P. 1
Framework File

Framework File

|Views: 421|Likes:
Published by Cathy Glenn

More info:

Published by: Cathy Glenn on Oct 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/21/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Framework File
  • ***Traditional Policy Debate Good***
  • Framework 2AC (Short Version)
  • Rules key to Ethics
  • Rules key to Education
  • Deliberation Impact – Agency
  • Deliberation Impact – Peace
  • Deliberation Impact – Democracy/Discrimination
  • Determinism Impact – V2L
  • Rules key to Community
  • Community Impact - Humanity
  • AT: Rules = Violence
  • AT: Framework = Violence
  • A/T: Rules = Exclusion
  • AT: T = Genocide
  • A/T: “Kritiks are too cool for rules”
  • AT: Hurts Creativity
  • AT: Words mean lots of things / ambiguity good
  • AT: State Focus Bad
  • AT: STATE FOCUS BAD
  • Predictable Ground key to Education
  • Limits key to Politics
  • Limits key to Inclusion
  • Limits and Education key to Politics
  • AT: Limits Are Biopower
  • Prefer Policy: Fairness
  • Fairness outweighs
  • Roleplaying key to Education
  • Switch Sides Good
  • Switch-Sides Good: Stops Otherization
  • Switch-Sides Good: Education
  • Switch-Sides Good: Policymaking
  • Prefer Policy: Key to Education/Democracy
  • Coverstone: Oasis key to Education
  • A/T: Mitchell
  • Fiat Good
  • Policy Paradigm key to Education
  • Policymaking key to Change
  • Policymaking key to Ethics
  • Policymaking key to Moral Decision Making
  • Political Vacuum DA
  • Consequentialism key to Deliberation/Accountability
  • Consequentialism key to Ethics
  • Consequentialism key – Nuclear War
  • Consequentialism key – States (1/2)
  • Consequentialism key – States (2/2)
  • Critique Prevents Change (1/2)
  • Critique Prevents Change (2/2)
  • Calculability Good
  • AT: Performance - Kulynych
  • AT: Performance
  • AT: Role of the Ballot
  • ***Critical Debate Good***
  • Critique Good – Long Shell (1/3)
  • Critique Good – Long Shell (2/3)
  • Critique Good – Long Shell (3/3)
  • Critique Good – Short Shell
  • Ontology First
  • Policymaking – Link
  • State-Centricity – Link
  • State-Centricity – Impact: Violence
  • State-Centricity – Impact: Education
  • State-Centricity – Impact: Agency
  • State-Centricity – Impact: Identity
  • Identity Impact
  • State-Centricity – Critique Solves
  • Identity – Critique Solves
  • Link/Impact – Predictability
  • Link/Impact – Limits
  • Link/Impact - Limits
  • Link/Impact – Ground
  • Link – Constructivism
  • Critique solves Change
  • Critique solves “Root Cause”
  • Rethinking Solves
  • A/T: Consequentialism
  • Roleplaying Bad
  • A/T: Shively
  • AT: Education
  • AT: Education – Must come from Oppressed
  • AT: Real World
  • AT: Individual Success Means Debate is Equal
  • Performativity Shell (1/2)
  • Performativity Shell (2/2)
  • Link – Traditional Politics
  • Link – Ideal Speech
  • Performance key to Education
  • Performance key to Change
  • Performance key to Policymaking
  • Performance key to Inclusion

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009

Holbrook/Nielson

1 Framework File

Framework File
Framework File...........................................................................................................................................................1

Framework File..............................................................................................................................1
***Traditional Policy Debate Good***.....................................................................................................................9

***Traditional Policy Debate Good***.......................................................................................9
Framework 2AC (Short Version)................................................................................................................................9

Framework 2AC (Short Version).................................................................................................9
Framework 2AC (Long Version)..............................................................................................................................11

Framework 2AC (Long Version)................................................................................................11
Framework 2AC (Long Version) .............................................................................................................................12

Framework 2AC (Long Version) ...............................................................................................12
Framework 2AC (Long Version) .............................................................................................................................14

Framework 2AC (Long Version) ...............................................................................................14
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................15

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................15
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................16

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................16
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................17

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................17
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................18

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................18
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................19

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................19
Framework 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................20

Framework 1NC ..........................................................................................................................20
Aff Burden Framework.............................................................................................................................................21

Aff Burden Framework...............................................................................................................21
Aff Burden Framework.............................................................................................................................................22

Aff Burden Framework...............................................................................................................22
Aff Burden Framework.............................................................................................................................................23

Aff Burden Framework...............................................................................................................23
Rules key to Ethics....................................................................................................................................................24

Rules key to Ethics.......................................................................................................................24
Rules key to Education.............................................................................................................................................25

Rules key to Education................................................................................................................25

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

2 Framework File

Rules key to Deliberation..........................................................................................................................................26

Rules key to Deliberation............................................................................................................26
Rules key to Deliberation..........................................................................................................................................27

Rules key to Deliberation............................................................................................................27
Rules key to Deliberation..........................................................................................................................................28

Rules key to Deliberation............................................................................................................28
Deliberation Impact – Agency..................................................................................................................................29

Deliberation Impact – Agency....................................................................................................29
Deliberation Impact – Peace.....................................................................................................................................30

Deliberation Impact – Peace.......................................................................................................30
Deliberation Impact – Democracy/Discrimination...................................................................................................31

Deliberation Impact – Democracy/Discrimination...................................................................31
Determinism Impact – V2L......................................................................................................................................32

Determinism Impact – V2L.........................................................................................................32
Rules key to Community...........................................................................................................................................33

Rules key to Community.............................................................................................................33
Community Impact - Humanity................................................................................................................................34

Community Impact - Humanity.................................................................................................34
AT: Rules = Violence...............................................................................................................................................35

AT: Rules = Violence...................................................................................................................35
AT: Framework = Violence ....................................................................................................................................36

AT: Framework = Violence ......................................................................................................36
A/T: Rules = Exclusion.............................................................................................................................................38

A/T: Rules = Exclusion................................................................................................................38
AT: T = Genocide.....................................................................................................................................................39

AT: T = Genocide.........................................................................................................................39
A/T: “Kritiks are too cool for rules”.........................................................................................................................40

A/T: “Kritiks are too cool for rules”..........................................................................................40
AT: Hurts Creativity ................................................................................................................................................41

AT: Hurts Creativity ..................................................................................................................41
AT: Words mean lots of things / ambiguity good.....................................................................................................42

AT: Words mean lots of things / ambiguity good.....................................................................42
AT: State Focus Bad ................................................................................................................................................43

AT: State Focus Bad ...................................................................................................................43
AT: State Focus Bad ................................................................................................................................................44

AT: State Focus Bad ...................................................................................................................44

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

3 Framework File

AT: STATE FOCUS BAD ......................................................................................................................................45

AT: STATE FOCUS BAD ..........................................................................................................45
Predictable Ground key to Education.......................................................................................................................46

Predictable Ground key to Education........................................................................................46
Limits key to Politics................................................................................................................................................47

Limits key to Politics....................................................................................................................47
Limits key to Inclusion.............................................................................................................................................47

Limits key to Inclusion................................................................................................................47
Limits and Education key to Politics........................................................................................................................49

Limits and Education key to Politics..........................................................................................49
AT: Limits Are Biopower ........................................................................................................................................50

AT: Limits Are Biopower ...........................................................................................................50
Prefer Policy: Fairness..............................................................................................................................................51

Prefer Policy: Fairness................................................................................................................51
Fairness outweighs....................................................................................................................................................52

Fairness outweighs.......................................................................................................................52
Roleplaying key to Education...................................................................................................................................54

Roleplaying key to Education.....................................................................................................54
Switch Sides Good ...................................................................................................................................................55

Switch Sides Good .......................................................................................................................55
Switch-Sides Good: Stops Otherization....................................................................................................................56

Switch-Sides Good: Stops Otherization.....................................................................................56
Switch-Sides Good: Education.................................................................................................................................57

Switch-Sides Good: Education...................................................................................................57
Switch-Sides Good: Policymaking...........................................................................................................................58

Switch-Sides Good: Policymaking..............................................................................................58
Prefer Policy: Key to Education/Democracy............................................................................................................60

Prefer Policy: Key to Education/Democracy.............................................................................60
Coverstone: Oasis key to Education.........................................................................................................................61

Coverstone: Oasis key to Education...........................................................................................61
A/T: Mitchell.............................................................................................................................................................62

A/T: Mitchell................................................................................................................................62
A/T: Mitchell.............................................................................................................................................................62

A/T: Mitchell................................................................................................................................62
Fiat Good...................................................................................................................................................................64

Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................64

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................72 Policymaking key to Education......................76 Policymaking key to Ethics............................................................................................................................72 Policymaking key to Education................69 Policymaking key to Education............................67 Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency.................................................................................................................................................................................78 Consequentialism key to Deliberation/Accountability....................................................79 Consequentialism key to Deliberation/Accountability..................................................................................65 Plan Focus key to Change......................................................................................................................................80 Consequentialism key to Ethics...............................74 Policymaking key to Change.............................................................................................................78 Political Vacuum DA...................................................................Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 4 Framework File Plan Focus key to Change...........................................68 Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency....................................................................................................................................................................................................................74 Policymaking key to Change.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................66 Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................83 ............................................74 Policymaking key to Ethics...................................................................66 Plan Focus key to Change.........................................................................................................................76 Policymaking key to Moral Decision Making......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................79 Consequentialism key to Ethics.............65 Plan Focus key to Change............................................................................................................67 Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency........................................................................................68 Policy Paradigm key to Education .......73 Policymaking key to Change...........................................................................................................................77 Policymaking key to Moral Decision Making..........................................................................71 Policymaking key to Education......................................81 Consequentialism key – Nuclear War.....................................73 Policymaking key to Education....................................................................................................................................................................................77 Political Vacuum DA............................................................................................................69 Policy Paradigm key to Education .....................................82 Consequentialism key – States (2/2)................................81 Consequentialism key – States (1/2).................................................................................................80 Consequentialism key – Nuclear War..................................................82 Consequentialism key – States (1/2)................................................................................................................................................................................71 Policymaking key to Education.....................................74 Policymaking key to Change.................................................................................83 Consequentialism key – States (2/2).........................................................................................................................................

....................................................92 Critique Good – Long Shell (1/3).......99 Ontology First...........................98 Ontology First......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................86 AT: Performance ............................................................................87 AT: Performance .................................................................................................................100 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 Epistemology First...............................86 Calculability Good................................................................89 AT: Performance – Butler...........................................90 AT: Role of the Ballot ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................85 Calculability Good............91 ***Critical Debate Good***....93 Critique Good – Long Shell (2/3)...............................................100 Ontology First...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 Epistemology First..........................................................................................94 Critique Good – Long Shell (3/3).............................................................92 Critique Good – Long Shell (2/3)..............................................................................................................................................93 Critique Good – Long Shell (3/3).................90 AT: Performance.....95 Critique Good – Short Shell...............98 Ontology First...Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 5 Framework File Critique Prevents Change (1/2)...............................94 Critique Good – Short Shell...........................................................99 Ontology First............................................92 Critique Good – Long Shell (1/3)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................85 Critique Prevents Change (2/2)............................................................................................................97 Ontology First..............................................................................................................Kulynych..........................................................................................92 ***Critical Debate Good***........84 Critique Prevents Change (1/2)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................91 AT: Role of the Ballot ...........................................................................................................................................89 AT: Performance...............97 Epistemology First.............................................................................................................87 AT: Performance – Butler..........84 Critique Prevents Change (2/2)...................88 AT: Performance – Butler...............................................................................................................................Kulynych.......................................................88 AT: Performance – Butler...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 Epistemology First.....................................................................................................................................................

..............................................................102 Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense..............................................118 Link/Impact – Ground........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................111 State-Centricity – Impact: Identity.......................................................................110 State-Centricity – Impact: Identity.................................................................................................105 Policymaking – Critique Solves....114 Link/Impact – Predictability.114 Identity – Critique Solves.............................................................................................................................................101 Policymaking – Link..............111 Identity Impact....................................................................................................................................................................117 Link/Impact – Ground...........................................................................................................................................Limits.........................................................................................106 State-Centricity – Link................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................106 Policymaking – Critique Solves....................110 State-Centricity – Impact: Agency...................................................113 State-Centricity – Critique Solves...................................Limits...........108 State-Centricity – Impact: Violence...........................................................................................................................................................................107 State-Centricity – Link.............................................................................................................................116 Link/Impact ..................................................................................................................................................................108 State-Centricity – Impact: Education.......103 Policymaking – Critique Solves...........................................................................................................................104 Policymaking – Critique Solves..........................................................109 State-Centricity – Impact: Education...............................................................................................................................105 Policymaking – Critique Solves..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................115 Link/Impact – Predictability..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................101 Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense...............................109 State-Centricity – Impact: Agency..................................................................................................................................................................................................104 Policymaking – Critique Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................................113 Identity – Critique Solves.................................Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 6 Framework File Policymaking – Link.......................................................................................................................................112 Identity Impact...........................107 State-Centricity – Impact: Violence............................115 Link/Impact – Limits........................112 State-Centricity – Critique Solves...............102 Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense...........................................................................................................116 Link/Impact – Limits.....................117 Link/Impact .......................................................................................103 Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense.....................................................................................................................118 .........................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................119 Link – Constructivism....................................................................................................125 Switch Side Debate Bad..................................................................................131 AT: Real World........................................130 AT: Real World.............................................124 Switch Side Debate Bad..............................................................125 Switch Side Debate Bad.......................................126 Switch Side Debate Bad....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................132 Performativity Shell (1/2)...........................................................136 Link – Ideal Speech................135 Link – Traditional Politics...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................122 Rethinking Solves.......................................132 AT: Individual Success Means Debate is Equal ............................................................................134 Performativity Shell (2/2)....................................121 Critique solves “Root Cause”...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................133 Performativity Shell (2/2).......................................................................................................................................................120 Critique solves “Root Cause”.............................................................................................................135 Link – Ideal Speech.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................128 A/T: Shively.....................126 Switch Side Debate Bad............................................................................121 Rethinking Solves......................................................................................136 ..............................123 A/T: Consequentialism......................................................................................................................................................................................................119 Critique solves Change..............................................................127 A/T: Shively...........................................................................................................130 AT: Education – Must come from Oppressed..........................................131 AT: Individual Success Means Debate is Equal .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................127 Switch Side Debate Bad.............128 AT: Education.............................129 AT: Education – Must come from Oppressed...................................................................................................120 Critique solves Change..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................133 Performativity Shell (1/2)..........................................................124 Roleplaying Bad............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................134 Link – Traditional Politics.................................129 AT: Education.............................122 A/T: Consequentialism.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................123 Roleplaying Bad...................................................................Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 7 Framework File Link – Constructivism..

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................138 Performance key to Political Participation.................139 Performance key to Political Participation............................................................................................................................................................................................142 Performance key to Inclusion......................................................................................140 Performance key to Education........................................140 Performance key to Change.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 8 Framework File Performance key to Political Participation.............................................................................................................................................................................................................139 Performance key to Education.............................137 Performance key to Political Participation..................................142 Performance key to Policymaking.................................................................141 Performance key to Change.................................................................................................137 Performance key to Political Participation.............143 Performance key to Inclusion........141 Performance key to Policymaking..........................138 Performance key to Political Participation..........................................................................................................................................................................................143 ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

But this is true only if the agreement is perfect—if there is nothing at all left to question or We agree on some matters but not on others. or the basic particular. This means. however. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths. Utopian – their alternative justifies non institutional fiat. A new framework or roll of the ballot allows them to ignore the entire 1ac. the reverse is true premise. In a basic sense. it’s the basis for how words interact together. of agreement. Grammar is the only predictable basis for determining the meaning of the resolution. The affirmative must defend a theoretical implementation of the plan by the federal government versus the status quo or competitive policy option. Changing this decision calculus is a voting issue for fairness. In must recognize the role of agreement in political contest. For instance. one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. demonstrators. In short. A definition of resolved proves our argument. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. It seems contest. Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition Definition of the word “resolve. and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. One cannot intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In other words. Shively. There can be no argument except on the a context. therefore we can argue about them. we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least. Ignoring it justifies changing the focus of the debate on either side.” It is of similar force to the word “enact. on principles but not on their applications. In most cases. Restricting the negative to public institutions is the only way to pin the negative down with a stable advocacy and is necessary to prevent infinitely regressive object fiat of private citizens or corporations. . contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony. they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. and within successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. Framework. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180) The ambiguists must say "no" to— they must reject and limit—some ideas and actions. our agreements are highly imperfect. we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things.” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. C. mooting the resolution all together. Our theory disad outweighs your criticism. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. to have been one of the corruptions of . as ‘it was resolved by the legislature. Prof Politics at Tx A&M. They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks. A.” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote. D. we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. coopting 2ac offense. and so on. In other words. first. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest— that consensus kills debate. on generalities but not on specifics. that they accord that is necessary to discord. In what follows. In other words.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson ***Traditional Policy Debate Good*** 9 Framework File Framework 2AC (Short Version) 1. ensuring the negative always wins. B. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. Ground – accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan. Predictability – the word resolved proves the grammar of the resolution is based upon enacting a policy. Resisters.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 10 Framework File .

