice. I understand Foucault's
(1978) concept of biopwer to refer to the practices of administration, therapeutics, and surveillance of bodies that
discursively constitute, increase and manage the forces of living organisms. He gives shape to his theoretical concept
through delineating the 3 nineteenth-century figures of the masturbating child, reproducing Malthusian couple,
hysterical woman, and homosexual pervert. The temporality of these biopolitical figures is developmental. They are
all involved in dramas of health, degeneartion, and the organic efficiencies and pathologies of production and
reproduction. Developmental time is a legitimate descendant of the morality of salvation history proper to the figures
of Christian realism and technoscientific humanism.
Similarly, my cyborg figures inhabit a mutated time-space regime that I call technobiopower. Intersecting with-and
sometimes displacing-the development, fulfillment,-and containment proper to figural realism the temporal modality
pertaining to cyborgs is condensation fusion and implosion This is more the temporality of the science-fictional
wormhole that spatial anomaly that casts travelers into unexpeccd regions of space, than of the birth passages of the
biopolitical body. The implosion of the technical, organic, political, economic, oneiric, and textual that is evident in
the material-semiotic practices and entities in late-twentieth-century technoscience informs my practice of figuration.
Cyborg figures-such as the end-of-the-milleiim seed, chip, gene, data base,bomb, fetus, race, brain, and ecosystem-are
the offspring of implosions of subjects and objects and of the natural and artificial. Perhaps cyborgs inhabit less the
domains of life with its developmental and organic temporalities than of 'life itself,"8 with its temporalities embedded
in communications enhancement and system redesign. Life itself is life enterprised up, where, in the dyspeptic version
of the technoscientific soap opera, the species becomes the brand name and the figure becomes the price. Ironically,
the millennarian fulfillment of development is the excessive condensation of implosion.

p. 44 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE IS LIBERATING
THE IMPLOSION OF CATEGORIES FORCES US TO CONTINUOUSLY CONSTRUCT NEW NARRATIVES OF SCIENCE.

THIS IS NOT PESSIMISTIC, RATHER IT IS LIBERATING

£ Fourth and last in my score for orchestrating the action in technoscience is the dubiously mixed physical and
biological metaphor of the force of iniplosion and the tangle of sticky threads in transuranic and transgenic worlds.
The point is simple: The technical, textual, organic, historical, formal, mythic, economic, and political dimensions of
entities, actions, and worlds implode in the gravity well of technoscience-or perhaps of any world massive enough to
bend our attention, warp our certainties, and sustain our lives. Potent categories collapse .:h F into each other.
Analytically and provisionally, we may want to move what counts as the political to the background and to foreground
elements called s 5 ibp technical, formal, or quantitative, or to highlight the textual and semiotic while - 1/4f muting
the economic or mythic. But foreground and background axe relational and rhetorical matters, not binary dualisms or
ontological categories. The messy political does not go away because we think we are cleanly in the zone of the
technical, or vice versa. Stories and facts do not naturally keep a respectable distance; indeed, they promiscuously
cohabit the same very material places. Determining what constitutes each dimension takes boundary-making and
maintenance work. In addition, many empirical studies of technoscience have disabled the notion that the word
technical designates a dean and orderly practical or epistemological space. Nothing so productive could be so simple.
Any interesting being in technoscience, such as a textbook, molecule, equation, mouse, pipette, bomb, fungus,
technician, agitator, or scientist, can-and often should-he teased open to show the sticky economic, technical, political,
organic, historical, mythic, and textual threads that snake up its tissues. "Implosion" does not imply that technoscience
is "socially constructed," as if the "social" were ontologically real and separate; "implosion" is a claim for
heterogeneous and continual construction through historically located practice, where the actors are not all
huanan.While some of the turns of the sticky threads in these tissues are helical, others twist less predictably. Which
thread is which remains permanently mutable, a question of analytical choice and foregrounding operations. The
threads are alive; they transform into each other; they move away from our categorical gaze. The relations among the
technical, mythic, economic, political, formal, textual, historical, and organic are not causal. But the 69 articulations
are consequential; they matter. Implosion of dimensions implies loss of dear and distinct identities, but not loss of
mass and energy. Maybe to describe what gets sucked into the gravity well of a massive unknown universe, we have
to risk getting dose enough to be permanently warped by the lines of force. Or maybe we already live inside the well,
where lines of force have become the sticky threads of our own bodies.

p. 45 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE SOLVES MODERNITY IMPACTS (1 OF 2)
EMPHASIZING THE VAMPIRE ASPECT OF SUBJECTIVITY BREAKS DOWN THE VIOLENCE OF NATURE-BASED KINSHIP
AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGN SUBJECTIVITY
WINNBUST IN `03 (SHANNON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND A MEMBER OF THE FEMINIST STUDIES
PROGRAM AT SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, "VAMPIRES, ANXIETIES, AND DREAMS: RACE AND SEX IN THE
CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES," HYPATIA 18.3 (2003), MUSE)
Festivals of Vampires
In Modest_Witness @ Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_Oncomouse (1997), Donna Haraway beckons us to