leaving aside the question of whether it is realistic. The first is that articulating nonrevocable. training camps.” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote.” It is of similar force to the word “enact. this would be the doctrine that a liberal state should never have truck with dubious moral means and should spare its officials the hazard of having to decide between lesser and greater evils. They justify arbitrarily changing the question of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks. and heavy weapons. Judicial responses to the problem of terror have their place. co-oopting 2ac offense. is a human right. Carr professor of human rights at Harvard. as ‘it was resolved by the legislature. nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy. and thus respect for one right might lead us to betray another. 2. Ground – accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan. The same person who shudders. .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 11 Framework File Framework 2AC (Long Version) 1. What is the line between interrogation and torture. at the prospect of torturing a suspect might be prepared to kill the same suspect in a preemptive attack on a terrorist base. The affirmative must defend a theoretical implementation of the plan by the federal government versus the status quo. A moral perfectionist position also holds that states can spare their officials this hazard simply by adhering to the universal moral standards set out in human rights conventions and the laws of war. To stick to a perfectionist commitment to the right to life when under terrorist attack might achieve moral consistency at the price of leaving us defenseless in the face of evildoers. 2k4 Lesser Evils p. This straight turns their K The negative will always win that the principles of their advocacy are good in the abstract however we can only test the merits of the affirmative if they negate the specific consequences of political implementation Michael Ignatieff. rightly. A new framework or roll of the ballot allows them to ignore the entire 1ac. Predictability – the word resolved proves the grammar of the resolution is based upon enacting a policy. There are two problems with a perfectionist stance. but they are no substitute for military operations when terrorists possess bases. ensuring the negative always wins. 20-1 As for moral perfectionism. Security. B. Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition Definition of the word “resolve. Changing this decision calculus is a voting issue for fairness. the problem with perfectionist standards is that they contradict each other.” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. Equally. abstractions are less than helpful when political leaders have to choose between them in practice. between targeted killing and unlawful assassination. moreover. Framework. The problem is deciding how to apply them in specific cases. Furthermore. the perfectionist commitment to the right to life might preclude such attacks altogether and restrict our response to judicial pursuit of offenders through process of law. between preemption and aggression? Even when legal and moral distinctions between these are clear in the abstract. A.

they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" The point may seem trite. as surely the ambiguists would agree that need of the subversive for an order to subvert. For what the paradox should tell us is that some kinds of harmonies or orders are. certain initial agreements will be needed just to discussants must agree on basic terms: for example. a refusal to judge among ideas and activities is. In short. K. I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behavior—if they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm— they need first to be firm believers in something. As noted earlier. they deny themselves a civil public space from which to speak. Perhaps they might just continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic. an endorsement of the status quo. For debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is. in fact. again. in refusing to bar the tactics of the anti-democrat. begin the discussion. I have argued that example. one must fully support some uncontested rules and reasons. In fact. But admitting the paradox is not helpful if. they need to be conservative about some things. and to be persuaded by. open-mindedness and close-mindedness. they must have some shared sense of also agree—and they do so simply by entering into debate—that they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are willing to listen to. In the same manner. for to embrace a particular plan of action is to reject all others. in any argument. they deny themselves (and everyone else in their political world) a particular plan or ground to work from. what facts are being contested. there must be some limit to what is ambiguous. democracy and tyranny." He "wished to have votes and not to have titles . they are activities premised on the building of progressive agreements. the most radical skepticism ends in the most radical conservatism. at least for that moment. but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against. to embrace everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's purposes and to that which defeats one's purposes—to tolerance and intolerance. Which is to say. and some ought to be fully supported. in the end. Such agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation. the two what gun control is about. As G. or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. Thus. to be a true ambiguist. what they do and do not believe to be best.41).Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 12 Framework File Framework 2AC (Long Version) Without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces a political strategy wedded to violence that fails to achieve productive change Shively. Chesterton observed. To generally reject the silencing or exclusion of others. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. as such. then. but the continuing ground. good arguments. the ambiguists' refusals to will something "definite and limited" undermines their revolutionary impulses.. they need to set clear limits about what they will and will not support. and so on. In other words. As such. To fully support political contest. for instance. They cannot turn their backs on the bullying of the white supremacist." For 'Thus far. willing to set up certain clear limitations about acceptable behavior. what is at issue in arguing about it. For agreement is not simply the initial condition. They cannot say "no" to the terrorist who would silence dissent. In their refusal to say what they will not celebrate and what they will not rebel against. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180) if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything. . Prof Politics at Tx A&M. Prof Politics at Tx A&M. as observed in our discussion of openness. for contest.Yet difficulties remain. And. To embrace everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action. they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat. it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. then." For "the fact that he wants to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything" (Chesterton 1959." But "because the new rebel is a skeptic"— because he cannot bring himself to will something definite and limited— "he cannot be a revolutionary. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain fullfledged ambiguists. Imagine. that two people are having an argument about the issue of gun control. They must Exploding predictable limits neutralizes the discursive benefits to debate and renders their advocacy meaningless—only our interpretation preserves the revolutionary potential of a deliberative activity Shively. is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. as usually happens here. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 182) basic terms must be shared before they can be resisted and problematized. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest. At the very least. By refusing to deny incivility.. one must sometimes silence or ." He "desired the freedoms of democracy. good for resistance. they cannot admit to these implications. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements. for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary. Moreover. To this. . but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of subversion. we cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against. finally. its implications are ignored. the true revolutionary has always willed something "definite and limited.

13 Framework File .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson exclude those who reject civility and democracy.

and he examines the importance of being able to "pose and defend contestable ideas" (MacKinnon. and consider opposing views is vital to the significant decisions that people make in their lives. make judgments. are the most promising arena for practicing and developing argumentative thinking skills" (155). academic success. Kuhn looks to the skills developed when students learn argument as being vital to all aspects of life. Clarion University 2003 . Wake Forest University. begins by examining the place of argument in school and the workplace. The ability to form and hold beliefs. or a committee functions. she believes that thinking as argument reflects "real-world intelligence" and that "no other kind of thinking matters more-or contributes more-to the quality and fulfillment of people's lives. The critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by debate outweigh any impact they can weigh against our framework.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. Developing "Real-World Intelligence": Teaching Argumentative Writing through Debate Randi Dickson. such as the ability to "identify an issue. in Teaching the Argument in Writing. and preparation for college and employment" (49). If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor. form and defend a viewpoint. qtd. creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. students learn critical-thinking skills. Dickson. "The ability to write effective arguments influences grades.Oceans Policy Adrift As with any game or sport. Deanna Kuhn. Debate Coach. It’s not the content of our arguments. and consider and respond to counterarguments" (Yeh 49). offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants. . Richard Fulkerson. "As I perceive argumentation. . but the skills we learn which increase our quality of life. it is the chief cognitive activity by which a democracy. both individually and collectively" (156). Beyond the next grade and the next job. Argumentation and debate are crucial to participation in democracy. And it is vitally important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the arguments of others" (16). such as the classroom. 2k4 Assistant Prof at Queens Collage. as defined above. (High school edition). . consider different views. a corporation. an important examination of the "effectiveness of two heuristics based on Toulmin's (1958) model of argument and classical rhetoric for helping middle-school students . The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. and Jim Lyle. . In learning about argument and preparing debates. the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home. as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game. He says. write argumentative essays" (49). Yeh's study. in Yeh 51) in most academic and workplace settings. English Journal. TPD. a field of study.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 14 Framework File Framework 2AC (Long Version) Participants will literally quit without fairness Spiece 2k3 Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice. . says. author of "Thinking as Argument." would concur. Results from her research study indicate that "[i]t is in argument that we find the most significant way in which higher order thinking and reasoning figure in the lives of most people" and that "social contexts. .

as ‘it was resolved by the legislature. Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition Definition of the word “resolve. Our interpretation is the most predictable given the wording of the resolution. Resolved proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy. ‘Should’ denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted. Think of the colon as a gate. 2. inviting one to go one…If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence. Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2k http://encarta.msn.” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote.C. Interpretation: Debate should be a site for contest over political proposals.com “The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC” . not the individual debaters Webster’s Guide to Grammar and Writing 2k Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. The USFG is the government in Washington D. 0 1 3. 1. The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon—the USFG is the agent of the resolution. This requires that the affirmative present a predictable plan of action and defends that their policy should be adopted by the USFG.” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. beginning the clause after the colon with a capital letter.” It is of similar force to the word “enact.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 15 Framework File Framework 1NC A. American Heritage Dictionary 2k Used to express probability or expectation 4.

is grounded any more securely? Let me put the matter a little more directly by proposing that our ability as political scientists to speak to constitutional/institutional matters is the very litmus test of our ability to speak usefully to politicians and our willingness to speak of constitutional/institutional matters is the litmus test of our willingness to speak to politicians at all. why do we have any confidence that what we have to tell them about more ephemeral matters. (They instead……) Brightline test – could the arguments in the 1ac form the outline of a proposal to policymakers? Obviously they couldn’t. Lutz. political activists. I need to say that I am not enamored of. The surprising fact is how little we have to tell them. If this scientific model is worth anything at all. Prof PolSci U of Huston. but rather the more stark one of choosing between trying to integrate the entire enterprise of political theory or not trying at all. Violation: The affirmative fails to defend a fiat based interpretation of their plan through the federal government. the possible application of knowledge has be the strongest spur to theoretical knowledge. or discourse about how all political institutions are merely and inevitably the instruments of oppression of those in power. Those political scientists unable and unwilling to engage in such discourse have opted out entirely from any possible discourse with elected political actors. or perhaps stumbling about in a world of shadows. if the discourse between political theorists and political actors is not going well. then it is instructive to remember that without applied research designed to link fundamental knowledge with real-world problems. Our problem is not as simple as choosing between science and morality. such as the probable outcome of a particular election. Much of what we do in contemporary political science looks like an attempt to imitate theoretical physics and basic scientific research – to seek new. If we cannot tell them about the probable tendencies of a given institutional design. fundamental knowledge through research that is unfettered with respect to agenda or immediate utility. . Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 46) The surprising fact is not that politicians tend to ransack anything that political scientists might have said about a proposed constitutional change. 2k (Donald. Nor is this a minor problem. That is. which is one of the easier tasks we face. and interested citizens. nor are political actors interested in. For those who reject such a model altogether. we would still be lighting our streets with gas lamps. the issue is not one of merely methodological irrelevance but moral irrelevance. In these latter instances. probabilities and actualities.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 16 Framework File Framework 1NC B. discourse about how many rational voters can dance on the head of an ideal. any political scientist interested in such discourse will need to ask herself/himself if their research is aimed at contributing to an understanding of constitutional/institutional possibilities. There is nothing inherently wrong with opting out of the direct conversation. but it is futile to pretend that discourse with political actors could proceed in splendid isolation from constitutional/institutional matters. Therefore. Perhaps one way of conceptualizing the problem is to use the physical sciences as a comparative enterprise. we need to examine our contribution to the problem that may lie in our won unwillingness and/or inability to address matters of mutual concern. In sum.

rightly. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 182) The point may seem trite. and thus respect for one right might lead us to betray another. The same person who shudders. Equally. training camps. it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. and so on. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements. and to be persuaded by. abstractions are less than helpful when political leaders have to choose between them in practice. without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces a political strategy wedded to violence that fails to achieve productive change Shively. the problem 1with perfectionist standards is that they contradict each other. this would be the doctrine that a liberal state should never have truck with dubious moral means and should spare its officials the hazard of having to decide between lesser and greater evils. For what the paradox should tell us is that some kinds of harmonies or orders are. for contest. moreover. between targeted killing and unlawful assassination. For agreement is not simply the initial condition. is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. 20-1 As for moral perfectionism. leaving aside the question of whether it is realistic. its implications are ignored. Carr professor of human rights at Harvard. they are activities premised on the building of progressive agreements. what facts are being contested. Ground . but they are no substitute for military operations when terrorists possess bases. Perhaps they might just continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic. As such. and heavy weapons. Such agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation. Our interpretation is better 1. To stick to a perfectionist commitment to the right to life when under terrorist attack might achieve moral consistency at the price of leaving us defenseless in the face of evildoers. for instance. There are two problems with a perfectionist stance.the aff will always win that the principles of their advocacy are good in the abstract—we can only debate the merits of their framework if they defend the specific consequences of political implementation Michael Ignatieff. but the continuing ground. In fact. Imagine. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain fullfledged ambiguists. but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of subversion. in fact. And. as usually happens here. is a human right. at the prospect of torturing a suspect might be prepared to kill the same suspect in a preemptive attack on a terrorist base. as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic terms must be shared before they can be resisted and problematized. They must also agree—and they do so simply by entering into debate—that they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are willing to listen to. The problem is deciding how to apply them in specific cases. between preemption and aggression? Even when legal and moral distinctions between these are clear in the abstract. they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary. good for resistance. Prof Politics at Tx A&M.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 17 Framework File Framework 1NC C. . good arguments. and some ought to be fully supported. As noted earlier. Judicial responses to the problem of terror have their place. At the very least. we cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. For debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is. certain initial agreements will be needed just to begin the discussion. 2k4 Lesser Evils p. in any argument. But admitting the paradox is not helpful if. The first is that articulating nonrevocable. the two discussants must agree on basic terms: for example. A moral perfectionist position also holds that states can spare their officials this hazard simply by adhering to the universal moral standards set out in human rights conventions and the laws of war. what is at issue in arguing about it. nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy. that two people are having an argument about the issue of gun control. they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about. the perfectionist commitment to the right to life might preclude such attacks altogether and restrict our response to judicial pursuit of offenders through process of law. What is the line between interrogation and torture.Yet difficulties remain. they cannot admit to these implications. Furthermore. Security.

a preference for the lives of mollusks over that of humans. since politics is the realm of the possible not the realm of logical clarity. Moral discourse conditioned by the ideal. less happiness rather than more. Of course. dominated by the logic of humanly worthwhile goals. especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. loss of identity. and anxiety. . aspiration. analysis leaves the realm of pure logic and enters the realm of the logic of human longing. For example. and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. In this way. the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the General Will. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities. Limits . and as Plato shows in his dialogues the discussion between the philosopher and the politician will quickly terminate if he or she cannot convincingly demonstrate the connection between the political ideal being developed and natural human passions. However. but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated.possibilities. the politician can be educated by the possibilities that the political theorist can articulate. for example. Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 39-40) Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels – discourse about the ideal. At the other end is the perfect dystopia. and to a significant extent indeterminate. there are now define limits on where logical can take us. lies not in its formal logical implications. too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy. At this point. However. requires that the theorist carefully observe the responses of others in order not to be seduced by what is merely logical as opposed to what is humanly rational. a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end. not in the moral vision of the non-theorist. to that extent they will properly conclude that political philosophers have little to tell them. The process of pre-theoretical analysis. however. that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask. and about existing political systems. imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. the political philosopher will begin to articulate and assess the reasons why we might want to pursue such an ideal.There are an infinite number of contexts through which they could advocate the plan. the fault may well lie in the theory. yet distinguishable. are doomed to failure. if it is to e successful.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 18 Framework File Framework 1NC 2. to the right is an ideal form of government. just as the political theorist can be educated by the relative success the normative analysis has in “setting the Hook” of interest among nonpolitical theorists. nor in its compelling hold on the imagination. At the end. once the ideal is clarified. The theorist cannot appeal to such values if she or he is to attract an audience of politicians. Prof PolSci U of Huston. philosophy. probably because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination. but it also requires the theorist to have enough humility to remember that. requires the political theorist to be fearless in pursuing normative logic. Unlike the clarification stage where anything that is logical is possible. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. the ideal state of affairs must be clarified. but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of the actual political systems. A non-ironic reading of Plato’s republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. to name just a few . a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. about the best possible in the real world. This is not the case. visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate. Much political theory involves the careful. comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked. merging into one another. To the extent politicians believe theorists who tell them that pre-theoretical clarification of language describing an ideal is the essence and sum total of political philosophy. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. This realm of discourse. Appeals to self-destruction. opaque. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question “Is this ideal worth pursuing?” Before the question can be pursued. psychic isolation. Our interpretation limits debate to promote politically relevant dialogue and structured communication Lutz. Among other things it allows him to show that anyone who wishes to pursue a state of affairs closer to that summer up in the concept of the General Will must successfully develop a civil religion. The analysis is now limited by the interior parameters of the human heart (more properly the human psyche) to which the theorist must appeal. Put another way. enslavement. 2k (Donald. if a non-theorist cannot be led toward an idea. competitive analysis of what a given ideal state of affairs entails.

K. I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behavior—if they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm— they need first to be firm believers in something. Their education is distrusting of institutional study and pragmatic reform. To this. And. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest. they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat. open-mindedness and closemindedness. and we can thus hardly expect them to be converted en masse to radical doctrines of social and environmental salvation by a few committed thinkers. to be a true ambiguist. .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 19 Framework File Framework 1NC Exploding predictable limits neutralizes the discursive benefits to debate and renders their advocacy meaningless—only our interpretation preserves the revolutionary potential of a deliberative activity Shively. the most radical skepticism ends in the most radical conservatism. Which is to say. they need to be conservative about some things. In other words." But "because the new rebel is a skeptic"—because he cannot bring himself to will something definite and limited— "he cannot be a revolutionary. While their professors may find the extreme relativism of subversive postmodernism bracingly liberating. "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against. to embrace everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's purposes and to that which defeats one's purposes—to tolerance and intolerance. Even if their intentions are noble. the ambiguists' refusals to will something "definite and limited" undermines their revolutionary impulses. In the same manner. I have argued that if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything. they deny themselves a civil public space from which to speak. In short. the true revolutionary has always willed something "definite and limited. Chesterton observed. radical postmodernism’s contempt for established social and political philosophy—indeed. 3. what they do and do not believe to be best. for to embrace a particular plan of action is to reject all others. then. By refusing to deny incivility. In their refusal to say what they will not celebrate and what they will not rebel against. its contempt for liberalism— may well lead to right-wing totalitarianism. many of today’s students may embrace only the new creed’s rejection of the past.. Moreover. . their message results in fascist totalitarianism Lewis. finally. one must sometimes silence or exclude those who reject civility and democracy. . there must be some limit to what is ambiguous. but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against. they are being schooled in fascism. they deny themselves (and everyone else in their political world) a particular plan or ground to work from. as such. To embrace everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action." For "the fact that he wants to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything" (Chesterton 1959." He "desired the freedoms of democracy. Topical Education—by manipulating the topic to access their political project they skirt debate about the implementation of policies by the government. in the end. To fully support political contest. Stripped of leftist social concerns. in refusing to bar the tactics of the anti-democrat.. When cynical. an endorsement of the status quo. a refusal to judge among ideas and activities is. then. regardless of their instructors’ intentions. It is actually possible that radical education may make them even more cynical than they already are. one must fully support some uncontested rules and reasons. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180) 'Thus far. at least for that moment. they need to set clear limits about what they will and will not support. right-leaning students are taught that democracy is a sham and that all meaning derives from power. Prof Politics at Tx A&M. Green Delusions p 247) A majority of those born between 1960 and 1980 seem to tend toward cynicism. To generally reject the silencing or exclusion of others. Thus." For example.41). willing to set up certain clear limitations about acceptable behavior. as observed in our discussion of openness. 92 (Martin. again. As G. democracy and tyranny. They cannot say "no" to the terrorist who would silence dissent. They cannot turn their backs on the bullying of the white supremacist." He "wished to have votes and not to have titles .

one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In short. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. . that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest. contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony. In a basic sense. the reverse is true. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. and within a context. Grammar is the only way to prevent arbitrarily limited and unpredictable interpretations. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. of agreement. however. or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180) The ambiguists must say "no" to—they must reject and limit—some ideas and actions. In other words. and so on. In other words. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths. first. We agree on some matters but not on others. we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. This means. For instance. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest—that consensus kills debate. 1 It comes before all other arguments in the round because we shouldn’t be forced to develop a strategy against non topical cases. contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. 2 The fairness of the affirmative’s advocacy must precede consideration of its merits or else all contestation is meaningless Shively. we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. At the very least. we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. In what follows. demonstrators.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 20 Framework File Framework 1NC 4. our agreements are highly imperfect. therefore we can argue about them. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and jurisdiction. There can be no argument except on the premise. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. D. the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In particular. Grammar – our reading of the resolution is the only predictable way to develop an interpretation because it is based off of grammatical rules and definitions. on principles but not on their applications. Resisters. on generalities but not on specifics. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect—if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. In most cases. and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. In other words. Prof Politics at Tx A&M.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

21 Framework File

Aff Burden Framework
A. The 1AC must include a statement of the affirmative’s central argument, which the affirmative will defend throughout the entire debate. This argument must answer the question posed by the resolution exclusively in the affirmative, arguing that the federal government should reduce/restrict the size, role and/or mission of nuclear weapons. This does not necessarily require a traditional plan text. There are several reasons to hold the aff to this standard: First, “should” in the resolution means “ought to.” It implies desirability Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1988, p.1242
used to express obligation or duty, propriety, or desirability.

The only way to express desirability is to affirm a change. They can’t prove something should be done, if their argument changes in every speech or if they do not answer the resolutional question with a “yes” Second, the word “resolved” requires a definitive conclusion. The resolution asks a question. The affirmative must provide an answer to the question Jeff Parcher, February 26, 2001, www.ndtceda.com
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.

Third, they have not yet articulated how the 1AC affirms the resolution. Without a concrete plan text or equivalent thesis statement we can’t make arguments about how their arguments interact with the resolution.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

22 Framework File

Aff Burden Framework
B. They fail to meet this burden. The 1AC articulates no consistent or coherent point. The arguments (stories) have a multiplicity of (contradictory) meanings, many of which they highlight, but there is no description of how they will deploy those in this particular debate. We have no way of predicting how these will morph into reasons to vote affirmative later in the debate. C. Refusal to articulate their thesis undermines fair debate: 1. It’s unpredictable There are a finite number of potential policy changes and concrete actions. If the affirmative defends one of them we will always have the possibility of researching disads or defending the status quo. Without stable texts, what they say in every debate will change, making research impossible. We will never be able to predict or research topicality arguments without a plan to look at. Plus, what they will defend is at best tangentially related to the text of the 1AC, meaning pre-tournament research is mostly useless. They’ll just defend something slightly different each time. The 1AC may be the same, but we still can’t predict how various parts of their speech act will be deployed when there’s nothing in the 1AC to tie them down to. 2. It crushes negative ground In order to make competitive arguments, we must know what they advocate. Not knowing after the 1AC what they’ll defend effectively wastes our entire 1NC. We will inevitably misinterpret their affirmative, and therefore make irrelevant arguments or even accidentally feed their position.
3. It’s tautological They cannot articulate how the negative could possibly win. Without a plan to ground our inquiry, it’s unclear what the negative is supposed to prove their project/approach/stories/arguments/no-thing etc. are worse than. The best they can do is dole out a list of arguments we could make, but those arguments are unpredictable since they are unattached to any stable advocacy. 4. It’s an excuse for sand-bagging Their 1AC is a very strategic ploy to force the negative into making an argument which they can turn in the 2AC or claim is uncompetitive. If the aff doesn't have to read a plan or defend something concrete in some form or another in the 1AC, they're free to spin whatever they want to throughout the rest of the round. Even if we lose ever other argument, the fact their framework requires shiftiness and sand-bagging is enough to vote negative.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

23 Framework File

Aff Burden Framework
D. It’s a voting issue. 1. Consideration of this argument ought to precede their criticisms of our language, ontology, metaphysics, ideology or anything else. Our ability to respond to such arguments is irreparably hindered by their refusal to highlight their advocacy. Before you can evaluate the merits, the forum in which it occurred was fair. 2. Participants will literally quit without fairness Spiece 2k3 Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice, Wake Forest University,
and Jim Lyle, Debate Coach, Clarion University 2003 - Oceans Policy Adrift As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants.

Which is to say. And. in refusing to bar the tactics of the anti-democrat. In their refusal to say what they will not celebrate and what they will not rebel against. as observed in our discussion of openness. Chesterton observed. In short. 2000. then.41). they deny themselves a civil public space from which to speak. . the most radical skepticism ends in the most radical conservatism. To fully support political contest. Thus. In other words. then.. for to embrace a particular plan of action is to reject all others. the only way to oppose something is to align yourself with its opposite. . the ambiguists' refusals to will something "definite and limited" undermines their revolutionary impulses. at least for that moment. By refusing to deny incivility." He "wished to have votes and not to have titles . As G." But "because the new rebel is a skeptic"—because he cannot bring himself to will something definite and limited— "he cannot be a revolutionary. one must sometimes silence or exclude those who reject civility and democracy. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest. willing to set up certain clear limitations about acceptable behavior. the true revolutionary has always willed something "definite and limited. open-mindedness and close-mindedness. I have argued that if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything. In the same manner." For "the fact that he wants to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything" (Chesterton 1959. but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against. To embrace everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action." For example. They cannot say "no" to the terrorist who would silence dissent. they need to set clear limits about what they will and will not support. Ruth Lessl Shively. again. one must fully support some uncontested rules and reasons. in the end. Moreover. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. finally. "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M.. K. an endorsement of the status quo. I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behavior—if they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm— they need first to be firm believers in something. democracy and tyranny. This means that a minimum of shared agreement is the necessary condition for preventing atrocity.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 24 Framework File Rules key to Ethics Rules are key to checking evil. they deny themselves (and everyone else in their political world) a particular plan or ground to work from. as such. p. 180 Thus far. To generally reject the silencing or exclusion of others. there must be some limit to what is ambiguous. they need to be conservative about some things. a refusal to judge among ideas and activities is. to be a true ambiguist. they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat. what they do and do not believe to be best. to embrace everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's purposes and to that which defeats one's purposes— to tolerance and intolerance." He "desired the freedoms of democracy. They cannot turn their backs on the bullying of the white supremacist. . To this.

they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law. either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. it can be addressed fruitfully by appropriate methods of reasoning. Since the people engaged in a genuine dispute agree on the meaning of the words by means of which they convey their respective positions. and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles. In cases of this sort. disputes become meaningless and valueless. and communicate with each other more effectively if we watch for disagreements about the meaning of words and try to resolve them whenever we can. Debate leads to education about the real world Christopher C. they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. of course. students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States.com/lg/e05. research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. In this way. the resolution of every ambiguity only reveals an underlying genuine dispute. each of them can propose and assess logical arguments that might eventually lead to a resolution of their differences. A verbal dispute disappears entirely once the people involved arrive at an agreement on the meaning of their terms. We can save a lot of time. “Definition and Meaning”. Joyner (prof. Once that's been discovered. since doing so reveals their underlying agreement in belief. 97 professor of philosophy at Newberry College. and legal defense. n8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis. the achievement of human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification. First. As philosopher John Locke pointed out three centuries ago. Merely verbal disputes. Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes can also occur. arise entirely from ambiguities in the language used to express the positions of the disputants. as they work with other members of their team. only once a consensus has been arrived at can there be any engagement. We can distinguish disputes of three sorts: Genuine disputes involve disagreement about whether or not some specific proposition is true. sharpen our reasoning abilities. of International law at Georgetown) Spring 1999 “teaching international law: views from an international relations political scientist” ILSA journal of international & comparative law 5 ILSA J Int’l & Comp L 377 The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. (Garth.philosophypages. Second.htm) We've seen that sloppy or misleading use of ordinary language can seriously limit our ability to create and communicate correct reasoning. Kemerling. . Needless controversy is sometimes produced and perpetuated by an unacknowledged ambiguity in the application of key terms.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 25 Framework File Rules key to Education Without concrete terms for discussion. http://www. on the other hand. Finally. political critique.

we are often compelled to deal with the complexities we meet as best we can. not of escaping them. in the best subversive society. they must give us reasons. and irony ("Half a stomach will be better than a whole one") and dilemma ("Not too much. judgments must be made—not only in the development of political theory. then. as in surgery. anesthesia") that all surgical solutions are necessarily ambiguous. Here I have added that the policy of anticategorization rests on certain stable categories of its own. to be truly subversive requires taking a stand: judging what is good and bad. we see that subversion or any other political project is a matter of choosing the right categories. . 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. if we must judge. and that in political theory and politics. Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas A&M. And the situations within which we must judge are often dauntingly complex and uncertain. to judge what is good and bad. they need to own up to. in so doing. Nonetheless. (Murray 1960. they must make a case for this prescription. And the point of this essay has been to say that the former option is best. For once we recognize the inescapability of choosing categories. and justify. to say that uncertainty and complexity must keep us from judging or acting is as senseless as a surgeon in the midst of a gastroenterostomy [saying] that the highly complex situation in front of him is so full of paradox ("The patient is at once receiving blood and losing it"). to alter the need for judgment. nor too little. we are compelled to act and. allowed and disallowed. for it tends to be associated with intolerant and oppressive attitudes and behaviors. Rarely can we be certain that our judgments are right. to the issues of rational judgment and persuasion. but also in confronting the decisions of everyday political life.or harmonyseekers. even in the face of great uncertainty and ambiguity. as such. reasoned argument or not. Thus. Thus. Earlier I argued that political contest rests on certain un-contested foundations or rational conditions. there is no point in trying to avoid the task through a policy of indiscriminate subversion. but whether to judge through open. the subversives are not free from the responsibility of choosing and justifying the subversive categories that define and guide them. If they think we ought to be skeptical ambiguists rather than truth. of course. Because resistance to some categorizations always involves acceptance of others.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 26 Framework File Rules key to Deliberation Critique is not a matter of rejecting categories categorically but rather of choosing the right categories. legitimate and illegitimate. Our choice is not whether to judge. The ambiguity of our situation does nothing. The desire to avoid this sort of judgment is understandable. We are brought back. reasonable and unreasonable. Thus. and so on.6 If they propose that we choose their version of reality and their favored categorizations. 283) Political Theory and the Postmodern Politics of Ambiguity The point. Ruth Lessl Shively. this is especially true when critique is held to the standard of competitive judgment which must defer to shared sets of basic assumptions. As John Courtney Murray writes. Simply being against established categories is disingenuous when the argument is designed to establish new categories in replace of the old. is that there is no avoiding judgment and action here. Thus. 188-9 This is why the ambiguists need to do more than call for a wholesale resistance to categories. their own choices.

Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas A&M. In such a case. We find a more complete answer here. That is. I may "persuade" a man to do something by hypnotizing him or by holding a gun to his head. or grounds that allow them to weigh their own thoughts and choose. that is. We can further grasp the intuition here by noting the different response we would have upon learning that an animal rights activist was splashing blood on people with the intent merely of bullying them or frightening them out of the habit of wearing furs. and thus at enhancing others' freedom and ability to make political decisions —rather. 183 Earlier we asked how the ambiguists distinguish legitimate political behaviors. The idea is implicit in democracy because democracy implies a basic respect for selfdetermination: a respect for people's rights to direct their own lives as much as possible by their own choices. Nor is this recognition of rational persuasion a rejection of the role of interest or power in politics. finally. I should also say that by calling these activities "rational" I do not mean to conjure up universal. In public debate. and so on. the right to free speech and representation. then those with the most power will always win and those with less will always lose (unless. to say that this is the implicit end of political action is not to say that we always recognize or act in accord with it. in democratic politics. unattainable. but I would not be using rational persuasion. by happy chance. Yet. for example. we can say that they are political in a way that burning crosses is not. Again. Ruth Lessl Shively. Of course. the point is that in order to respect the self-determination of others. from illegitimate behaviors. there must be other reasons recognized beside power and interest. Like most ideals. in a democracy. I would be deciding for him. the difference between intimidation and political speech is precisely the attempt to persuade through reason. the rights of the accused. this is the way we show respect for others' capacities for self-direction. Instead. than being aimed at merely intimidating them. to say that rational persuasion is the end of political action is simply to acknowledge that. we must give them reasons they can recognize. the reasons we may give in persuading others may be based on issues of interest or power. to participate in community and politics according to decisions freely made by them rather than decisions forced on them. Nor. rational principles or Rawlsian original positions. most of us sense that the action is no longer legitimately political because (or to the extent that) it is aimed at intimidation rather than rational persuasion. legitimate forms of contest and resistance seek to inform or convince others by appeal to reasons rather than by force or manipulation. The former are legitimate because they have civil or rational persuasion as their end. strictly speaking. It is the gauge against which we judge progress or decline. that a certain policy position is in their self-interest or that a certain action will increase their bargaining power. Clearly. at enhancing others' understandings of an issue. that ideas like the right to assemble. their interests coincide). our goal is to persuade others with ideas that they recognize as true rather than by trying to manipulate them or move them without their conscious. like contest or resistance. but only to say that democratic political activities have as their end persuasion by appeal to shared reasons. they are political to the extent that they are aimed at rational persuasion of some kind: at communicating or heightening awareness of an idea. Leaving aside legal or moral questions about these tactics.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 27 Framework File Rules key to Deliberation Communicative persuasion is at the heart of politics. or anti-abortion groups' attempts to block clinic entrances. for example. animal rights groups' splashing of blood on fur owners. For if power trumps everything. Thus. it nonetheless defines our judgments on the subject. should the "rational" or "civil" tag suggest that democratic actions are always inoffensive or acceptable to the majority. Though I should quickly add that. We may try to convince others. while yet being offensive to majorities: we might list among these gay rights groups' disruptions of church services. I would not be giving him reasons upon which he might make his own judgment. it is. That is.» . like most ideals. The "rational" tag simply serves to distinguish voluntary from lessthan-voluntary kinds of persuasions. and so on. Democracy necessarily assumes that certain ideas trump power: for example. to work and carry on relationships as they see fit. 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. and there is no point in talking about democratic concepts like rights or equality or freedom. rational assent. There are many actions that can be considered persuasive and political in the broad sense used here. like cruelty and subjugation. are to be rendered to people regardless of their positions in society. Thus.