the figure of the vampire: she initiates us into the rituals surrounding the vampire's nutrition, the rituals of blood. As
she writes, "A figure that both promises and threatens racial and sexual mixing, the vampire feeds off the normalized
human, and the monster finds such contaminated food to be nutritious. The vampire also insists on the nightmare of
racial violence behind the fantasy of purity in the rituals of kinship" (1997, 214). If the obsession with strictly defined
and rigidly upheld boundaries haunts western conceptions of subjectivity, perhaps the figure who lives by crossing
those boundaries tells us something about how they are made and how they might be dismantled. And so I turn to the
vampire, that figure who confounds corporeality itself.
The iconography of vampires has been alive and well in Western European and North American cultural psyches since
the popularization of vampire stories in the late eighteenth century (Haraway 1997, 215; Case 1991, 4). As many
studies have shown, the linking of racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism is often unmistakable in the
majority of these stories. 8 Jews, like whores and blacks and queers, are vampiric—in the fantasy life of Western
European and North American psyches.
And so what is it to be a vampire? And what are these anxieties that keep calling us white folks back to their bloody
stories?
Veronica Hollinger (1997) explains that, in these days of deconstructing boundaries, vampires have become "the
monster-of-choice . . . since it is itself a deconstructive figure" (1997, 201). As she elaborates, "It is the monster that
used to be human; it is the undead that used to be alive; it is the monster that looks like us" (1997, 201. Italics in
original). But it is not us. It is the monster that is closest to us, seducing us into its erotically charged feeding frenzies,
only to be dispelled, even expelled—fantasized into some neatly confined unreality of the unthinkable, the undead.
But the vampire crosses some of phallicized whiteness' most precious boundaries. As Eric Lott (1993) writes in his
glossary of "whiteness," Dracula functions as a "sort of one-man miscegenation machine" (1993, 39). The vampire is a
bloodsucker. He sucks blood, transferring an illegitimate and disavowed substance, transforming his "victims" from
the living to the undead, giving [End Page 7] birth without sex, trafficking in the strange and unruly logics of fluids,
mixing and spilling and infecting blood. 9 As Haraway writes, the vampire "drinks and infuses blood in a
paradigmatic act of infecting whatever poses as pure" (1997, 214). The vampire pollutes all systems of kinship,
pollutes all systems of blood, pollutes all systems of race and sex and desire that must be straight. He infects the body
and thereby alters the spirit—no body can transcend the metamorphoses of his bite, not even the straight white male
body that is in the flesh but supposedly not of it. The vampire crosses even these boundaries and, with powers that are
transfixing for the rigid self of the white male heterosexual, brings his victims across them as well.
Where does the vampire get these powers?

p. 46 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE SOLVES MODERNITY IMPACTS (2 OF 2)
According to the "orthodoxy of vampirism," the vampire can never become a legible subject in the straight white male
symbolic of Western Europe and North America. He can never become a subject in the ways that Lacan has read
subject formation, for the vampire does not have the one necessary condition to become an upstanding, rational,
straight, white, male body-in-control: it has no mirror reflection. A hallmark of all vampire narratives, this "lack"
(which is certainly not any lack Lacan conceptualized) is traditionally linked to the embedding of vampire stories in
Christianity, where the lack of a mirror reflection is most often read as the lack of a soul, which is then connected to
the vampires' fear of crucifixes. While this connection in itself already places the fascination with vampires in the
fantasy life of the straight, white, male, Christ-like psyche, the lack of a mirror reflection troubles the logics of
subjection and abjection that we find in the Lacanian schema of our cultural psyche.
As we have seen in my brief foray into Lacan's mirror stage, the infant's reflection of himself in the mirror is the
doorway into subject-formation for Lacanian psychoanalysis. More broadly, this mirror reflection becomes the site at
which a subject begins to form ideas of wholeness and self-consciousness—crucial characteristics in virtually all
western notions of subjectivity. The vampire, in lacking a mirror reflection, does not even register on the radar of
identity-formation: he does not have the necessary condition for the possibility of becoming a subject. But,
consequently, nor can he be fully abjected, nor can he be caught, labeled, categorized, and expelled as the Other.
Given that subjectivity hinges on this visual image, the mirror reflection, it works its power out on the field of visual
images. One is categorized as the Other on the basis of how one appears—for example, both racial and sexual
difference are signified through visual markers on the body in U.S. culture. But the vampire fails to be reflected in the
mirror: he does not offer up the necessary visual image to be coded by the dominant signifier of phallicized whiteness.
The vampire is thus neither subject nor Other. The vampire, that crosser of boundaries extraordinaire, is forever
haunting because he is forever beyond the grasps of straight white male subjectivity. The vampire infects his blood,
alters [End Page 8] his spirit and—damned most of all—exceeds his concepts. And in exceeding them, he always
carries the power to expose them, to expose them and their anxieties—about blood, about boundaries, about kinship
and purity and control, about the racing of sex and the sexing of race.

p. 47 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE SOLVES RACISM, SEXISM, HETSXM (1 OF 2)
THE FIGURE OF THE VAMPIRE DISPLACES THE CENTRALITY OF BLOOD AND BIOLOGICAL TIES, EMPHASIZING THE
FLOWS AND AFFINITIES OF SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH MAKES RACISM, SEXISM AND HETEROSEXISM IMPOSSIBLE
Transforming Concepts of Kinship
Running with these transformed and transformative dynamics of vampiric kinship, Haraway offers ways around
apocalyptic prophesies of twenty-first century technoscience. She develops these vampiric kinship dynamics as
dynamics of affections and affinities, not of substance (1997, 214-16). No longer a matter of nature or biology, kinship
becomes a particular mode of reading the many flowing affections, affinities, connections, and intensities that
circulate amidst bodies in the world. Removing us from romanticism's last vestiges in the neo-Darwinian valorizing of
organic bonds (whether read through hematology or genetics) 21 towards the technoscientific, cyborg connections of
affinities, intensities, and energies, Haraway asks us to follow the vampire through its mazes of connections and
disconnections—not just to continue to indulge it in some unexamined voyeuristic fantasy. Just as Gomez beckons us,
so too Haraway asks us—all of us, including we who are not straight white males—to identify with the vampire, not
with the victims. She beckons us to follow her down different lines and regions of "kinship"—lines opened already in
our cultural fascination with vampires and further accentuated and fractured in the twenty-first century of
technoscience.
Begging us to pay attention to kinship, Haraway asks, in the world of early twenty-first century technoscience, "Who
are my kin in this odd world of promising monsters, vampires, surrogates, living tools, and aliens? How are natural
kinds identified in the realms of technoscience? What kinds of crossings and offspring count as legitimate and
illegitimate, to whom and at what cost? Who are my familiars, my siblings, and what kind of livable world are we
trying to build?" (1997, 52). In this world of twenty-first century technoscience, 22 where computers and chips and
screens and wires and databases and units of information forge the bases—or, at least, the conditions of possibility—
of many of our relations, the traditional criterion of blood to determine who is "related" [End Page 13] to whom no
longer functions. As vampires teach us, blood is not what we, trapped in a metaphysics of solids, might like to think it
is. No longer can we draw neat boundaries between what is organic and not organic, what is natural and unnatural,
what resembles us and what does not resemble us.
But rather than read this as apocalyptic, Haraway encourages us to see the liberatory effects here. Leaving behind the
natural/unnatural dichotomy, and all of the (sexual, racial, religious, national) violences it has brought upon us, can we
not at last engage kinship, as Haraway encourages, as "a technology for producing the material and semiotic effect of
natural relationship, of shared kind" (1997, 53; italics added)? Can we not at last rethink relation as a set of open-
ended affections, affinities, and possibilities, rather than a predetermined, closed set of (often incompatible) organic
bonds?
In echoes of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1987), Haraway's vampiric retooling of kinship categories and
concepts turns things upside down just a bit. No longer is kinship—that is, that joining of race and sex in the
reproduction of a pure, unsullied, white, straight bloodline—a matter of discovering pre-made, biological, organic
identities. Rather, in good late-twentieth-century form, identity itself is turned inside out. Identity is no longer the
precious stronghold of all things private, internal, "natural," and sacred; rather, it is the fabrication of nodes of
connection via affinities, affections, tastes, distastes, labors, pleasures, technical wirings, attractions, repulsions, and
chemical responses. Identity changes and shifts and cracks open as these dynamics change and shift and crack open.
Stability or fixity becomes a matter of effects—historical, material, semiotic, chemical, etc. 23 Radically open-ended,
radically temporary.