Bracey. n268 Indeed. the collective aspiration of those interested in pursing serious. L. Associate Professor of African & African American Studies. n270 For these reasons. As the forgoing sections suggest. Cal. Associate Professor of Law." n267 Moreover. the continued reliance upon pedigreed rhetorical themes has and continues to poison racial legal discourse.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 28 Framework File Rules key to Deliberation Empty abstractions are like cyanide to democracy – only through robust dialogue and meaningful conversation can we learn and improve as beings and democratic participants Christopher A. Louis. sustained. it promotes a feeling of democratic community and instills in the people a will for political action to advance reasoned public policy in the spirit of promoting the public good. Washington University in St. and effectively forecloses constructive conversation on the most corrosive and divisive issue in American history and contemporary life. Given the various normative and ideological commitments that might be ascribed to [*1314] opponents of race preferences. meaningful conversation serves to broaden people's moral perspectives to include matters of public good. cognitive dissonance will create an incentive for such individuals to reconcile their self interest with the public good. and policy-legitimating dialogue on race matters must be to cultivate a reasoned discourse that is relatively free of retrograde ideological baggage that feeds skepticism. engenders distrust. 1231. 1311-1314. LexisNexis Robust dialogue on public policy matters also promotes the individual growth of the dialogue participants. n269 At the same time. because political dialogue is a material manifestation of democracy in action. how are we to approach the task of breaking through the conversational impasse and creating intellectual space for meaningful discourse on this issue? . 79 S. Southern California Law Review. even if people are thinking self-interested thoughts while making public good arguments. because appeals to the public good are often the most persuasive arguments available in public deliberation. the question thus becomes. p. Conversation helps people become more knowledgeable and hold better developed opinions because "opinions can be tested and enlarged only where there is a genuine encounter with differing opinions. September 2006. Rev.

it means finding creative ways to support the civic fabric of society. 105 Fortunately. 2000. But just what does stimulating grass-roots deliberation mean? It means encouraging citizens to actively deliberate outside of formal decision-making institutions at what is normally thought of as the "pre-political" level. rather. This is as true of this first element as it is of the other three. public spaces. in one sense. Instead. while not charged with the responsibility for making political decisions. of strengthening those institutions which. Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. are potential sites for political deliberation. Hence. politics has always seeped out through the cracks of formal institutions. for it calls not for expanding deliberation tout court but. Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas A&M. but desirable—desirable because decisions that are discussed are likely to be wiser than those that are not. ever since Athenian citizens carried the business of the assembly and courts into the agora.6 each element of the via media I am recommending here establishes a separate criterion that reform proposals ought to meet. The problem at the moment is choosing from among them in such a way as to achieve the widest and longest lasting impact. These four criteria helps us sort through the plethora of proposals now being discussed by academics and policymakers. then." It means working to promote thoughtful exchanges among those who are political. government itself. And it is to recognize that. including. We saw earlier that the second element of this strategy is to counter partisanship not only at the institutional treetops. for although it is not at all the same thing as adopting the view that "everything is political. it calls on us to resist plans for stimulating deliberation through the radical decentralization of society. This second criteria narrows our search to reforms that might stimulate deliberation there—where it is insulated from the inherently partisan pressure to adjudicate disputes and issue policy. this is not only proper. for it simply asks us to recognize the obvious fact that. churches." Conversely. civic organizations. But we can locate our target more precisely than that. for expanding deliberation outside the context of public decision-making bodies. and the like. In general terms. at least within certain limits. aiming somewhere between Athens and Philadelphia means spurring deliberation. the premium this strategy places on indirect political engagement asks us to look for deliberative opportunities precisely in those places we are least accustomed to looking for them: families. It likewise recommends that we demand more of deliberative reform than that it shore up existing deliberative institutions. however valuable that might be. Although prioritizing deliberative reforms is a far more complex task than it might appear to be at first glance. Gundersen. but at the grass roots as well. quite radical. To encourage indirect political engagement by encouraging political deliberation is. It means cultivating a public both willing and able to engage one another in political discussion. . wherever they happen to be discussed. and most centrally." it is tantamount to claiming that "everything can be a site for political deliberation. we now have innovative recommendations aplenty for stimulating deliberation. professions.5 covering virtually every institution in American society. but not yet partisan. Finally. from another perspective this view hardly represents much of a challenge at all.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 29 Framework File Deliberation Impact – Agency Political deliberation radically empowers personal agency Adolf G. It means stimulating political discourse in places that are not normally thought of as "political. of course.

political theory must seem somewhat subversive to all regimes. moreover. Political theoretical critique casts a skeptical eye on all legitimacy myths. the civic republicans. and complexified into new. 168) put it. 90-1 In another equally important respect. Or they become broadened. much less some Cartesian perfect transcendence. each perspective may be recognized as such and thereby a new level of objectivity attained. amended. someone who was as aware as anyone of the ways that our sociological particularities and partisan interests produce competing perspectives. This constant critique is socially useful but often not politically welcome. In that context. impersonal point of view must be replaced by the ideal of an essentially human point of view which is within the limits of a human perspective. Mannheim explained: The problem. I would insist. by juxtaposing the various points of view. 138) that are the cognitive base of the public spiritedness that Mill. I would argue. In its deployment of critical reason. quite wrong. is not how we might arrive at a nonperspectivistic picture but how. It admits into its conversation conflicting perspectives and arguments that ineluctably are grounded in our sociological particularities and our partisan political interests. their fellow citizens. then. and the issues of public policy they must address. as John Stuart Mill (1962. since that form of contestation is essential to the creation of a popular will that can pass muster—that is. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. to the formation of a popular will that can claim to be rational consent rather than aggregate whimsy. Professor of Political Science at Duke. . as a consequence of his philosophical positivism and attendant political authoritarianism. however. functions constructively in precisely this fashion. constantly trying to enlarge itself. And this. one that the cynic fails to appreciate and one that a thoroughgoing and unqualified cynicism would ultimately undermine. is a greater tendency among all participants to be self-critical about their naive attachments and premises and a great and salutary pressure toward inducing in them a more enlarged. we should recognize that liberal democratic regimes are the natural homes of political theory and the places where the functions of political theory are most integral to the premises and practices of political life and legitimacy. is no small contribution to the democratic enterprise of self-governance.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 30 Framework File Deliberation Impact – Peace Democratic deliberation is key to peace Thomas A. liberal democracies included. What results from this process of critical moral dialogue between competing perspectives is. 296-297) Political theory at its best. These perspectives are then set against each other and subjected to critical scrutiny in the context of those logical and linguistic constraints that constitute the discipline of reason. Spragens. It is a form of discourse. one learns. and even James Madison thought essential to the health of a democratic body politic. But what does result. This critical function of political theory is one that even moral cynics and epistemological skeptics can appreciate and accredit. So long as we are fallibilist but not pyrrhonist in our moral epistemology. These syntheses are neither final nor complete but continue to undergo continual change and revision under the impact of further challenge. political theoretical dialogue assists the movement toward the more complex form of objectivity in political and practical affairs envisioned by Karl Mannheim. (Mannheim 1936. From the kind of robust and rationally disciplined political dialogue embodied in political theory. I would argue. To say that liberal democratic regimes are the natural homes of political theory is not to say that tensions do not characterize the relationship between them. But political theory also plays a more constructive role in liberal democracies. Plato was. 2000. including perhaps those enshrined by a democratic majority. "to feel for and with his fellow citizens and becomes consciously a member of a great community. rational discourse about what is to be done seems an essential component of legitimate politics. p. For it is these regimes that make legitimacy consist in the consent of a citizenry presumed to be both rational and possessed of the moral powers. Relying upon the moral powers and their attendant passions for its energy and relying upon the logical and linguistic constraints of moral discourse for its direction. that sharpens the habits and skills necessary for serious democratic deliberation. more comprehensive. and it must puncture claims to political certitude and hegemony. and more impartial viewpoint regarding their society. he wrote. It also will be subject to critical and potentially corrosive scrutiny the justifications set forth on their own behalf by powerful interests in democratic societies. more capacious and synthetic normative conceptions of the political world. From that agonistic dialectic. Tocqueville. narrowly partisan perspectives tend to lose credence and get winnowed out." This is a form of discourse and discipline that pushes toward those "more comprehensive and distant views" (Mill 1962. not some final Hegelian scientific super-synthesis. Thus we come to the point where the false ideal of a detached.

ensures that a broad array of input is heard and considered. Bracey. Under this view. then they lose their claim to political authority over us. no uncoerced common understanding can possibly be attained. Conversation is particularly important in our democracy. "democracy loses its capacity to generate legitimate political power." n261 Sincere deliberation. in its broadest idealized form. For both proponents and opponents. Louis. if not indispensable feature of our liberal democracy. 1311-1314. Our failing public conversation on race matters not only presents a particularly tragic moment in American race relations. Sustained. but also evinces a greater failure of democracy. "if the preferences that determine the results of democratic procedures are unreflective or ignorant. At the same time. if left unaddressed. Opponents of race preferences must come to understand that this pedigree. Rev. September 2006. because if they do not. proponents should understand that the deployment of these pedigreed rhetorical themes does not necessarily signal agreement with the nineteenth-century racial norms from which they are sourced. 1231. "persons ought to strive to engage in a mutual process of critical interaction. Associate Professor of African & African American Studies. reflective dialogue. Southern California Law Review. the avoidance of a rapid retreat into ideological trench warfare not only preserves space for reasoned. Under these particular circumstances. Washington University in St.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 31 Framework File Deliberation Impact – Democracy/Discrimination Rejection of critical dialogue signals the failure of democracy – it creates discriminatory polarization and kills political power Christopher A. Cal. legitimizing the resulting decision." n263 . meaningful dialogue is a critical. LexisNexis A deepened appreciation and open acknowledgment of this pedigree is crucial to restoring public conversation on race preferences. substantive debate regarding race preferences. but also allows for the possibility of overcoming our collective fixation on race preferences as the issue in American race relations and advancing the conversation to reach the larger issue of producing a more racially inclusive society. p. Associate Professor of Law. tends to overwhelm the underlying merit of arguments against race preferences in the eyes of proponents. given the profoundly diverse and often contradictory cultural and political traditions that are the sine qua non of American life. n260 It is through [*1312] meaningful public conversation about what actions government should take (or refrain from taking) that public policy determinations ultimately gain legitimacy." n262 In the absence of selfconscious. L. 79 S.

John Stuart Mill makes the point rather eloquently in chapter 3 of his Considerations on Representative. since he is never engaged in any common undertaking for the joint benefit. therefore. Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. If we relate only as competitors. an incipient war of all against all viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. quite simply. judge Thomas A. that a human being whose associations with his or her fellow human beings are purely instrumental is not living much of a life. political. political pluralism may not be guilty of making excessively sanguine empirical forecasts on the basis of a purely conceptual analogy. contained within sociological. it also follows from my basic thesis that the bargaining/instrumental rationality mode of politics is not in itself adequate to sustain a well-ordered society. not being an ally or an associate. Thus even private morality suffers. in short. Were this the universal and only possible state of things. while public is actually extinct. what begins as bargaining easily becomes offers you can't refuse. is therefore only a rival. Professor of Political Science at Duke. 2000. That suggests that modus vivendi theories. likely taken from classical economics. and moral frameworks that buffer and sustain it. the utmost aspirations of the lawgiver or the moralist could only stretch to making the bulk of the community a flock of sheep innocently nibbling the grass side by side. But this presumption is highly questionable. this anomic condition can easily prove disintegrative. The reasons here are both moral and pragmatic. But if all of society is a marketplace in which each is a rival to all others. That may be a defensible assumption when the market is purely an economic one. that the natural outcome of a bargaining process is an equilibrium. Both the libertarian and the pluralist models embody a presumption. The moral reason is. The "dog eat dog" world of the marketplace is not literally that. or libertarian theories. . Spragens. and those in turn may easily precipitate more violent conflicts and political disaggregation. 73): A neighbor. or pluralist theories of democracy should not receive our endorsement. But when generalized to the social order as a whole. 80-1 On the other hand. Social bonds keep economic competition from turning into outright warfare. because norms and institutions are in place to constrain it. one may rightly wonder whether the sustaining context no longer exists and whether. It takes for granted background conditions of widespread agreement to established rules of the game. The pragmatic reservation about the modus vivendi/bargaining conception of liberal society concerns its long-term coherence and stability.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 32 Framework File Determinism Impact – V2L Determinism = NV2L. The pluralist equilibrium may be. Government (1962.

and deluded political opinions. 169 The challenge of an ethical life in liberal democracy is to live up. to bring Armageddon down upon their fellow human beings. suddenly becomes a threat to us all. The task is also to ensure that each of us actually believes in our society as much of the time as possible. to the engagements expressed in our constitutions and to seek to ensure that these engagements are kept in respect of the least advantaged of our fellow citizens. happen not to believe in liberal democracy but instead profess a variety of paranoias pretending to be politics. 2004. we cannot preemptively detain all the discontent in our midst.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 33 Framework File Rules key to Community The individualist anarchy of a world without rules makes community and communication impossible Michael Ignatieff. and some of the noncitizens who live among us. by technology and freedom. The existence of wild. Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice. It is a condition of our freedom that we cannot compel anyone to believe in the premises of a liberal democracy Either these premises freely convince others or they are useless. p. if married to lethal technology in the possession of a single individual. by the specter of the superempowered loner as the cruel nemesis of the very moral care our society lavishes on the idea of the individual. and we violate everything we stand for if we coerce those who do not believe what we do. I am haunted. They cannot be imposed. Harvard University. as individuals. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. In an age in which individuals are monstrously empowered. it is suddenly no longer a minor matter that some of our fellow citizens. In any event. Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the JFK School of Government. as I think we all might be. vengeful. .

" she worries about the immersion of the self in society and thus the failure to distinguish oneself in the arena of public action. Saxonhouse. nevertheless creates a model of political action that exalts the partisan. who without question romanticizes the life of the ancient polis. the pursuit of a public identity which earns immortality is lost.. 24-6 Hannah Arendt. To enter into this debate is to demonstrate the courage of the human being to lift himself out of the struggle for mere survival. In writing of the world of the ancient polis. barbarians. the just and unjust. 36-37). 2000. it [the good life] was no longer bound to the biological life process (Arendt 1958. It is conflict on this level of thought and will that transforms us from the mindless pursuers of the material necessities of our lives to the human beings who can act.Humanity Debate and politics is key to humanity itself. Aristotle is known for his quotable assertion that by nature [humans are] man is a political animal. such as those that go on within the family are usually governed by inclination and lack the generality of the larger community of the polis. Other actions. which come to the fore in the public space. she does draw attention to the ways in which Aristotle is perhaps the most powerful exponent of a theory of plures. Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Arendt builds her analysis of the plures of human interaction on a somewhat idiosyncratic reading of Aristotle. a mere collection of individuals is not a community.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 34 Framework File Community Impact . Such divisions." she says. by overcoming the innate urge of all living creatures for their own survival. Partisanship in this sense is not to be avoided. and only those men who possessed it could be admitted to a fellowship that was political in content and purpose and thereby transcended the mere togetherness imposed on all—slaves. Arendt criticizes the statistical methods that likewise assimilate individuals to one another and thus have the effect of "leveling out fluctuation. are necessary for our humanity. was a sure sign of slavishness. the transformation of what appears to be." Arguing that "statistical uniformity is by no means a harmless scientific ideal. or at least the one who articulates well through debate with others' views that address the broad issues of communal life. Despite the idiosyncrasies. In a way that is similar to Wolin's criticism of the universalizing science of the American founders. This is the political actor who may seek glory for himself. and Greeks alike—through the urgencies of life . Political Theory and Partisan Politics. is "the basic condition of both action and speech" (Arendt 1958. . Arlene W. then. must have a realm in which that capacity can be exercised. "Human plurality. By this he means that [humans] man as the only creature who possesses speech and reason (logos) and can thus debate the advantageous and disadvantageous. but exercised skillfully with a focus beyond the petty concerns of everyday life to a concern with choices that polities make in their confrontations with barbarism. Without an attachment to the self.. Courage therefore became the political virtue par excellence. but does so through engagement in controversies in the open about public decisions. and too great a love for life obstructed freedom. To so distinguish oneself entails the engagement in debate and conflict. 175). And it is this plurality that allows for the initiation of the new. The polis provides that realm where [one] man exercises his rationality in the process of making choices for the collective community of the polis. p. she notes: Whoever entered the political realm had first to be ready to risk his life. Community is characterized by the kind of consensus which enables political thought and action. to rise out of the biological life processes. of a theory that enables us to conceptualize the partisan as a key player in the construction of the polity and not as the destroyer of a beauteous unity. as the basis for our humanity and only a political regime that can accommodate this sort of partisanship is worthy of praise. "Partisanship" here appears at its highest level.

123-4 Habermas's distinction between "pure" communicative action and strategic action raises many difficulties. 160). to show that on the level of linguistics. 133) upon the former. Habermas's concept of communicative action is neither as refined nor as situationally embedded as were the protocols that governed honorable combat across European cultural and territorial boundaries and between Christian knights. does not fit a great deal of everyday social interaction (McCarthy 1991. I will return to this point as it relates to politics later. it is important to underscore that Habermas relies upon the communicative-strategic distinction to do at least two things: first.12 Second.132). 2000. Machiavelli's famous riposte to those thinkers who "have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality" (Machiavelli 1950. For now. The entire framework that Habermas establishes is an attempt to limit human violence by elaborating a code of communicative conduct that is designed to hold power in check by channeling it into persuasion. or the "unforced" force of the better argument (Habermas 1993b. To be sure. that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done. Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. not the least of which is its adherence to an idealized model of communication that. for the idealized model that Habermas imagines and the distinction that supports it appear boldly to deny the Machiavellian insight that "how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live. will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation" (56). communicative action enjoys an "originary" priority over strategic and all other modes of linguistic usage. 56) seems pertinent here. as a normative system it articulates the conventions of fair and honorable engagement between interlocutors. as Habermas himself acknowledges. but it is nonetheless a (cross-cultural) protocol for all that.^ . communicative action aims at something like the twentiethcentury discourse-equivalent of the chivalric codes of the late Middle Ages. 38) or "derivative" (McCarthy 1991. Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. Mary Dietz. on the level of political theory. which are themselves "parasitic" (Rasmussen 1990.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 35 Framework File AT: Rules = Violence Conventions of communication are not a matter of violent exclusion but rather the preconditions for consensus. Despite its thoroughly modern accouterments. Habermas introduces the distinction in order to limit the exercise of threats and coercion (or strategic action) by enumerating a formal-pragmatic system of discursive accountability (or communicative action) that is geared toward human agreement and mutuality.