p. 48 of 59 .
ALT: VAMPIRE SOLVES RACISM, SEXISM, HETSXM (2 OF 2)
Virtually all boundaries are crossed here—human/non-human, organic/inorganic, biological/chemical,

chemical/mechanical and, yes, alive/undead, male/female, white/black, straight/queer. In Haraway's rendering of the
world of technoscience, a world that echoes the worlds of vampires, "any interesting being, . . . such as textbook,
molecule, equation, mouse, pipette, bomb, fungus, technician, agitator, or scientist, can—and often should—be teased
open to show the sticky economic, technical, political, organic, historical, mythic, and textual threads that make up its
tissues" (1997, 68). In teasing open such threads, the structures and slippery dynamics of both racism and sexism often
surface. That which appeared as solid and unmovable—even as "natural"and eternal—may now appear as a radically
temporary and contingent effect, sedimented by repetition into a pattern that appeared as solid. To be more explicit,
race, which continues to haunt us in its biological appearances and patterns despite all our talk of social construction,
24 may finally begin to appear as the subtle effect of investments in nineteenth-century concepts of the organic, the
"natural," the rational, the unmovable, and eternally true. Investments by that absent body, the body-in-control, the
straight white male body. But investments that we need not continue to treat as unmovable or eternal. [End Page 14]
These multiple vectors of kinship that cross so many precious boundaries are already circulating in our bodies, our
bodies that are far from purely organic, in the early twenty-first century. And the dramas of relations and kin no longer
move down the linear paths of identities and reproductions and weighty moralistic questions about who shall marry
whom. They no longer circulate around "family values"—the family itself, that bastion protecting racism, sexism and
heterosexism, has been retooled.

p. 49 of 59 .
AT: VAMPIRE BAD (YOU’RE JUST PARANOID)
THE ANXIETIES CAUSED BY THE VAMPIRE DEMONSTRATE MODERNITY’S INABILITY TO COPE WITH
IRRATIONALITY AND NON-BLOOD TIES
Spilling Blood
I return us again to my opening dream sequence—the nightmare of the black rapist. As a nightmare, it has no pattern
in waking life to which it might attach itself: this perverse "fantasy" has no foothold in any historical or physical
reality. Rather, it is a fantasy of the straight white male body, that same straight white male body that raped black
slaves in the kitchen, mixing with their blood as their white wives slept in their conjugal bed upstairs, that same
straight white male body that has raped black and white and brown and red "bodies"—both physically and psychically
—for years and years and years. It is a fantasy that both protects and constitutes this reality, the reality of the violent
and violating straight white male body. It protects it from exposure, allowing it to appear as a detached, pure, rational
body-in-control—a "subject."
But vampires haunt this body, this white phallic symbolic that saturates our cultural scenes. We see it in our
continuing fear of infected blood. Whether through laws and morés of miscegenation or the raced and sexed cultural
anxieties around AIDS, the spilling and mixing of fluids continues to be one of our culture's greatest fears—projected
time and time again all over the racialized and sexualized body of the Other. Perhaps we should follow the retooling of
identity opened by these nineteenth-century vampiric festivals of blood. Perhaps we should pick at and irritate the
anxieties that linger in their narratives. We need not read these anxieties as some deep and abiding structure intrinsic
to white rational identity. We could, rather, read them as the word "projection" suggests—as so many intensities,
attractions, repulsions, disavowals, and denials projected across the surfaces of young girls' bodies, of black male
bodies, of any body other than that body in which the anxiety originates. Projecting outward from the hollowness at
the core of whiteness, at the core of maleness—a hologram of fear, posing as an unmoving substance of control.
Rereading these myths of blood and purity with Gomez and Haraway, we might find more and more tools to undo and
re-do the myths of kinship, the myths of race and sex, the myths of purity and control that continue to circulate
through our cultural bodies. We might find more tools to read the slippery ways that both race and sex continue to be
signified as "biological," immediately erasing the birthing power of signification—and concealing the whiteness and
[End Page 15] maleness and straightness that such signifying practices benefit. We might find ways to live out the
practices that Gomez and Haraway envision and long for. To give Haraway the final words here, "I believe that there
will be no racial or sexual peace, no livable nature, until we learn to produce humanity through something more and
less than kinship. I think I am on the side of the vampires, or at least some of them" (1997, 265).

p. 50 of 59 .
AT: POMO BAD (BYERS)
FEARS OF POSTMODERNISM ARE A PARANOID ATTACHMENT TO RACISM, SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND THE
VIOLENCE OF METAPHYSICS
BYERS IN `95 (THOMAS, ENGLISH AT LOUISVILLE, “TERMINATING THE POSTMODERN: MASCULINITY AND
POMOPHOBIA,” MODERN FICTION STUDIES 4.1, MUSE)
Unsurprisingly, the anti-feminist backlash and virulent homophobia that have formed such pronounced strains in
American culture of the last several years are closely related to (though not fully explained by) the economic troubles
with which the United States has been struggling to cope. This relation operates on a number of different planes, some
more immediately accessible than others. On the simplest level, resentment of women's efforts to attain equality in the
job market has risen as that market has "down-sized" in the shift from an industrial to an informational economy. In
addition, homophobia has been exacerbated by the scapegoating tendency that in times of economic crisis so often
displaces material anxieties into hatred of and violence against the marginalized. [End Page 5] Of the many recent
avatars of this pathology, the skinhead phenomenon is perhaps the most spectacular, but the efforts of many states to
prohibit ordinances protecting gay rights, as well as the (at times literally) violent reaction against attempts to ease
prohibitions against homosexuals in the military, are equally symptomatic.
However, increased intensities of reaction in matters of the politics of gender and sexualities were not merely
phenomena of the recession of the Bush years, nor are they likely to abate much even in a cycle of "recovery." Rather,
they represent a set of deep and persistent fears on the part of a formerly dominant order that has begun to recognize
that it is becoming residual. Needless to say, anti-feminism and homophobia are, in part, reactions against progressive
attempts to destabilize patriarchal heterosexual hegemony (attempts to which I hope my writing may contribute). But
they are also condensations and displacements of popular anxiety, particularly masculine anxiety, over a whole
complex of other destabilizations. These include both changes in the material and economic base (fears of which are
neither unfounded nor necessarily retrograde) and the general collapse of master narratives. As Yvonne Tasker has
pointed out: "Postmodernity . . . signals significant shifts in the definition [and, I would add, the availability] of work
and the masculine identity that it proposes. Postmodernism also calls into question the production and status of
knowledge and categories of truth. These developments help to situate and historicize . . . shifts in Hollywood's
representation of the male hero," whose current struggles embody "anxieties about masculine identity and authority"
(242-243). In what follows I will attempt, through an analysis of an immensely popular text, Terminator 2: Judgment
Day, to show how feminism and homosexuality become tropes for these postmodern developments and foci for the
disease caused by late capitalism--and thus how popular hostilities toward feminist and gay underminings of the
traditional masculine subject are overdetermined and intensified by the anxieties of postmodernity.
1. Kissing Our Selves Goodbye
Ultimately what all these destabilizations--of base and superstructure, gender and sexual orientation--have in common
is that they pose threats to the continued existence of the reified subject of bourgeois humanism and compulsory
heterosexuality, as well as to the privileged [End Page 6] site of that subject's being and security: the nuclear family. In
short (as Tasker suggests), the traditional subject, particularly the masculine subject, is in the throes of an identity
crisis. Moreover, this crisis is a particularly radical one--too radical, in fact, to be contained within traditional
humanist boundaries. For it is not simply a matter of discovering or choosing for oneself a single, unified, coherent
identity from a range of cultural possibilities. Nor is it only a matter of the subject's dislocation or transition from an
old place to a new one. Rather, the current crisis threatens to transform or even overthrow the whole concept of
identity. This is the point of convergence of fears of late capitalism, fears of theory, fears of feminism, fears of any
swerving from the path of "straight" sexuality: the fears that, together, constitute what I want to call "pomophobia."

p. 51 of 59 .
AT: HARAWAY = JUST WORD PLAY
HARAWAY’S FIGURE DOES NOT REDUCE NATURE TO MERE WORDS – SHE IS VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS
164, MUSE)
As the following orchestration of Haraway's use of trope and topoi illustrates, rhetoric in this instance is productive,
not merely reproductive:
Nature is a topos, a place.

Nature is the place to rebuild public culture.
Nature is also a trópos, a trope.
It is a figure, construction, artifact, movement, displacement.
As trópos, nature is about turning.
Nature is a topic of public discourse on which much turns, even the earth.
Nature for us is made, as both fiction and fact. 46
As this fancifully restructured passage suggests, reinventing nature topically and tropologically turns nature into a
discursive resource rather than simply a natural resource, one that embraces nature as part of public culture. Haraway
mobilizes nature into a productive resource for making new knowledge claims about the natural world. These
knowledge claims recognize that humans react relationally rather than relatively to their environments. Following the
ethical imperative of relationality, Haraway avoids the relative colonizing move of simply reducing nature to a
discourse constructed by humans.
The rhetorical turn on nature as both trope and topos, as inventional systems for scientific knowledge production, is
illustrated in the following discussion of Sandra Harding's reinventing yourself as other.