160).132). communicative action enjoys an "originary" priority over strategic and all other modes of linguistic usage. www. but it is nonetheless a (cross-cultural) protocol for all that. And more ev.ndtceda. then it seems the only true alternative is to say that you either win or you lose. for example) decides you have not won. Discursive violence is made up.com Funny that in your diatribe you failed to answer my question: what. To be sure. exactly. (a) Losing a debate on topicality does not take back the voices that were spoken. Habermas introduces the distinction in order to limit the exercise of threats and coercion (or strategic action) by enumerating a formal-pragmatic system of discursive accountability (or communicative action) that is geared toward human agreement and mutuality. Just because you're trying to play scrabble with the resolution and failing is not violent. that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done. 38) or "derivative" (McCarthy 1991. If you're not looking to do that. I will return to this point as it relates to politics later. I think everyone involved here is underestimating the power of the voices spoken. – 1nc Shively evidence.com (3) Losing on topicality is not violent. how is that relevant to topicality? Funny that how this whole series of posts orignated on my end denying the existence of those analogies. 133) upon the former. If exclusions are violent. is discursive violence? How is it defined? Why would the examples you give below (sexist language. February 20. Professor of Polisci at Minnesota. They are still there and convey messages. What you're looking to do is rid debate of the competitive element to it. Copeland winner. Accept this fact and move on. 123-4 Habermas's distinction between "pure" communicative action and strategic action raises many difficulties. www. will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation" (56).like topicality. Are the voices gone? Do . For now.ndtceda. to show that on the level of linguistics. for the idealized model that Habermas imagines and the distinction that supports it appear boldly to deny the Machiavellian insight that "how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live. or the "unforced" force of the better argument (Habermas 1993b. but I mean the totality of every argument made in the debate-. Asking the judge to prefer one version of the resolution to the other is intrinsic to debate. Habermas's concept of communicative action is neither as refined nor as situationally embedded as were the protocols that governed honorable combat across European cultural and territorial boundaries and between Christian knights. which are themselves "parasitic" (Rasmussen 1990. Machiavelli's famous riposte to those thinkers who "have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality" (Machiavelli 1950.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 36 Framework File AT: Framework = Violence Predictable ground is critical to prevent political strategies wedded to violence.12 Second. Mary Dietz. not the least of which is its adherence to an idealized model of communication that. for example) be similar to topicality? hate speech? Any plethora of images that I can imagine as being very violent and entirely reliant on language. It's what happens when you engage in a competitive activity and the judge of your performance (and I don't mean this like judges as film critics. Despite its thoroughly modern accouterments. February 20. Debate is a game. Example: the aff/neg (whichever side spoke the voices in question) drops a technical line by line argument and lose as a result. 56) seems pertinent here. Let's examine a few things. 2k Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. Losing doesn’t exclude their voice. as Habermas himself acknowledges. it is important to underscore that Habermas relies upon the communicative-strategic distinction to do at least two things: first. It just means they lost. as a normative system it articulates the conventions of fair and honorable engagement between interlocutors. The entire framework that Habermas establishes is an attempt to limit human violence by elaborating a code of communicative conduct that is designed to hold power in check by channeling it into persuasion. they exclude us for not talking about what we want to talk to Andy Ryan. – a normative system of fairness is necessary to avoid violence and coercion. on the level of political theory. 2001. Their voice can still have many good ramifications Andy Ryan. 2001. Copeland winner. does not fit a great deal of everyday social interaction (McCarthy 1991. communicative action aims at something like the twentieth-century discourse-equivalent of the chivalric codes of the late Middle Ages.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

37 Framework File

they vanish? (b) Losing a debate isn't silence because it doesn't prevent you from speaking again. It just means that in a two hour period you were unable to convince a judge that you were right. As soon as they get the next pairings out, you can try again.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

38 Framework File

A/T: Rules = Exclusion
Political ethics is committed to pluralizing the body politic William Connolly, Prof of Polisci at Johns Hopkins, 2000, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 168-9
When such a line is pursued,7 a positive ethical case can be built for a bi-valent, robust ethos of politics. This would be one in which an enlarged number of constituencies acknowledge more vigorously comparative elements of partisanship and contestability in their own identities and fold this shift in selfrecognition into pursuit of greater forbearance and generosity in social relations. It would also be a pluralism in which new drives to pluralization, say, in the domains of gender, sexuality, household organization, ethnicity, metaphysical faith, and orientations to death, were met with greater responsiveness than some traditions of secular pluralism now authorize. For, if the possibilities of life are as protean and diverse as some of us project them to be while historically contingent dictates of social organization regularly narrow their range, we can expect existing formations to be challenged periodically by new movements that seek to transfigure injuries, grievances, energies, and uncertain hopes, circulating through them into new possibilities of being. Appreciation of such a pluralist/pluralizing ethos need not draw upon Nietzschean sources alone, though they do provide an excellent source for it, and they do deserve agonistic respect from those not moved by them. It can draw selective support from a variety of currents flowing through theistic doctrines, particularly those which emphasize the mystery of God or the place of love in a faith receptive to the surprise of alterity. It can also draw sustenance from a modest rewriting of the Rawlsian problematic. In this refigured Rawlsianism, we pursue restrained terms of contestation and collaboration between multiple, overlapping traditions, each of which recognizes a certain reciprocity between the element of contestability in its own faith and in the alternative faiths with which it contends and collaborates. Such a rewriting touches the Rawlsian idea that the modern age is incompatible with a fixed conception of the good. But it no longer calls upon each constituency to leave its metaphysical/religious doctrine in the private sphere before it enters public, secular life. Rather, it calls upon it to acknowledge the contestability of its own presumptions and to allow that acknowledgment to infuse restraint, agonistic respect, and responsiveness into its relations with other constituencies. That is, it calls upon each to revise its self-understanding in the light of these considerations. Such an ethos of pluralism neither rises above partisanship nor reduces politics to unfettered partisanship. It fosters restrained partisanship within and between multiple constituencies, each of which may be able to identify lines of connection and collaboration with a series of others. This is, then, a political ethic, an ethic in which politics plays a constitutive role and a politics in which ethics plays a constitutive role. It does not, of course, provide an accurate description of the contemporary condition in America, with its steep inequalities and large classes of people closed out of effective participation in political life. It is a critical ideal. As such, it is perhaps more appropriate to the times in which we live than the Rawlsian model it rewrites. It is presented not as the standard to which every ethic must appeal but as an ethical sensibility able to enter into critical dialogue and selective collaboration with a variety of other perspectives. The very indispensability and contestability of contending onto-theo and onto-non-theistic stances in the late-modern world supports the case for cultivating relations of agonistic respect and selective collaboration between multiple, overlapping constituencies, each of which draws pertinent aspects of its fundamental doctrine into public life when, as so very often happens, the occasion demands it. And several of which also invoke the essential contestability of the ethical sources they honor the most. Out of these diverse lines of connection across multiple lines of difference, a politics of creative coalitions might even be forged to enable action in concert through the state to support the economic and cultural preconditions of justice and pluralism.8 Sr

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

39 Framework File

AT: T = Genocide
They collapse the difference between intentional genocide and exclusion. Ideology alone is not genocide Roland Wagner Ph.D., San Jose State University, “Hitler's Willing Executioners, Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen,” June 23, 1996,
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~german/discuss/goldhagen/wagner.html, accessed 1/21/02 Goldhagen's newly published book has attracted considerable attention from the mass media, and it has climbed to the best-seller list. Although the book is popular with the general public, and it was awarded the distinction of "best dissertation of the year" by the American Political Science Association, it has failed to win accolades from its most important audience -- professional historians and Holocaust scholars, most of whom regard the book as deeply flawed (the great majority of the reviews in print, or posted on the Internet discussion groups of professional historians, have been very critical). In order to understand the book's popularity with the lay audience, it is essential to recognize Goldhagen's mindset and the mentality to which he appeals. The book obviously taps into a deep vein of anti-Germanism in this country, reflecting an unresolved ambivalency about our former enemy that has been exacerbated by German Reunification. At a somewhat less obvious level, the book also reflects the growing national mood demanding that perpetrators be held morally accountable for their actions, and that extenuating circumstances should not absolve them of guilt. Goldhagen's book has been aptly described as "angry." He writes like a lawyer rather than like an historian. To extend this analogy even further, the reader often has the impression that Goldhagen is writing in the style that Mark Klaas might adopt if he were to produce a social study about the murder of his daughter, Polly, and if he were to adopt the pretense of being an objective social scientist. Goldhagen's primary concern in this book is with moral accountability for the Holocaust, and he is unwilling to accept any verdict less than a pall of collective guilt, blanketing the entire German nation. He marshals facts in a selective fashion, and seemingly throws objectivity to the winds in his quest for a collective indictment. He summarily dismisses all standard social science explanations for the Holocaust as mere "moral alibis" (p. 383). Under ordinary circumstances, a passion to condemn genocide and a concern for moral accountability would be admirable motivations, but they become serious flaws when they compromise the objectivity of a social scientist. Is there a legitimate parallel between the guilt of an individual murderer and the collective guilt that can be placed on a nation of 80 million people? Is it meaningful to hold the German nation accountable for the deeds of a totalitarian government, conducted in great secrecy outside of Germany, while the nation was preoccupied during the extremes of wartime? Goldhagen seems to unflinchingly answer, yes! Proceeding like a trial lawyer, Goldhagen boldly states his initial premise: the German nation as a whole had the motive, they were in the grip of a pervasive, "exterminationist" antiSemitism that extended well- back into the nineteenth century, and this ideological mindset was the sole necessary and sufficient cause of the Holocaust. Given this premise, the corollaries fall into place like a domino effect. He sets out to prove that German anti-Semitism was "qualitatively unique" from that in other countries in Europe, and that the Holocaust was carried out with greater brutality than any other genocide in history. He insists that the Holocaust was collectively known and approved of by the German people. He deliberately refers to the planners and perpetrators of the genocide as "ordinary Germans" rather than as "Nazis," anything less being simply an evasion of responsibility. He sees no need to distinguish between the actions of Nazi extermination squads and the common civilians since they were all collectively cruel to the Jews and, given the opportunity, they all would have been direct perpetrators.

debate requires a positive defense of application NOT because debate is ideological but rather because of the necessary structures of argument. tolerance versus intolerance. Thus. they cannot avoid making positive moral claims or presenting a general. and the like. right versus wrong — the ambiguists necessarily embrace the alternative categories of the ambiguist: categories like those of open-mindedness versus close-mindedness. licit or illicit. they do not think that this undermines their general policy of subversion. 2000. alternative theory about humanity and society. as I said. theorists cannot help but suggest what it is that they are not denouncing—or what they are accepting as preferable. we are necessarily commending our own and. or why a policy of rational judgment is a preferable approach to these issues. Thus. even if we acknowledge that our categorizations are apt to be undermined and overthrown. Thus. prompting us to see our ideas not as justified truths but as useful positions from which to unmask truth claims and not as enduring grounds for political theory but as temporary resting points from which to unsettle others—points that can themselves be expected to be challenged and changed down the road. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M. flexibility versus rigidity. 186-7 In response to these arguments. and. That is. While. Which is to say that in denouncing anything. they may simply set out to challenge our categorizations of people and behaviors as good or evil. as such. Likewise then. in subverting traditional categories—like good versus bad. democratic society.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 40 Framework File A/T: “Kritiks are too cool for rules” Even radical criticism assumes the minimum requirements of argument. . normal versus abnormal. normal or abnormal. I would like to finish this discussion by briefly suggesting why such a policy of general subversion is not the best answer to the important issues the ambiguists raise. And within our given system. skepticism versus trust. p. The first problem with the ambiguists' position here is one that they typically acknowledge. we need to say why we think our own commendable. Rather. as such. The problem is that it is impossible to subvert all categorizations. the ambiguists might counter that they do not mean to contest the basic structures of democracy—that they mean simply to resist the cruel and subjugating tendencies that prevail within these structures. for in subverting one categorization. perhaps it is possible to pursue a general policy of contest and subversion—a policy designed to resist social pressure to categorize and judge others—without contesting or subverting the basic structures of openness and democracy. one necessarily embraces another. the ambiguists cannot avoid suggesting that their own categories are superior. creativity versus conformity. they must be given reasons at the moment we are using them. they are obligated to present their reasons for this alternative vision. assuming that we live in an open. they may simply seek to remind us that these categories are our creations—that we need the irrational and the deviant to have our own sense of rational and communal identity. they maintain that the acknowledgment of this fact should make us approach our own (and others') ideas with skepticism and flexibility. the ambiguists acknowledge the impossibility of subverting all categorizations. Ruth Lessl Shively. If we are denouncing others' choices. Thus. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. The problem with this position is that even temporary and unstable positions need justification. and so on. in denouncing traditional categories.

they think about artistic work--unbridled. Constraints shape and focus problems and provide clear challenges to overcome. Creativity thrives best when constrained. Mayer 2006 Marissa Ann Mayer.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 41 Framework File AT: Hurts Creativity There are plenty of ways to be creative with this year’s affirmative. are fraught with constraints. They are beautiful because creativity triumphed over the rules. sonatas. or unexplored. Too many curbs can lead to pessimism and despair. Creativity thrives best when constrained. But look deeper. such as haikus. and religious paintings. February 13. unguided effort that leads to beautiful effect. . 2006. The creativity realized in this balance between constraint and disregard for the impossible is fueled by passion and leads to revolutionary change. and you'll find that some of the most inspiring art forms. unconventional. Innovation is born from the interaction between constraint and vision. But constraints must be balanced with a healthy disregard for the impossible. Business Week When people think about creativity. “Creativity Loves Constraints”. Disregarding the bounds of what is known or accepted gives rise to ideas that are non-obvious. ProQuest.

2002. (His Quest for Certainty book is still worth reading. not simply invent our own language games Gary Olson and Stephen Toulmin. 2001.” JAC 13. It governs by consent of the governed. or our fellow Democratic party members. although the birth of pragmatism was painful--in that William James. how valuable or reasonable is communication that priveleges.. the artistic or political or religious life. Dewey already had remarkably well-formed all the main sense of what practical philosophy should be and also a deep understanding of what was wrong with the tradition from Descartes on. first. Philosophy of Science. or our fellow criminal defense lawyers.ndtceda. e." the recovery of the tradition of practical philosophy that was submerged after the intellectual triumph of theory in the seventeenth century. www. Community consensus explains the meaning of the resolution Jeff Parcher.HOW ABOUT LOBBYING FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESOLUTION!!!!! We have to abide by the language systems set up collectively. But.edu/JAC/132/olson. www. In particular (and this is curious in somebody who knows the whole Wittgensteinian move). I said earlier that I had great admiration for John Dewey." Though technically true. The community selects it. http://www. But Dewey is quite clear that language functions within collective enterprises. February 20. as (I think) Jason Regnier told me: that "everyone reads [the resolution] differently. Charles’s old debate partner.. The resolution is a given.g. So. for instance. accessed 1/21/02 A. I think the long-run thrust of pragmatism is concerned with what I call the "recovery of practical philosophy.usf. generated pragmatism from within an extraordinary epistemological framework that was deeply pre-Wittgensteinian--by the time you get to Dewey. it does seem to me that pragmatism is not just another philosophical theory on a parallel with the others.) What I find interesting is that Richard Rorty claims to be an admirer of Dewey. and Persuasive Discourse: Thoughts from a Neo-premodernist. Rorty still has a highly individualistic attitude toward all philosophical issues and even toward language: anybody's welcome to invent their own language. If you don't like it you can sit out or start your own debate league or. this really occurs within a limited area because words may not have determinant meaning but there are very clear common uses and terms of art.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 42 Framework File AT: Words mean lots of things / ambiguity good All interpretations are not equal. 1993. and we get involved in all these different things in which we share language with our felow baseball players.” OED] Multiple interpretations requires calculation of the most fair and predictable interpretation Peter McCollum." could/should mean the same thing as "Warranty good for four years or forty-thousand miles. Let me step back and say something larger. A good answer to the claim performative interpretations are infinitely inclusive is that the aff is simply interpreting the words of the resolution differently (something Kirk has often defended well).cas.com What's the meaning of life? What's the meaning of meaning? Is any question really a question? What's the point of your criticism? Are you really that unclear what question is asked by a resolution that says Resolved:that the USFG should do XXXXXXX. [Lebensform means “any type of human activity that involves values. and if you want to talk a different language that's your privilege.2. followed by a plan that gives an operational example of such action? >I think it is unethical intellectually to > assume that certain things are just "given" without a thorough investigation > of what is being asked.html. January 25. or our fellow ornithologists. so to say. “Literary Theory. and yet he seems to miss an awful lot of the points that Dewey is sound on. And we share not only the language but the Lebensform which provides the situations within which different language games can operate.ndtceda.." . As you've probably gathered. Some people commenting on my general philosophical approach have noted how surprising it was for a pragmatist to be born in England.com Although this is an absolutely banal comment it's something that I think is lost in the shuffle sometimes. To presume that all interpretations and understandings are created equal is to agree that "The bird smiled when the dog ate the politician. whichever comes first.