p. 52 of 59 .
AT: CYBORG BAD -VAMPIRE BETTER THAN `BORG
THE VAMPIRE METAPHOR [IS BETTER THAN THE CYBORG METAPHOR: IT] ALLOWS US TO MOBILIZE AND EMPATHIZE WITH
DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF RACE AND OTHER OPPRESSIONS
…OR…
THE VAMPIRE IS HARAWAY’S ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE CYBORG’S SHORTCOMINGS
164, MUSE)
In Modest_Witness, Haraway transubstantiates the trope of the cyborg into the vampire, another hybrid figure of
ironic tension. In this case, the vampire's hybridity allows it to reside simultaneously [End Page 143] in two worlds,
the living and the dead, moving through both at once with the bifurcated consciousness of the undead. The vampire
has two connotations that permit Haraway to address two central theoretical problematics--the problem of categories,
and the problem of racial identities.
Haraway turns to the vampire metaphor first as a way to figure the pollution of "natural" categories. She writes that
the vampire is "the one who pollutes lineages on the wedding night; the one who effects category transformations by
illegitimate passages of substance; the one who drinks and infuses blood in a paradigmatic act of infecting whatever
poses as pure. . . . the one who [is] undead, unnatural, and perversely incorruptible." 68 Vampires, Allucquère Rosanne
Stone tells us, "invoke by their simple existence the disruption of classificatory schemata that calls traditional identity
formation into question." 69 As an undead figure, the vampire confuses classifications, violates taxonomies, and
"makes categories travel." 70
Second, unlike the cyborg, the vampire is heavily race-inflected. Haraway mobilizes its history as the "other" in order
to examine the construction of race and racial identities, or the "vectors of infection that trouble racial categories in the
twentieth-century biosocial categories." 71 As monsters that exist in the realm of the undead, vampires confound
generational thinking by redefining generations. In the age of family values, the vampire is about nongenetic
generations, ironic kinships, and familial relations in the realm of the living, the dead, and the undead. As Stone
writes, vampires have "the power to confer the Dark Gift--to make new vampires." 72 They allow an analysis of race
because the Dark Gift contains bloody, bodily matter that comprises traceable lineages or material genealogies.
In other words, while the cyborg remains a useful, powerful, and potent figure, Haraway is forced to develop a new
trope, one that is transitive and relational. When she pushes the relativist cyborg into realms such as race, she gets the
relational vampire--it's all about blood; it's a bloody business. The relational vampire figures the cyborg's limits in two
ways, demonstrating how its original strengths have become potential weaknesses.
One of the strengths of the cyborg was its additive nature. This strength, however, can also be seen as a weakness,
since the cyborg fails to convey a sense of simultaneity. Simultaneity is not the only characteristic of relationality, but
it is certainly a central one. In light of current feminist thinking about the confluence of categories such as race AND
sex, gender AND ethnicity, in which strings of identity components deny a sense of simultaneity, the vampire enables
the interdependency, tensions, commitments, and obligations of relationality.
Another strength of the cyborg was its illegitimacy, which has the unfortunate effect of implicitly legitimating the
mechanistic metaphors of technoscience. "Mechanistic metaphors" such as the cyborg "have all presumed a certain
mastery of and exteriority to the object--the body, bodies" that feminist theorist Elizabeth Grosz claims is not possible;
she describes as an alternative the very qualities of the vampire: "What is needed are metaphors and models that
implicate the subject in the object, that render mastery and exteriority undesirable." 73 By focusing on raced bodies
rather than technological ones, the vampire assists in rethinking the raced categories of technoscience that
technological metaphors often leave invisible in the mechanistic images they evoke.

p. 53 of 59 .
AT: `BORG PROMOTES TECH (WE’RE NOT THE CYBORG)
THE VAMPIRE METAPHOR AVOIDS THE PITFALLS OF THE CYBORG’S TECHNOPHILIA
164, MUSE)
Another strength of the cyborg was its illegitimacy, which has the unfortunate effect of implicitly legitimating the
mechanistic metaphors of technoscience. "Mechanistic metaphors" such as the cyborg "have all presumed a certain
mastery of and exteriority to the object--the body, bodies" that feminist theorist Elizabeth Grosz claims is not possible;
she describes as an alternative the very qualities of the vampire: "What is needed are metaphors and models that
implicate the subject in the object, that render mastery and exteriority undesirable." 73 By focusing on raced bodies
rather than technological ones, the vampire assists in rethinking the raced categories of technoscience that
technological metaphors often leave invisible in the mechanistic images they evoke.
This, then, is how the vampire interrupts the seamlessness of identity politics, of politics based on alignments with
type and kind. It illustrates the way that lists of identity categories (gender, race, class, and sexual orientation) simply
cannot be strung together but instead are co-constitutive, mutually influencing each other in the formation of identity.
The active traffic of the vampire's life features the elision possible between multiple worlds: it is not simply a fusion
of subject and object; instead, it lives in both worlds simultaneously; it implicates the subject-in-the object, sex-in-
race, gender-in-ethnicity, human-in-animal, ducks-in-women. The vampire implicates the human/living being in the
nonhuman/undead, and the pure, authentic identity in the violence done by the construction of categories. This
simultaneity eliminates the AND, the additive, link orientation of the cyborg.
This is Haraway's point when she suggests that there are significant differences between a woman who gives birth to
someone who owns property and a woman who gives birth to someone who is property. This rhetorical turn illustrates
the way that the additive model is a relative one that focuses on the alleged similarities between women--all women
give birth--while minimizing differences [End Page 145] and ignoring the relational vectors of power that exist
between white women and women of color.
The vampire foregrounds the legacy of troublesome webs of connection and the necessity of dynamic process. The
aura of risk, the need for blood, and the lived memory of a racialized history are evidence that the vampire's genealogy
requires the ability to work with and appreciate ironic tension.
The vampire--a figure with a much longer and richer history than the cyborg--of course has its own set of problems.
First, the issue of class is apparent in the aristocratic references and titles such as Count Dracula. Second, the vampire,
like the cyborg, brings with it a set of connotations about gender (specifically, masculinity) and sexuality. Vampires
are almost always portrayed in eroticized accounts as males who use females as sexual prey. Current fiction such as
The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice and the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer have popularized the notion
of vampires hidden among us, underscoring the ever-present danger and the subtleties of important gender, race, and
class identity markers. In the semiotics of postmodern vampire identification--where class, race, and gender roles are
queered--our traditional expectations of vampires have been diverted, but the sexualized power of seduction and
danger remain. A quick search of"vampire" on the internet reveals the enormous popularity, masculinized power, and
misogyny of the vast majority of vampire figures and their allies in popular culture. Third, Haraway is acutely familiar
with the needs of metaphorical figures to shape-shift, 74 and although the metaphor of the vampire has a robust
history and is prevalent in popular culture, like all metaphors, it cannot escape reification. Nevertheless, given the
many attributes we have described and the abilities of the metaphorical vampire to encourage simultaneity, enable
dynamic tension, and embrace relationality, it is a very productive tool for exposing both moving categories and
"whatever passes as pure." 75

p. 54 of 59 .
QT: NATURE = ELITES
HOMOGENEOUS REPRESENTATIONS OF NATURE EXCLUDE THE “OTHER” AND PERPETUATE THE HEGEMONY OF
CULTURAL ELITES
EVANS IN 2002 [MEI MEI, ENGLISH AT ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, "NATURE' AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE" IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE READER: POLITICS, POETICS AND PEDAGOGY, ED. ADAMSON, EVANS
AND STEIN, PG. 181-182]
As with other ideological representations, popular U.S. American cultural constructions of "nature" serve to empower
some members of our society white simultaneously disempowering others. Ideas of "nature," like representations of
race, gender, sexuality, and class, are never neutral; they themselves create and perpetuate particular meanings.
(Indeed, these social categories cannot even be understood without an understanding of constitutive ideas of "nature"
and what-or who-is "natural," but that is the subject of a different discussion.)
It is not my goal here to theorize how, or even why, the idea of Nature has had and continues to exert such a tenacious
grip on the U.S. American cultural imagination. Suffice it to say that it does. Rather, the intent of this essay is to
demonstrate, by means of a variety of examples, the ways in which particular constructions of nature and/or
wild(er)ness serve to promote the interests of a select few to the exclusion of all "Others." Western European
conceptions of nature, imported into the "New World," have proven particularly useful for preserving hegemonic
entitlements in North America for more than half a millennium.
The entire realm of earthly life is of course not a creation or invention of Western hegemony. But ideas of what is
"natural," "wild," in need of taming or domestication, and so on, are most decidedly products of culture.1 The Lack of
interrogation of such terms as "nature" and "wilderness," for that matter, is perhaps nowhere as conspicuous as in
present-day discourses of "environmentalism" and "ecology," thus necessitating the many counterhegemonic
challenges that we have come to refer to collectively as environmentatjustice.

p. 55 of 59 .
**QT: NATURE = WHITE, MALE, STRAIGHT**
REPRESENTATIONS OF A PROPER NATURE RECREATE THE MYTH OF “PROPER” AND “NATURAL” DOMINATION:
WHITES, MEN AND HETEROSEXUALS.
Before proceeding, I wish to make a distinction between what I mean by nature-that is, the entire realm of the actual
living world-and Western cultural conceptions of (a mostly nonhuman) Nature. In my use of the upper and lower case,
I follow philosopher Neil Evernden's lead of adopting "the convention of speaking of 'nature' when referring to the
great amorphous mass of otherness that encloaks the planet, and [of] speak[ing] of 'Nature' when referring specifically
to the system or model of nature which arose in the West several centuries ago."'
For purposes of this discussion, I have chosen to focus on the enduring and persistent, but nevertheless unstable,
conception of wilderness or Nature in U.S. American popular culture as the site par excellence for (re)invention of the
self. Locating oneself, or being located, in Nature is a thoroughly cultural activity: when actual subjects in the United
States set forth to experience "the call of the wild," they are accompanied always by cultural expectations that the
encounter may change or consolidate their identity in some meaningful way.
Representations of Nature and representations of social identities have often been deployed side-by-side in U.S.
literary narratives in order to suggest ideas about particular subjects' place in the national landscape while
simultaneously consolidating conceptions of the place of Nature and/or wild(er)ness in our national imagination. Most
often in these narratives, Nature is encountered (and subsequently conquered) by a (white) male figure, who then
wrests from the confrontation an instatement or reinstatement of his hegemonic identity. Nature is proffered in these
representations as an unproblematic reality, when in fact it is a cultural product designed to serve an ideological
function: having conferred upon him his hegemony, Nature is reified as that thing which has the power to do so.
The theme of (heterosexual white) men doing battle against Nature in order to achieve "real man"hood has been and
continues to be so widely enacted in U.S. popular culture as to scarcely bear mention. In the tradition of Cooper's
Leatherstocking, Hemingway's Nick Adams, and Faulkner's Ike McCaslin, for example, young and old U.S. American
men continue to enact the ritual encounter with Wild Nature in order to claim or reclaim their manhood. Some
examples from recent years include Doug Peacock's memoir, Grizzly Years, Jon Krakauer's bestsellers Into the Wild
and Into Thin Air, and feature films such as The Edge and The Thin Red Line, to name just a few.
This ideological construction creates a representational paradigm whereby heterosexual white manhood (i.e., "real
men") is construed as the most "natural" social identity in the United States: the "true American," the identity most
deserving of social privilege.' It's my contention that strategic deployments of representations of Nature or the "wild"
have been "naturalizing" and thus privileging straight white men in U.S. society since "discovery." According to this
epistemological paradigm, those who have been socially constructed as Other (i.e., not white and/or not straight and/or
not male) are viewed as intruders or otherwise out of place when they venture into or attempt to inhabit Nature. In
other words, we can see the way that representations of U.S. Nature as a physical location are overdetermined as
white, male, and heterosexual when we look at what happens to people who are not white, male, and/or straight when
they attempt the same sort of transformative experience in nature. The same paradigm has led to notions of some folk
as being less deserving than others not only of access to nature but of the right to clean, uncontaminated environments
in which to live and work. I argue here that U.S. Nature or wilderness as culturally constructed locations have been
foreclosed to women, people of color, and gays and lesbians. This foreclosure has had material consequences for those
belonging to these social identities, as I shall show.