as we saw in chapter . however. Without a celebration of the intrinsic value of politics. The image of the Lilliputians tying up the giant suggests well the strength and flexibility of a decentered constitutive politics. 1999 “The promise of Green Politics” p. neither functional nor constitutive political activity has any apparent rationale for continuing once its ends have been achieved. Endorsing state action on this topic isn’t violent – the aff can do negative state actions to reduce or restrict sq nuclear forces 2. The affirmation nonetheless suggests a particular promise of politics. 154-6 One rationale for Arendt’s emphasis on the intrinsic value of politics is that this value has been so neglected by modernity that politics itself is threatened. In a context of political the ater. Although political debate surely has extrinsic value. at least momentarily displaced by a joy of performance. Instrumental Policy debate is key to solve totalitarianism Douglas Torgerson. cannot simply be instrumentalized for the services it can render but must also be played for its own sake. green politics offers its own technology of foolish ness in response to the dysfunctions of industrialism. To value political action for its own sake. – 1nc Lewis evidence. even of public happiness. it ceases to be fun. 4. has challenged the officialdom of advanced industrial society by invoking the cultural idiom of the carnivalesque. Similarly. To the extent that this value is recognized. professor of poli sci.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 43 Framework File AT: State Focus Bad 1. moreover. Arendt’s affirmation of the apparently frivolous value of fun sharply contrasts with her earlier celebration of glory. a promise especially contained in the comic dimension of green politics. even to the point of exceeding the comfortable limits of a so-called responsible foolishness. The comic dimension of political action can also be more than episodic. of a world turned upside down to crown the fool. ultimately has to adopt a no. Although tempted by visions of tragic heroism. Green politics from its inception. green politics has also celebrated the irreverence of the comic. Debate about the implementation of policies through the government is key to avoid facism. usually vague about politics.nonsense posture while erecting clear standards by which to identify and excommunicate the enemy that is within. particularly as displayed in debate. Any game pressed into the service of external goals tends to lose its playful quality. In a functional context. But what is the intrinsic value of politics? Arendt would locate this value in the virtuosity of political action. In neither case would any need be left for what Arendt takes to be the essence of politics. A constitutive politics intent on social transformation might well be eclipsed by the coordinated direction of a cohesive social movement. It was in reflecting on the social movements of the 1960s that Arendt proclaimed the discovery that political action was fun. this does not exhaust its value. politics is inimical to authoritarianism and offers a poison pill to the totalitarian propensities of an industrialized mass society. at least have been able to recognize totalitarian dangers in a position that disparages public opinion in favor of objective management? Any attempt to plot a comprehensive strategy for a cohesive green movement. It was fun even though it sprang from moral purposes and even though political debate also enhanced the rationality of opinion formation. Green authoritarianism. proponents of deep ecology. at least has the significant extrinsic value of defending against the antipolitical inclinations of modernity. in other words. instrumentalism is often attenuated. there would be no need for debate. Distrust of institutional study and pragmatic reform leads to right-wing totalitarianism because it dismisses traditional leftist concerns that attempt to improve upon the political process and leaves the government at the whim of republican dictators. Debate is a language game that. to be played well. Running a kritik of state focus on the negative solves –it preserves education but it also avoids our standards because it preserves switch-sided debate in which the affirmative . Functional politics might well be replaced by a technocratic management of advanced industrial society. these tendencies within green politics begin to suggest an intrinsic value to politics. Highlighting the comic. 3. following in the footsteps of Hobbes. has been all too ready to reduce politics to governance.

Although constitutionalism tends to be disparaged by contemporary political science. 2k (Political Theory and Partisan Politics. Our intp solves—education through participation in policy debates is essential to check manipulations of the govt by powerful private interests Donald S Lutz. and a least eighty more who have become important political activists. but of the more than eight thousand students I have taught. a constitution is the very place where justice and power are married. we converse with future leaders. pg 36-7) The position argued here is that to the extent such a discussion between political theorists and politicians does not take place we damage the prospects for marrying justice with power. Since the hope of uniting justice with power was the reason for creating political philosophy in the first place.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 44 Framework File begins with a policy advocacy AT: State Focus Bad 5. The conversation between politician and political theorist stands at the center of their respective callings. Since it is difficult to predict who will. Aristotle first taught us that a constitution must be matched to the realities of the political system – the character. by itself for marrying justice with power in the long run . best students. there is an important. hold power. More specifically. but also that reliance upon the successful civic education of the elite is not very effective. or plan for a way of life should address the improvement of people toward the best life possible which requires that constitutionalism be addressed by political theorists who can hold out a vision of justice and the means for advancing toward it. politics tends to become discourse by the most powerful about how to implement their preferred regime. The indeterminate future of any given student is one argument against directing our efforts at civic education forward the few. A constitutional perspective suggests not only that those in power rely upon support and direction from a broad segment of the public. fears. and I could not have predicted which five it would be. I know of at least forty nine who later held a major elective office. needs and environment of the people – which requires that constitutionalism be addressed by men and women practiced in the art of the possible. Political leaders drawn from a people who do not understand what is at stake are neither inclined nor equipped to join the conversation. political theorists need to pursue the dialogue as part of what justifies their intellectual project. Aristotle also taught us that a constitution the politeia. Overlooked is the central need to educate as many young people as possible. Although the focus of this chapter is on a direct conversation between theorist and politician. and because the various peoples who take seriously the marriage of justice with power are overwhelmingly committed to a non-elitist. hopes. As we teach. This comes down to about five students per teaching year . it is the realm where force and violence are replaced by debates and discussion about how to implement power. we should not overlook or minimize our importance as teachers of the many.. has a special status in this central conversion. Perhaps not everyone who teaches political theory has had the same experience. and a constitution. Too often the conversation between politician and political theorist is described in terms of a direct one between philosophers and those holding power. broad involvement of the population. in fact. even though it reflects only a part of the reality of a political system. indirect aspect of the conversation that should not be overlooked – classroom teaching. Politics is the realm of power. Without the meaningful injection of considerations of justice.

citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes. when firm and widespread. while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. This duty. 56-57 To answer this question. act from and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other peoples their reasons for pursuing or revising a people’s foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other societies. it is perhaps more appropriate to the times in which we live than the Rawlsian model it rewrites. as so very often happens he occasion demands it. . as well as candidates for public office. 1999. we say. Once again. bad-ass. as before. they would think it most reasonable to enact. Out of these diverse lines of connection across multiple lines of difference. and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason. of course. The very indispensability and contestability of contending onto-theo and onto-non-theistic stances in the late-modern world supports the case for cultivating relations of agonistic respect and selective collaboration between multiple. the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators. for in that case it would be incompatible with freedom of speech. The Law of Peoples. a political ethic. an ethic in which politics play a constitutive role and a politics in which ethics plays a constitutive role. a politics of creative coalitions might even be forge to enable action in concert through the state to support the economic and cultural preconditions of justice and pluralism Citizens who think of themselves as policymakers is key to the sustainability of liberal democratic systems John Rawls. ideally. It is critical ideal. forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. When firm and widespread. or satisfied. whenever chief executives and legislators. As such. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty. Similarly. As for private citizens. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason. like other political rights and duties. and other government officials. each of which draws pertinent aspects of its fundamental doctrine into public life when. And several of which also invoke the essential contestability of the ethical sources they honor the most. the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and legislators. provide an accurate description of the contemporary condition in America. and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples. is an intrinsically moral duty. that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were executives and legislators and ask themselves what foreign policy supported by what considerations they would think it most reasonable to advance. supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity. the ideal of the public reason of free and equal peoples is realized. we say that. overlapping constituencies. then. p. is part of the political and social basis of peace and understanding among peoples.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 45 Framework File AT: STATE FOCUS BAD Our interpretation promoste a non-exclusionary political ethic that solves your turn—the whole point of citizen policy debate is that anyone can engage it William Connolly 2k (Political Theory and Partisan Politics pg 168-9) This is. with its steep inequalities and large classes of people closed out of effective participation in political life. It is presented not as the standard to which every ethic must appeal but as an ethical sensibility able to enter into critical dialogue and selective collaboration with a variety of other perspectives. It does not.

Think of debates like chairs. Thus. In these pages. Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the vagueness of a word or phrase. is the set of features which are shared by everything to which it applies. “Definition and Meaning”." I have made a (probably pointless) stipulative definition. “Definition and Meaning”. Kemerling. If the USPS announces that "proper notification of a change of address" means that an official form containing the relevant information must be received by the local post office no later than four days prior to the effective date of the change. it's useful to distinguish definitions of several kinds: A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. (Garth. http://www. These precising definitions begin with the lexical definition of a term but then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. the intension of the word "chair" is (something like) "a piece of furniture designed to be sat upon by one person at a time.unless there is some commonality in the general idea of what a debate (or a chair) is.htm) The extension of a general term is just the collection of individual things to which it is correctly applied.com/lg/e05. Thus.the most predictable way to interpret the debate-space is first to take common usage and then to propose more specific and narrow stipulations.com/lg/e05. it has offered a (possibly useful) precising definition. there are no existing standards against which to compare it.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 46 Framework File Predictable Ground key to Education It is necessary to arrive at an agreement about what the resolution means before any active discussion can take place.philosophypages. The intension of a general term. Since these explicit accounts of the meaning of a word or phrase can be offered in distinct contexts and employed in the service of different goals. 97 professor of philosophy at Newberry College. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term. Here. Kemerling." .htm) The most common way of preventing or eliminating differences in the use of languages is by agreeing on the definition of our terms. If I now decree that we will henceforth refer to Presidential speeches delivered in French as "glorsherfs. a stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a completely new term. creating a usage that had never previously existed. 97 professor of philosophy at Newberry College.philosophypages. (Garth. on the other hand. http://www. my definitions of technical terms of logic are lexical because they are intended to inform you about the way in which these terms are actually employed within the discipline of logic. so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it captures that usage. the lexical part must be correct and the stipulative portion should appropriately reduce the troublesome vagueness. and the definition is always correct (though it might fail to win acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless). the extension of the word "chair" includes every chair that is (or ever has been or ever will be) in the world. pretty soon we could all be sitting on tables. Since the goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term. At the other extreme.

however. especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. the politician can be educated by the possibilities that the political theorist can articulate. and about existing political systems. loss of identity. just as the political theorist can be educated by the relative success the normative analysis has in "setting the hook" of interest among nonpolitical theorists. Much political theory involves the careful. For example. visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate.5 However. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis. to the right. t A non-ironic reading of Plato's Republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political philosophy. since politics is the realm of the possible not the realm of logical clarity. competitive analysis of what a given ideal state of affairs entails. a preference for the lives of mollusks over that of humans. Professor of Political Science at Houston. 39-40 Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels—discourse about the ideal. At this point. but not an unalloyed good. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question "Is this ideal worth pursuing?" Before the question can be pursued. there are now definite limits on where logic can take us. for example. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask. analysis leaves the realm of pure logic and enters the realm of the logic of human longing.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 47 Framework File Limits key to Politics Limits key: political philosophy is a question concerning whether or not an ideal is desirable. merging into one another. but it also requires the theorist to have enough humility to remember that. Of course. nor in its compelling hold on the imagination. the ideal state of affairs must be clarified. imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. This is not the case. The theorist cannot appeal to such values if she or he is to attract an audience of politicians. then speaking the truth is a good. In this way. p. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. p. is an ideal form of government. to name just a few possibilities. lies not in its formal logical implications. that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. Limits key to Inclusion Limits are key to make openness meaningful: the context in which speech occurs it speech’s only source of meaning Mary Dietz. 2000. but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated. not the mere formulation of infinite ideals. and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. 131-2 If another of the imperatives of the political world is to avoid becoming contemptible. and to a significant extent indeterminate. psychic isolation. too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy. 2000. not in the moral vision of the non-theorist. enslavement. Donald S. a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. about the best possible in the real world. requires the political theorist to be fearless in pursuing normative logic. once the ideal is clarified. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities. Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. if a non-theorist cannot be led toward an ideal. and as Plato shows in his dialogues the discussion between the philosopher and the politician will quickly terminate if he or she cannot convincingly demonstrate the connection between the political ideal being developed and natural human passions. At the other end is the perfect dystopia. to that extent they will properly conclude that political philosophers have little to tell them. and anxiety. Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will. Appeals to self-destruction. aspiration. Moral discourse conditioned by the ideal. probably because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination. At the end. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. yet distinguishable. the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. However. The paradoxes of politics tend to wreak havoc with the principles of . the fault may well lie in the theory. The process of pre-theoretical analysis. This realm of discourse. Among other things it allows him to show that anyone who wishes to pursue a state of affairs closer to that summed up in the concept of the General Will must successfully develop a civil religion. To the extent politicians believe theorists who tell them that pre-theoretical clarification of language describing an ideal is the essence and sum total of political philosophy. less happiness rather than more. a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end.4 Put another way. are doomed to failure. comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked. but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of actual political systems. if it is to be successful. Unlike the clarification stage where anything that is logical is possible. dominated by the logic of humanly worthwhile goals. The analysis is now limited by the interior parameters of the human heart (more properly the human psyche) to which the theorist must appeal. requires that the theorist carefully observe the responses of others in order not to be seduced by what is merely logical as opposed to what is humanly rational. opaque. Lutz. the political philosopher will begin to articulate and assess the reasons why we might want to pursue such an ideal.

coherence. and truth. coherence. The point is not that the intellectual lives in a communicative world of validity. One might say. that speaking the truth is an indispensable element in politics. or even a neighborhood caucus. coherence. 219). an election campaign. he referred to the "qualitatively different responsibility" that the intellectual has for "the validity. it is one thing to encourage (or even insist upon) the intellectual's responsibility to keep providing us with various practical (or even imaginary) means for judging the health or sickness of the body politic. or moral conversation. you lose their respect.32 Thus in politics an openness toward the opinions of others is sometimes not a condition of mutual respect. intellectual coherence." as opposed to the politician. but not the point of it. . or the enactment of principles of discourse ethics. 87). It may be a peculiarity of the political domain that "when everyone can tell you the truth. as opposed to a press conference.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 48 Framework File communication because.) The politician also inhabits a world of validity. but antithetical to it. and truth of what he says and writes. then. are ineliminable aspects of collective action. To make communicative action. as Merleau-Ponty observes. Yet validity. and truth take on different colorations working in the context peculiar to politics—where strategic imperatives and the exercise of power. The supervenience of strategic (speech) action on communicative (speech) action in politics that I have been alluding to here is what I also think Timothy Garton Ash meant to convey when. who invariably works in half-truth. in the aftermath of the PEN Congress. and quite another to expect the politician—or the citizen—to "live" them. and truth while the politician does not. (Although Habermas's ideal communication situation might stand a better chance of realization in a scholarly conference or a graduate seminar." but it is a peculiarity that discourse ethicists ignore to their peril (Machiavelli 1950. Hence. conflicts of interest and drives of ambition. "politics is a relationship to [people]men rather than principles" (Merleau-Ponty 1964. the end or goal of politics is to mistake the nature of working in half-truth and thereby misconstrue "the milieu that is proper to politics" itself.

2000. violence or recrimination that squelch that openness. in effect. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. 179 To put this point another way. one must ban the acts of political intimidation. It will not do. and applied to new problems and new situations. adapted. If one would embrace tolerance. to be shored up. rules. one must be dogmatically closed to the principles of fascism. for example. And if one would ensure that citizens have reason to engage in political contest—that it has practical meaning and import for them—one must establish and maintain the rules and regulations and laws that protect democracy. rethought. While the ambiguists have commendable reasons for wanting to avoid closure—to avoid specifying what is not allowed or celebrated in their political vision—they need to say "no" to some things in order to be open to things in general. they are such valuable and yet vulnerable goods that they require the most unflagging and firm support that we can give them. p. these structures of openness cannot simply be put into place and forgotten. it turns out that to be open to all things is. closure. In short. to be retaught and reenforced among the old.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 49 Framework File Limits and Education key to Politics Rules good: even openness requires limits. . nor will it do to talk about resisting or subverting them. openness requires certain clear limits. and as the political world changes. If one would support openness in political speech and action. rules and closure. They need to be taught to new generations of citizens. to simply assume that these structures are permanently viable and secure without significant work or justification on our part. then. They need to say "no" to certain forms of contest. one must set up strict legal protections around such activities. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M. to be open to nothing. one must rigidly reject intolerance. Shared conventions form the basis for the possibility of political discussion and participation. If one would expand deliberation and disruption. Ruth Lessl Shively. Indeed. And to make matters more complex. if only to protect contest in general. For if one is to be open to the principles of democracy.