p. 56 of 59 .
QT: NATURE = STRAIGHT, WHITE
"NATURE" IS CONSTRUCTED AS A RETREAT FOR WHITE, HETEROSEXIST MEN, PRECLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF
QUEER AND MINORITY SUBJECTIVITY
Complicating the ideas of nature-as-proving ground for U.S. American masculinity, William Haywood Henderson's
1993 novel Native is founded on the premise that gay men in rural Wyoming risk both social ostracism and violence
to their persons should they exercise their sexual desire for one another.' (This premise was brought chillingly to life in
1998 when Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, was brutally beaten, bound, and left to die on a deserted stretch of
road in Lander, Wyoming.)
At the novel's outset, ranch manager Blue Parker finds himself torn between his love for the Wyoming wilds and his
ove for his new ranch-hand, Sam. The dramatic tension consists of Blue's realization that to deny either passion is to
deny who he is. Presumably, he and Sam could pursue a relationship within an urban environment insulating gays
from homophobia, but to do so would entail the toss of the rural ranch Life he loves. Similarly, to continue to choose
that ranch life very likely means that he will never realize a fulfilling love with Sam or any other man.
By means of the title Native, Henderson suggests that native-ness and "natural"ness are linked. The book begins and
ends with italicized passages describing the actions of an antelope in a mountain domain, the wild and elusive-but
vulnerable-quarry of (male) hunters. The animal is gendered as male, suggesting a conflation with Blue. Like the
novel's ensuing descriptions of Blue's minute familiarity with his community and its surrounding wild environment, it
is a way of discursively emphasizing Blue's incontrovertible "native-ness": like the antelope, Blue belongs here. Like
the antelope, he's "natural" to this environment. However, both Blue and the antelope are revealed to be at risk, no
match for the heterosexual men who would destroy them. (Indeed, it is the character Derek, a man who has hunted
and killed a cougar-a creature representing to Blue something mythical and precious because of its implied wildness-
who later beats Blue's Lover Sam to within an inch of his Life.)'
Blue overestimates the social capital he's accrued in this ranching community he's inhabited since boyhood; he
mistakenly thinks that his general popularity and reputation for hard work will buy acceptance of his homosexuality.
He learns just how badly he has misjudged the tolerance of his neighbors when he discovers that here, at least,
normative heterosexual masculinity is compulsory, nonnegotiable. The rancher for whom he works fires him when he
embarks on a relationship with Sam, and he is summarily ostracized bu the rest of the town.
Another rhetorical representation of native-ness that Henderson explores is the figure of the Native American
berdache. The persistent presence of Gilbert, a twice-displaced homosexual Indian, further complicates notions of who
belongs or is native (i.e., "natural") here. Gilbert's indigenous presence as social Other is a contradiction that both
haunts and taunts Blue, who, in his hegemonic whiteness, is accustomed to entitlements that have been denied Native
American men, but who, as a gay man, is as much spurned by his society as Gilbert. The literary conflation runs the
risk of collapsing the material differences in the social oppressions engendered by homosexuality and those
engendered by nonwhiteness, but the point is made that both gay men and/or those raced as Other are excluded in a
social hierarchy privileging straight white men. Taken together, the two men's respective victimizations raise
important questions about who has the right to freely inhabit natural space in the United States: which Americans are
most entitled to experiencing Nature?
The choice Blue seems to be offered upon his firing-either Sam or membership in his community, but not both-is
unacceptable to him. Instead, he heads for the hills. His instinct at this moment of crisis to enact a backto-nature
sojourn is a comment on the power accorded the role of nature in American society to naturalize or re-naturalize the
male identity. But because this cultural construct applies only to heterosexual white men, Blue's ritual enactment of
retreating to nature changes nothing upon his return. Indeed, nature fails utterly to provide reconsolidation or
reinstatement to any of the gay men in this novel. Nature, in fact, is part of their problem insofar as its over-inscription
as the rightful domain of straight white men casts gay men as outsiders.
Interestingly, at novel's end, we find Blue wandering the environs of Yellowstone, the nation's first national park. It's a
significant gesture on Henderson's part: Can Yellowstone's enshrinement and nationalization of Nature confer upon
Blue the "naturalization" he so desperately needs? Can Nature (writ large) succeed in restoring his social identity
where the previous sojourn in "regular" nature failed to do so? The novel's conclusion is inconclusive; Henderson fails
to convince us that even the representational might of Yellowstone is sufficient to naturalize Blue's queer identity.

p. 57 of 59 .
QT: NATURE = RACIST, SEXIST
"NATURE' IS CONSTRUCTED AS THE PROPERTY OF WHITE, STRAIGHT, MEN WHO FEEL AT HOME IN THEIR
TERRAIN. WOMEN, MINORITIES AND QUEERS ARE EXCLUDED, REPLICATING THE SOCIAL HIERARCHY OF URBAN
ENVIRONMENTS.
I offer these readings to underscore my assertion that, not only is the hegemonic concept of Nature a masculinist
social construction, but one that is racist and heterosexist as well. Given the over-equation of U.S. Nature with "real"
(i.e., heterosexual white) men, those socially identified as Other in our society go into nature at their own risk.
Whereas straight white men look to nature to offer up something-the "elements" or large mammals with big teeth-
against which they can prove themselves; women, people of color, and gays and lesbians go into nature in fear of
encountering straight white men. U.S. Nature is assumed to be a Location removed from culture, a space that is open
to all, but one has only to Look at what happens to those who are not male, not white, and/or not straight when they
attempt a transformative experience in nature to see what they risk. One way of understanding the culturally dominant
conception of what constitutes "nature" in the United States is to ask ourselves who gets to go there. Access to
wilderness and a reconstituted conception of Nature are clearly environmental justice issues demanding redress. :

p. 58 of 59 .
QT IMPACT: HETEROSEXISM  OMNICIDE (1 OF 2)
HETEROSEXISM IS THE LOGIC OF OMNICIDE
SEDGEWICK IN `90 (EVE KOSOFSKY, CUNY ENGLISH, EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE CLOSET, P. 128-130)
From at least the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, 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 persons with fatalities vastly broader than their own
extent: if it is ambiguous whether every denizen of the obliterated Sodom was a sodomite, clearly not every
Roman of the late Empire can have been so, despite Gibbon's connecting the eclipse of the whole people to the
habits of a few. Following both Gibbon and the Bible, moreover, with an impetus borrowed from Darwin, one of
the few areas of agreement among modern Marxist, Nazi, and liberal capitalist ideologies is that there is a
peculiarly close, though never precisely defined, affinity between same-sex desire and some historical condition
of mori-bundity, called "decadence," to which not individuals or minorities but whole civilizations are subject.
Bloodletting on a scale more massive by orders of magnitude than any gay minority presence in the culture is the
"cure," if cure there be, to the mortal illness of decadence.
If a fantasy trajectory, Utopian in its own terms, toward gay genocide has been endemic in Western culture from
its origins, then, it may also have been true that the trajectory toward gay genocide was never clearly
distinguishable from a broader, apocalyptic trajectory toward something approaching omnicide. The deadlock of
the past century between minor-itizing and universalizing understandings of homo/heterosexual definition can
only have deepened this fatal bond in the heterosexist imaginaire. In our culture as in Billy Budd, the phobic
narrative trajectory toward imagining a time after the homosexual is finally inseparable from that toward
imagining a time after the human-, in the wake of the homosexual, the wake incessantly produced since first
there were homosexuals, every human relation is pulled into its shining representational furrow.
Fragments of visions of a time after the homosexual are, of course, currently in dizzying circulation in our
culture. One of the many dangerous ways that AIDS discourse seems to ratify and amplify preinscribed
homophobic mythologies is in its pseudo-evolutionary presentation of male homosexuality as a stage doomed to
extinction (read, a phase the species is going through) on the enormous scale of whole populations.26 The
lineaments of openly genocidal malice behind this fantasy appear only occasionally in the respectable media,
though they can be glimpsed even there behind the poker-face mask of our national experiment in laissez-faire
medicine. A better, if still deodorized, whiff of that malice conies from the famous pronouncement of Pat
Robertson: "AIDS is God's way of weeding his garden." The saccharine lustre this dictum gives to its vision of
devastation, and the ruthless prurience with which it misat-tributes its own agency, cover a more fundamental
contradiction: that, to rationalize complacent glee at a spectacle of what is imagined as genocide, a proto-
Darwinian process of natural selection is being invoked—in the context of a Christian fundamentalism that is
not only antievolutionist but recklessly oriented toward universal apocalypse. A similar phenomenon, also too
terrible to be noted as a mere irony, is how evenly our culture's phobia about HIV-positive blood is kept pace
with by its rage for keeping that dangerous blood in broad, continuous circulation. This is evidenced in projects
for universal testing, and in the needle-sharing implicit in William Buckley's now ineradicable fantasy of
tattooing HIV-positive persons. But most immediately and pervasively it is evidenced in the literal bloodbaths
that seem to make the point of the AIDS-related resurgence in violent bashings of gays—which, unlike the gun
violence otherwise ubiquitous in this culture, are characteristically done with two-by-fours, baseball bats, and
fists, in the most literal-minded conceivable form of body-fluid contact.

p. 59 of 59 .
QT IMPACT: HETEROSEXISM  OMNICIDE (2 OF 2)
It might be worth making explicit that the use of evolutionary thinking in the current wave of Utopian/genocidal
fantasy is, whatever else it may be, crazy. Unless one believes, first of all, that same-sex object-choice across
history and across cultures is one thing with one cause, and, second, that its one cause is direct transmission
through a nonrecessive genetic path—which would be, to put it gently, counter-intuitive—there is no warrant for
imagining that gay populations, even of men, in post-AIDS generations will be in the slightest degree
diminished. Exactly to the degree that AIDS is a gay disease, it's a tragedy confined to our generation; the long-
term demographic depredations of the disease will fall, to the contrary, on groups, many themselves direly
endangered, that are reproduced by direct heterosexual transmission.
Unlike genocide directed against Jews, Native Americans, Africans, or other groups, then, gay genocide, the
once-and-for-all eradication of gay populations, however potent and sustained as a project or fantasy of modern
Western culture, is not possible short of the eradication of the whole human species. The impulse of the species
toward its own eradication must not either, however, be underestimated. Neither must the profundity with which
that omnicidal impulse is entangled with the modern problematic of the homosexual: the double bind of
definition between the homosexual, say, as a distinct risk group, and the homosexual as a potential of
representation within the universal.27 As gay community and the solidarity and visibility of gays as a minority
population are being consolidated and tempered in the forge of this specularized terror and suffering, how can it
fail to be all the more necessary that the avenues of recognition, desire, and thought between minority potentials
and universalizing ones be opened and opened and opened?

Vampire K

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vampire K

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West p oint ’o 6 do the vampir e

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Vampiric and Cyborgian Wetlands: The Politics of Mitigating Nature

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

(TWENTY THREE PARAGRAPHS LATER)

Vampiric Infections: Politics of the Postmodern Jeremiad

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

THE FANTASY OF A PERFECTLY ORDERED ENVIRONMENTAL UTOPIA IS SELF-DEFEATING PROVIDING THE

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

HARAWAY IN `97 (DONNA, HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT UC-SANTA CRUZ,

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

THE LANGUAGE OF EXTINCTION IS CONTROLLED BY INSTITUTIONS OF POWER THAT SEEK TO

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

THE LANGUAGE OF NATURE PROTECTION IS A DISCIPLINARY TACTIC TO GIVE SCIENCE

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

NATURE PROTECTION IS A HUMANISTIC AND ANTHROPOCENTRIC DISCOURSE THAT REDUCES

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

THE LANGUAGE OF BIODIVERSITY IS MOBILIZED FOR THE COMMODIFICATION AND CONSUMPTION OF

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

(CONTINUED 3 PARAGRAPHS LATER)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

WE CAN’T RETURN TO INNOCENT NATURE: WE ARE ALL ALWAYS ALREADY VAMPIRES

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

DISCOURSES OF WAR CONSTRUCT THE SECURITY ANALYST AS A DOCTOR DIAGNOSING

CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 95-96)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 95-96)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 84-85)

THE MORAL SPACE OF IDENTITY

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF DANGER TO THE SOCIAL BODY CREATE THE ASSUMPTION OF A

CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 91-92)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

CAMPBELL IN `92 (DAVID, POLITICS AT NEWCASTLE, WRITING SECURITY, P. 92-93)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

BIOPOWER LEADS TO WARS, HOLOCAUSTS AND NUCLEAR OMNICIDE

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

FOUCAULT IN `76 (MICHEL, BRILLIANT, SOCIETY MUST BE DEFENDED, P. 252-254)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

RACISM THROUGH BIOPOWER IS THE PRE-CONDITION OF ALL VIOLENCE IN OUR SOCIETY

FOUCAULT IN `76 (MICHEL, BRILLIANT, SOCIETY MUST BE DEFENDED, P. 254-256)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

RACISM AND BIOPOWER ARE THE PRE-CONDITION FOR WAR

FOUCAULT IN `76 (MICHEL, BRILLIANT, SOCIETY MUST BE DEFENDED, P. 257-258)

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

HARAWAY IN `97 (DONNA, HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AT UC-SANTA CRUZ,

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.