<continued…>Nietzsche and Foucault draw their respective ethics of reciprocal generosity between diverse constituencies from existential care for the fundamental abundance of being. authority. first cultivates care "for what exists and might exist" and then struggles to identify new ways in which diverse constituencies might coexist and interact with less violence in the same social matrix. Both are glad of that. judgments. Pluralism p. Nietzsche. But he seeks to draw sustenance and inspiration from the rich diversity of being before closing on a systemic set of limitations. in their different ways. The issue is pertinent because in a political culture of deep pluralism – a culture in which people honor different existential faiths and final sources of morality – different images of the sacred unavoidably and repeatedly bump into each other. It is well to recall. Lucretius. strive to cultivate more deeply and broadly a care for the diversity of life which—according to these faiths— already inhabits almost everyone part of the time to some degree or other. you might say. That intensification translates the paradox of sovereignty into a potential disaster. familiarly enough.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 50 Framework File AT: Limits Are Biopower Foucault would vote neg—even he recognized that limited theory to practical implementation was an inevitable and significant consideration William Connolly. And each himself was accuse of blasphemy because of that very analysis. He combats. however. There is no god or transcendental imperative available to either from which a final command to be moral could be issued. 2005. the Schmittian aesthetic of unity by affirming the wonder of the sublime. however. Rousseau. and Merleau-Ponty. Both. for instance. Agamben also contends that biopolitics has intensified today. among others. He knows that eventually he will bump into the political necessity of delimitation and exclusion. and Freud. Spinoza. Spinoza. and standards into the affective life of participants. often intensify the demand because of the very ambivalence that they themselves feel. What is needed today is a caution relaxation of discourse about the sacred. Every way of life is biocultural and biopolitical. or command. Those demanding punishment of others who defile what they take to be sacred. all appreciate the layering of culture into biological life. one that allows us to come to terms affirmatively with the irreducible plurality of sacred objects in late modern life. So each pursues an ethic of cultivation in which care for the abundance of being precedes the assumption of obligation and responsibility rather than the other way around. None. writing at different periods. an ambivalence concealed through fear of retribution by God or their compatriots. . With respect to sovereignty it is important to underline the significance of acts by which deep conflicts are settled. Michel Foucault. Augustine. Neither tries to secure the epistemological necessity of the care he cultivates. an abundance that is never entirely exhausted by any particular organization of cultural life. 138-9 There is often ambivalence in people’s orientation to the sacred. They treat the biological not merely as the genetic or the fixed but also as the introjections of culture into intertwined layers of corporeality. but it is equally important not to elevate them to the level of the sacred. that every way of life involves the infusion of norms. Each is moved by an existential source of ethical inspiration and motivation rather than by a transcendental source of moral love. Prof of Polisci at Johns Hopkins. read the punishment of blasphemy in this way. says that homo sacer is part of the sacred. They then try to move that care in specific directions.

It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. There can be no argument except on the premise. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In other words. and within a context. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. on generalities but not on specifics. contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony. In what follows. Resisters. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest—that consensus kills debate. the reverse is true. one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. In most cases. or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. This means. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. In short. contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 51 Framework File Prefer Policy: Fairness The fairness of the affirmative’s advocacy must precede consideration of its merits or else all contestation is meaningless Ruth Shively. on principles but not on their applications. of agreement. In particular. they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. therefore we can argue about them. At the very least. . 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180) The ambiguists must say "no" to—they must reject and limit—some ideas and actions. and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. demonstrators. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. and so on. In other words. In other words. In a basic sense. that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest. we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. our agreements are highly imperfect. we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. however. first. We agree on some matters but not on others. the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. Prof Politics at Tx A&M. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect—if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints.

the implicit use of force implies paternalism. the virtue of being ready to participate in such a discourse. Questions and answers depend on a game—a game that is at once pleasant and difficult—in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of the dialogue. But the generalization of the practice of rational discourse already presupposes the presence of this virtue in a considerable number of the members of a body politic. an enemy who is wrong. The explicit use of force implies dictatorship. To live up to these norms requires a just procedure. then. as interlocutor. and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. debate is valuable because it forces us to defend perspectives we don’t always believe. The just procedure demands that everyone concerned should be ready to enter into a rational discourse. It would be good for the Fort to defend the Enlightenment sometimes Fairness is a pre-requisite to effective and relevant citizenship Agnes Heller. the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced. explicitly or at least implicitly. Both dictatorship and paternalism contradict the universal values of freedom and life. and so on. on the other hand. For him. the person he confronts is not a partner in the search for the truth but an adversary. social arrangement. the universal norms ‘equal freedom for all’ and ‘equal life-chances for all’. to emphasize different postulates. The outstanding intellectual virtue of the good citizen in the modern age. In the serious play of questions and answers. what just institutions are or may be. Paul Rabinow. Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. who is harmful. The latter can only be achieved through the use of force. to require more information. the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him. proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. even if not to the same degree. [she] he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself. law and the like participates in a rational discourse concerning the rightness or justice of such institutions. to perceive a contradiction. to point out faulty reasoning. Ed. by the logic of his [her] own discourse. p. and Ferenc Fehér. A procedure is just if everyone concerned with an institution. although it is based on the mobilization of certain innate qualities as all virtues are. This readiness is not an innate quality. . is the virtue of participating in rational discourse. The polemicist. and whose very existence constitutes a threat. p. On principle. As for the person answering the questions. formerly Professor in the Humanities at the New School for Social Research. and no one is authorized to impose his/her particular views of these on others. Ethics Subjectivity and Truth.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 52 Framework File Fairness outweighs Fairness has to come first. he [she] is tied to what he [she] has said earlier. It frames our discussions and is critical to our ability to engage their argument to begin with. and by the acceptance of dialogue [she] he is tied to the questioning of the other. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied. 1988. Fairness is perquisite to meaningful discussion Michel Foucault. 111-112. The virtue of being ready to enter a rational discourse is enhanced as with all other virtues through its practice. in the work of reciprocal elucidation. Volume One. from any possible dialogue. No one can determine for himself or herself what good or just norms or rules are. More importantly. 1997. Hannah Arendt Professor of Philosophy at the New School for Social Research. The Postmodern Political Condition. They depend only on the dialogue situation. arrangements and laws. he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 53 Framework File .

rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Once again. they would think it most reasonable to enact. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason. This duty. as well as candidates for public office. as before. like other role-playing simulations. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. act from and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other peoples their reasons for pursuing or revising a people’s foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other societies. The Law of Peoples. Debate’s presentation of alternatives and consequences distinguish its educational value from other forms of roleplaying. debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. we say. supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity. p. unlike other simulation games. ideally. 56-57 To answer this question. when firm and widespread. debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal. whenever chief executives and legislators. Debates. bad-ass. while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason. forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples. is an intrinsically moral duty. we say that. the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators. Christopher C. the ideal of the public reason of free and equal peoples is realized. for in that case it would be incompatible with freedom of speech. like other political rights and duties. the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and legislators. 1999. . that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were executives and legislators and ask themselves what foreign policy supported by what considerations they would think it most reasonable to advance. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty. or satisfied. of International law at Georgetown) Spring 1999 “teaching international law: views from an international relations political scientist” ILSA journal of international & comparative law 5 ILSA J Int’l & Comp L 377 Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. is part of the political and social basis of peace and understanding among peoples. help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. Similarly. citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes. and other government officials. When firm and widespread. Joyner (prof.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 54 Framework File Roleplaying key to Education Instrumental affirmation of a policy through role-playing is a prerequisite to liberal democratic participation John Rawls. But. As for private citizens.

But why dredge up this event from the archive of communication education? First. cultural and affective relationships. Greene & Hicks. “LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens”. 100 MAD) In 1954. No.org 2004). The emphasis on the linguistic dimension of communication tends to privilege a methodological and political commitment to read the circulation of power as an ideological phenomenon mediated by the process of generating and controlling the meaning of contested values. For example. In place of the assumption that a debater believes in what he or she argues. its circulation as an object and instrument for regulating the conduct of citizensubjects. pp. 2 Therefore. we will demonstrate how debating both sides as a technique of moral development works alongside specific aesthetic modes of class subjectivity increasingly associated with the efforts of the knowledge class to legitimize the process of judgment. refused to affirm the national debate resolution: ‘Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the People’s Republic of China’. the Former Soviet Union. since 1994. As an alternative to this vision of a ‘communicational cultural studies’ (Grossberg 1997) this paper highlights the ‘technical dimension’ of speech. the US military academies. the value of debate rests on its claim to cultivate the ethical attributes required for democratic citizenship. in turn. debating both sides grooms one to appreciate the process of debate as a method of LOST CONVICTIONS 1 0 1 democratic decision-making. instrument and field of cultural governance. to write a history of debate as a cultural technology reveals how power works productively by augmenting the human capacity for speech/communication. identities. Furthermore. Therefore. The second reason to write about the debating both sides controversy is because it highlights how communication becomes an object. In turn. Debating both sides reveals how the globalization of liberalism is less about a set of universal norms and more about the circulation and uptake of cultural technologies.1 In Foucauldian fashion. We argue the debating both sides controversy articulates debate to Cold War liberal discourses of ‘American exceptionalism’ by folding the norm of free and full expression onto the soul of the debater. The problem of speaking in favour of the diplomatic recognition of ‘Red China’ came amidst an acute moment in the US containment strategy of domestic and international communism (Ross 1989).. Due to the growing prevalence of ‘switch-side debating’. . Cultural Studies Vol. Director of Undergraduate Studies. The promotion and circulation of debate as a technique of democratic decision-making suggests a need to explore the history of its ethical problematization. those challenges to debate’s civic function require special consideration in order to assess the role of communication in the selffashioning of liberal citizens. These ethics allows us to examine the specifics of a subject universally. 1 January. a debater willing to debate both sides becomes a representative of the free world. economic. since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been a vigorous trade in debate as a tool for democratic education. Debating both sides does so by de-coupling the sincerity principle from the arguments presented by a debater. This.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 55 Framework File Switch Sides Good Policy debate on both sides of one issue is the only way to represent the ethics of the free world. sparked a national controversy that included discussion in the New York Times (Burns 1954). Rosteck 1999).3 This paper argues that the strong liberal defence of debating both sides separates speech from conviction. a procedure that required teams to debate both sides of the resolution in consecutive debate rounds at intercollegiate debate tournaments. Moreover. 2005 (Ronald Walter & Darrin. At the heart of the ‘debate about debate’ (Ehninger 1958) was the idea of conviction and how it should guide the moral economy of liberal citizenship. the controversy manifested itself as an ethical concern about the relationship between public speaking and the moral attributes of good citizenship. the International Debate Education Association ‘has introduced debate to secondary schools and universities throughout Central and Eastern Europe. we are interested in the ethical problematization of debating both sides so that we might learn how this pedagogical technique organizes forms of democratic subjectification available in the present (Foucault 2001). and a host of other colleges. we approach the debating both sides controversy in terms of what Michel Foucault (2001) calls a ‘history of thought’ _/ a ‘history of how people become anxious about this or that’ (p. Central Asia and Haiti and continues to grow throughout the world’ (idebate. that is. and symbols (Nelson & Gaonkar 1998. an under-appreciated aspect of the productive power of cultural governance resides in the generation of subjects who come to understand themselves as speaking subjects willing to regulate and transform their communicative behaviours for the purpose of improving their political. As a cultural technology. often with the hope of inculcating students with the norms necessary for deliberative democracy. For us. 19. 74).

Morrison Debate coach at Pittsburgh. not because it invites a relativistic view of the world. and familiarity with significant issues provided by switch-side debate. a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh Carly Woods She has been a debate coach and is in her fifth year as a graduate student at the PhD level. which followed shortly after the Wallace and Murrow statements. It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility. Switchside debate is essential to promoting value tolerance and fairness in the world Muir 1993 (Star A.pdf Accessed 6/29/09. in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. to elaborate completely. This is possible only when the intellectual act of stepping outside of our own systems of behef has become second nature. and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo. Mitchell." v26.’’7 Just as walking a mile in unfamiliar shoes lends perspective. at its core. by regard for your own fame.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 56 Framework File Switch-Sides Good: Stops Otherization Switch-side debating breaks down us-them binaries. is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh Catherine E. a routine and ordinary responsibility of everyday living. switch-side debating increases appreciation of contrary opinions as the debater ‘‘tries on’’ an unfamiliar idea rather than relying on simplification. values of tolerance and fairness. .6 The timing of the red-baiting senator’s political implosion.^"* but switch-side debating fosters this type of role playing and generates reasoned moral positions based in part on values of tolerance and fairness. Stephen Llano . because he supports the recognition of Communist China. as an alternative to dogmatism. involves critical assessment and evaluation of arguments. Morality. are idealistic in nature. al. while the co-authors each contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design. Proponents of debating both sides observe that the debaters should prepare the best possible case they can. suggests that the great 1954 ‘‘debate about debate’’ indeed may have helped rein in McCarthyism run amok. Pittsburgh University. and therefore susceptible to competitive impulses and techniques (such as rapid speaking and a multiplicity of arguments). all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska refused to affirm the resolution.^^ This process. We must come to see how often our claims are compelling only when expressed in our own egocentric view. But this outcome seems paradoxical. given the facts and information available to them. research.is fostered rather than hampered by empowering students to form their own moral identity.does have its drawbacks. These problems. the truth that emerges is more defensible and more justifiable. and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work:Now. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC. Neither academic schooling nor socialization has yet addressed this moral responsibility. Director of Debate Department of Rhetoric. the case as it stands against yourself. http://www. How can an activity that gives voice to extreme views moderate extremism? Speech professor Jeffrey Auer’s 1954 statement may hold the key: ‘‘A person. but because in a framework of equal access to ideas and equal opportunities for expression. is preferable. you are saddled with the side you disapprove. empathy. ‘‘a pro-recognition stand by men wearing the country’s uniforms would lead to misunderstanding on the part of our friends abroad and to distortion by our enemies. . it is by nature competitive. sound convictions are distinguishable from emphatic convictions by a consideration of all sides of a moral stance. Yes. there may be a dangerous sense of competitive pride that comes with successfully advocating a position against one's own views. or rejection. Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion. They have a much greater chance of success. who backed Wallace’s position in an edition of the See it Now television program seen by millions.4 His firm and principled resistance is documented in an official statement emphasizing that ‘‘inherent in the controversy’’ over the 1954 debate resolution ‘‘is an alarming distrust of the processes essential to a free society.Assistant Professor. but the central tendencies of switch-side debate are in line with convictions built on empathic appreciation for alternative points of view and a reasoned assessment of arguments both pro and con. Moral education is not a guaranteed formula for rectitude. In his descriptionof debating The societies. it is a process of critical thinking not available with many traditional teaching methods. In fact.288) Switch-side debate is not simply a matter of speaking persuasively or organizing ideas clearly (although it does involve these). John Rief. implicit in the metaphor of debate as game. Communication and Theater. however. and there are ex-debaters who excuse their deceptive practices by saying "I'm just doing my job. It tends to overemphasize logic and tactics and to downplay personal feelings.’’2 A predominant military concern was that. We can do this if we learn the art of using concepts without living in them. the US Naval Academy and. to argue out. however.’’3 Karl Wallace." Ultimately.'^ .pitt. however. 2007. ‘‘the US Military Academy. he is a Chinaman.and it can desensitize debaters to real human problems and needs through continual labeling and discussion of abstract issues on paper. Tolerance.under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! . n4. isn’t a communist.Contemporary debate. English et.and so you are forced." We must progressively learn to recognize how often the concepts of others are discredited by the concepts we use to justify ourselves to ourselves. led work on this DAWG essay. Some complained that ‘‘discussions of this topic were channeled to bring out criticism’’ of McCarthy himself.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG. even in the context of a vigorous defense. debating both sides encourages participants to dismantle absolutist ‘‘us versus them’’ dichotomies. TAZ) Given the switch-side norm of academic debate and the highly controversial nature of the resolution. Gordon R. but of understanding and mobilizing arguments to make an effective case. 5/16/2007. and writing. p.’’5 The fierce controversy even drew in journalist Edward R. This may explain why those invested in the stability of such polar categories find debate so threatening. any more than because he supports the recognition of Communist China. an emerging focal point of controversy in late twentieth-century American culture. as the rule stands. then president of the scholarly organization that now sponsors this journal. are more than matched by the conceptual flexibility. to feel with. "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate. reduction. Murrow. was pressured heavily to change the China topic. (Eric. subsequently.

Even within the context of a "see what sticks" paradigm. We then vote on the most popular and intriguing topics. waxing philosophical robs us of learning useful things through debate.These problems are minimized in the debate setting. Each group then meets and negotiates the positions."^^ Edelstein discusses two forms of segmentation: division between realms of school knowledge (e. Dickson. birth control. Such advocacy requires explicit analysis of values and the decision criteria for evaluating them. . we usually end up with three or four teams of six to eight members who have chosen a topic. Debaters build an extraordinarily complex knowledge base by debating on both sides of an issue Muir 1993 (Star A." v26. they begin to realize the complexity of most contemporary problems and to appreciate the worth of a multivalued orientation. and that application of these skills to solving real problems is diminished if it is viewed as a game. offer alternative value Structures (social order. in the 1960s and 1970s has had the effect of opening up each topic to many different case approaches. Ehninger's point. and of relativism. and obscenity. we quickly brainstorm the pros and cons to make sure it is a viable topic for argument. and defend the criteria through which such choices are made (utilitarian vs. should recognize Red China"). Students feel grown-up. As debaters analyze the potential affirmative cases and the potential negative cases. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC. but they learn that the skills involved are still the same and investigating the other position is a way to explore one's personal view. these arguments require debaters to assess and evaluate value structures opposite of their own personal feelings about their right to privacy. as it addresses topics of considerable importance in a real world setting. however. Social coercion. Depending on the size of the class. The experience of speaking from a knowledge base and knowing why one feels as one does is powerful." or small and specific cases. discussing issues their parents and legislators might discuss and knowing that they are conversant on the subject. the second and third options are also often used and are of critical importance in the development of cognitive skills associated with moral judgment. in attacking a case that restricts police powers and upholds a personal right to privacy. Adopting a value just because everyone else does may be the surest way of losing a debate. is minimized in such a context because of the competitive pressures. as they debate both sides of a proposition under consideration. care for the elderly. that is. is the separation of the educational process from the real world. tradeoffs with the first amendment. and they are broad enough to force students to address a variety of value appeals.is largely a reflection on institutional segmentation. Developing "Real-World Intelligence": Teaching Argumentative Writing through Debate Randi Dickson. n4. less critical than emotive.S. required to defend both sides of many issues because the value criteria change from round to round and evolve over the year. These topics are notable because they exceed the knowledge boundaries of particular school subjects. including the possibility of negative counter plans. The explosion of "squirrels. for example. they learn not only that most problems of contemporary affairs have more than one side but also that even one side of a proposition embodies a considerable range of values. English Journal. is a particular benefit of debate. Some critics question whether moral school knowledge "may be quite separate from living moral experience in a similar way as proficiency in speaking one's native language generally appears quite separate from the knowledge of formal grammar imparted by school. homelessness. pornography. cases include search and seizure issues. On the privacy topic. confronted with a case they beheve in.g. especially as part of a team effort. debaters assigned to the negative side have several options: presenta morass of arguments to see what arguments "stick. National topics are no longer of the one-case variety (as in 1955's "the U. Students seem to enjoy debating. they reach into issues of everyday life. still occur in the group setting. trade policy. debaters might question the reasoning of scholars and justices in raising privacy rights to such significant heights (analyzing Griswold v. of isolation from the real world. especially where advocacy is not aligned with personal belief. The multiphcity of issues pays special dividends for debaters The development of flexibility in coping with the intertwining of issues is an essential component in the interconnection of knowledge.The first issue is one of effectiveness: Do clarification activities achieve the espoused goals? Social coercion and peer pressure.The melding of different areas of knowledge. and the right to privacy. for example.^^ Likewise. the focus of clarification exercises is arguably less analytic than expressive.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 57 Framework File Switch-Sides Good: Education Realist scenarios and debates provide the best real world education. abortion.. or peer pressure to adopt certain value structures. sexual privacy. and I take a few minutes to discuss each one and its "debatability". Recent college and high school topics include energy policy. history separated from science) and between school and living experience (institutional learning separate from everyday life). and is a major rationale for switch-side debate. I ask each student to come in with one or two current and controversial subjects. p. A view of debate as a form of moral education can be developed by addressing questions of efficacy. We put these on the board. leaving the individual choice of values an indoctrination of sorts.288) They learn to look at a problem from many points of view. A significant concern here is how such learning about morality will be used in the rest of a student's life. The modeling of the debate makes everyone eager to participate. and these objections have direct relevance to the issue of switch-side debate.^' The comparison between moral education and debate is useful because it contextualizes the process of moral development within an educational setting.^^ The expression of individual preferences may be guided by simple reaction rather than by rational criteria. Connecticut and other landmark cases). While the first option is certainly exercised with some frequency. For example. 2k4 Assistant Prof at Queens Collage. or attack the value structure of the affirmative and be more effective in defending a particular hierarchy of values. drug control). For the next round.In contemporary debate. "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate. A second objection to debate as values clarification. information privacy." concede the problem and offer a "counterplan" as a better way of solving the problem. prison reform. Sometimes students have to be on a side they do not personally agree with. Several objections have been raised about the practice of moral education. deontological premises). and they feel empowered by becoming knowledgeable on a subject that the outside world has been debating as well. consonant with Ehninger's concerns about gamesmanship. that debate becomes a pastime.

strong beliefs. n4. This familiarity is directly related to the motivation and the ability to get involved switchside debate develops habits of the mind and instills a lifelong pattern of critical assessment."" It is no wonder. "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate. the affirmative may argue a "turnaround" to the disadvantage. Stewart. and because they know how to find out more information about these issues. assimilation. ex-debaters frequently pohcy. stress is not laid on getting the speaker to think rightly in regard to the merits of either side of these questions—but to think accurately on both sides. the link can be actions that push us over some "threshold" to an impact. yet certain values get placed above others as a matter of procedure. Switch-side debating is not peripheral to this value. A final indictment of values clarification education is that it encourages relativism. Where scientific studies predominate in justifying a particular policy. Where clarification ostensibly allows any value position. international relations. or it can be a "linear" relationship where each increase causes an increase in the impact. This conceptual development is a basis for the formation of ideas and relational thinking necessary for effective public decision making. responding in part to Roosevelt's indictment. The process of ethical inquiry is central to such moral education. with relativism—the doctrine that there are no right and wrong answers in ethics or religion—is perhaps the most serious ideological barrier to the implementation of moral education today. A pluralistic pedagogy does not imply that all views are acceptable:It is morally and pedagogically correct to teach about ethics. Both features need to be exphcitly addressed since both reflect directly on debate as a tool of moral pedagogy. and evaluation of information that is not required in most classrooms. public policy. are all significant career options for debaters. or deserving of respect. Scriven argues that the "confusion oi pluralism. for example. and thoughtfulness. A thorough research effort is guided in large part by the knowledge that both sides of the issues must be covered." but they are also paradoxically integrative as well. it implies neither tolerance of <CONTINUED> . and so on. This "hidden curriculum" of values clarification formulates responses to situations while decrying such pre-judgment. Such specialized jargon may separate debate talk from other types of discourse.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 58 Framework File Switch-Sides Good: Policymaking Switchside debate will help debaters influence voting trends. Although the stereotype is that debaters become lawyers." and is enhanced by requiring debaters to investigate both sides of an issue."^^ O'Neill. Laycock and Scales. Though listening to debaters talk is somewhat disconcerting for a lay person. and the skills of moral analysis rather than doctrine. the viability of theological grounds for public A primary value of switch-side debate. iterated the basic position in 1931. Pluralism requires respecting the right to hold divergent beliefs.He also characterizes values clarification as possessing a hidden set of values (an absolute relativism) that includes purposefulness. but the allowance of just any position is not. cognitive-development progresses from individualism to social conformity to social contract theory to universal ethical principles. claiming it as an advantage for the plan. then. among others. that surveys of Congress and other policy-making institutions reveal a high percentage of exdebaters. Consider the terminology of the "disadvantage" against the affirmative's plan: There is a "link" between the plan and some effect. and to set out the arguments for and against tolerance and pluralism. The jargon. Skill in the use in issues and controversies of public importance. or "impact". Business management. the link from the affirmative plan to the impact must be "unique. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC. Instruction and practice in debate should give young men this skill. and situational. Dell writes.288) Debaters can become more involved than uninformed citizens because they know about important issues. including research and policy evaluation. organization. but the ideas represented here are also significant and useful for analyzing the relative desirability of public pohcies. The first response to the charge of relativism is that switch-side debate respects the existence of divergent beliefs. personal. but focuses attention on assessing the validity of opposing belief systems. All of this is undone if you also imply that all the various incompatible views about abortion or pornography or war are equally right. or likely to be right. strategies. In obvious ways.'^ The argument that debate isolates participants from the "real world" is not sustained in practice when debaters. Here is where cognitive-development diverges from the formal aims of values clarification.'" Most classes provide information. government. Debating a ban on the teaching of creationism in public schools. research in cultural studies may be necessary to counter the adoption of the policy. A third point about isolation from the real world is that of facts and inferences available may be gained on either side of a question without regard to convictions. Where a particular controversy might involve affirmative research among conservative sources. for example. switch-side debate illustrates the same dilemma: No one value is seen as correct and unassailable. sees value clarification as individualistic. teaching. as they will be better prepared to make important political decisions Muir 1993 (Star A. forces research on the scientific consensus on evolution. There really are threshold and brink issues in evaluating public policies. of the proper tolerance for diversity of ideas. Students who have debated both sides of a topic are better voters. familiarity with these concepts is an essential means of connecting the research they do with the evaluation of options confronting citizens and decision makers in political and social contexts. and technique.Even the speciahzed jargon required to play the game successfully has benefits in terms of analyzing and understanding society's problems. because of "their habit of analyzing both sides before forming a conclusion. Playing the game of debate involves certain skills. respond that debate was the single most educational activity of their college careers. A second response to the charge of segmentation is the proclivity of debaters to become involved in public policy and international affairs. strategy. but debate compels the use. are consistently effective in integrating these skills into success on the job." sophistry) are largely outweighed by the benefit of such mental habits throughout an individual's life." in that the plan itself is largely responsible for the impact. trained in research." v26. As one debate alumnus writes: "The lessons learned and the experience gained have been more valuable to me than any other aspect of my formal education. and techniques may be alienating to "outsiders. students seeking other professional areas also see value in the skills of debate. that of encouraging research skills. and a consideration of the nature of science itself. p. the negative must research the liberal perspective. In surveys. makitig even the game of debate a significant benefit in solving real world problems.Reasons for not taking a position counter to one's beliefs (isolation from the "real world. is fundamentally an attachment to the "real world. And where these matters are properly handled. politics. that evolve along with a debater's consciousnes of the complexities of moral and pohtical dilemmas.

It is those who fail to recognize this fact who become intolerant. irrational when we are incapable of abandoning a belief for rational reasons. erecting defenses and then challenging these defenses with a different tact. Discussing the function of argument in everyday life. and to the division of ground arguments (a function of competition). . they lose."*' At an individual level. empathy. In this view. it is rhetorical. Role playing.the value of fairness. Yet this exposure actions based on those beliefs nor respecting the content of the beliefs hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth. and critical thought. and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. . does not mean that no values are developed. This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence.Our system of beliefs is. by definition. Techniques become ends in themselves. however. is an equality of opportunity. To be forced to debate only one side leads to an ego-identification with that side. The other side in contrast is seen only as something to be discredited. and in turn for the development of a reasoned moral identity."* Players in the game should start out with equal relativism is that advantage. along with a sense of moral identity.'s Values clarification. Ehninger argues that the emphasis on technique fragments the whole of a properly unified rhetorical process. his efforts to turn out advocates convinced of their rightness is not a position imbued with tolerance. and to "reconstruct alien and opposing belief systems empathically. when we egocentrically associate our beliefs with our own integrity. and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of differing values. individuals must gain the capacity to engage in self-refiective questioning. if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction. . frequently turns on the fairness of the affirmative team's suggested "permutation" of the plans."*^Equahty of opportunity is manifest throughout many debate procedures and norms. is a central element of any effort to gain such insight. and represent a "partialism that is as dangerous as it is fruitless. "is not dialectical. that two opposing accounts are present on everything. they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong. or of the "competitiveness" of the plans. If the opinion is right. inculcates a deep-seated attitude of tolerance toward differing points of view. and to grant alternative positions a degree of credibility.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 59 Framework File <CONTINUED> . In a tolerant context. notes Thompson. The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions [therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defenditig and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and negative positions. the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is. moving beyond "debating both sides is a special instance of role-playing. to reason dialogically and dialectically. the value of tolerance is more conducive to a fair and open assessment of competing ideas. is a value fostered by switch-side debate: Alternately debating both sides of the same question . . he urges. At a societal level. he insists. Two very important values—tolerance and fairness—inhere to a significant degree in the ethics of switch-side debate. Redding explains that by the knowledge that they may debate against their own case. . tolerance is related to moral identity via empathic and critical assessments of differing perspectives. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility.Promoting this kind of tolerance is perhaps one of the greatest benefits debating both sides has to offer. debaters constantly pose arguments and counter-arguments for discussion. rather than relativistic. that is. an engagement in problem solving that exposes weaknesses and strengths.The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the moral complications of acting on such beliefs. This role playing. Only an activity that requires the defense of both sides of an issue. . is an exercise in reflective thinking.""* Sound conviction. Critical thought and moral identity. Stewart is correct in pointing out. Both sides. In these and other issues.it appeals for judgment. is essential for effective critical thinking. . is founded in refiexive assessments of multiple perspectives. John Stuart Mill eloquently states the case this way: Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action. it is apparent that a priori fairness is a fundamental aspect of games and gamesmanship. is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both sides. treating debate as a game perverts the educational process by encouraging the development of a "situational morality. the issue of coexistence. and that these values are instrumental in providing a hearing for alternative points of view. the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students to validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions. . for acceptance. moral practices. A final point about switch-side debate encourages fairness and equality of opportunity in evaluating competing values. produced by its collision with error. . . . and bigoted."*. ."'" Debate. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical. Paul posits a strong relationship between tolerance. . . . rather than with dialectical exercise. and the rules should be construed throughout to provide no undue advantage to one side or the other."" Plato charges that making the weaker argument the stronger is a corrupt form of rhetorical training and that seeking a higher truth is a transcendent value. . must be predicated on discovering the insights of opposing views and the weaknesses of our own beliefs." Firm moral commitment to a value system. Baird agrees. . should have an equal amount of time and a fair chance to present their arguments. Paul describes an intimate relationship between private inferential habits. Conclusion Modern debate.This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con. because debaters are "more likely to realize that propositions are bilateral. insofar as moral education is concerned. however such views may clash with one's own. Arguing as persuasively as one can for completely opposing views is one way of giving recognition to the idea that a strong case can generally be made for the views of earnest and intelligent men. . . Paul argues. . To these perspectives. 5' The activity should encourage debating both sides of a topic. is highlighted and clarified through constant disputation.** Motivated acknowledgement to exploration and advocacy. On the question of topicality—whether the affirmative plan is an example of the stated topic—the issue of "fair ground" for debate is explicitly developed as a criterion for decision. . effectively renders the value structure pluralistic. he reasons. Initially. has traditionally been associated with conviction.""* While Theodore Roosevelt can hardly be said to be advocating bigotry. As Freeley notes. that it is robbing the human race. he recalls. when a counterplan is offered against an affirmative plan. both within and between the sides of a given topic. . he observes that in order to overcome natural tendencies to reason egocentrically and sociocentrically. Of critical importance. The point is simply that debate does teach values.can engender such powerful role playing. Debate might be rendering students a disservice. . debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world. Paying explicit attention to decision criteria. Windes responds with a series of propositions: Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration. and the nature of argumentation. what is almost as great a benefit. and of equality of opportunity. Murphy insists."*' Such conceptual flexibility. reasons Thompson.Likewise. a key element of an individual's moral identity. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues. ."" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate. The willingness to recognize the existence of other views. dogmatic."'where debaters are forced to empathize on a constant basis with a position contrary to their own. A second point about the charge of relativism is that tolerance is related to the development of reasoned moral viewpoints.

struggles over power take on a symbolic and discursive as well as a material and institutional form. In opposition to the rising tide of authoritarianism. No. and discourses. The exploration of knowledge through education allows us to be liberated thus allowing from democratization of thought through discourse. identifications. American Cultural Critic. knowledge. 26. the new authoritarianism represents a political and economic practice and form of militarism that loosen the connections among substantive democracy. Education is not at odds with politics. 2006) Within the current historical context. 2. 2006) Abstracted from the ideal of public commitment. this suggests forming alliances that can make sure every sphere of social life is recognized as an important site of the political. Dirty Democracy and State Terrorism: The Politics of the New Authoritarianism in the United States Vol. one of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States. The key point here is to understand and engage educational and pedagogical practices from the point of view of how they are bound up with larger relations of power. Education has assumed an unparalleled significance in shaping the language. 26. students. values. and engaged citizenship rather than the stripped-down values of consumerism.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 60 Framework File Prefer Policy: Key to Education/Democracy 1. and values are produced. Changing consciousness is not the same as altering the institutional basis of oppression. The struggle over education is about more than the struggle over meaning and identity. . institutional reform cannot take place without a change in consciousness capable of recognizing not only injustice but also the very possibility for reform. authorized. at the same time. the capacity to reinvent the conditions and practices that make a more just future possible. In part. educators across the globe must make a case for linking learning to progressive social change while struggling to pluralize and critically engage the diverse sites where public pedagogy takes place. shared responsibility rather than shared fears. and ideologies that legitimize the structures and organizations that support the imperatives of global capitalism. it is an important and crucial element in any definition of the political and offers not only the theoretical tools for a systematic critique of authoritarianism but also a language of possibility for creating actual movements for democratic social change and a new biopolitics that affirms life rather than death. while at the same time recognizing that power cannot be limited to the study of representations and discourses. The only way combat authoritarianism is to resist the depoliticization of political culture and embrace pedagogy of moral and political practice. Efforts to reduce it to a technique or methodology set aside. and critical education. Comparative Studies of South Asia. Giroux 06 (Henry A. it is also about how meaning. critical agency. Such circumstances require that pedagogy be embraced as a moral and political practice. Education is the terrain where consciousness is shaped. representations. At stake here is combining symbolic forms and processes conducive to democratization with broader social contexts and the institutional formations of power itself. Educators. 2. American Cultural Critic. an outgrowth of struggles designed to resist the increasing depoliticization of political culture that is the hallmark of the current Bush revolution. Giroux. Africa and the Middle East. 2. Africa and the Middle East. Dirty Democracy and State Terrorism: The Politics of the New Authoritarianism in the United States Vol. Giroux 06 (Henry A. No. and the capacity for individual self-reflection and broad social change is nurtured and produced. education remains a crucial site for the production and struggle over those pedagogical and political conditions that provide the possibilities for people to develop forms of agency that enable them individually and collectively to intervene in the processes through which the material relations of power shape the meaning and practices of their everyday lives. and social relations that constitute political subjects and social agents capable of energizing and spreading the basis for a substantive global democracy. and made operational within economic and structural relations of power. social. even at the level of public policy. and parents need to be clearer about how power works through and in texts. Comparative Studies of South Asia. one of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States. one that is directive and not dogmatic. and cultural struggle that is so crucial to any attempt to forge the knowledge. Giroux. needs are constructed. effective investments.

they find they are no more able to decide. While this basic reality will continue in the future. We must be careful not to replace domination by media/government elites with domination with our community elite. Over a decade of debate has well positioned him to participate actively and directly in the political process. No longer will mere possession of information determine control of political life. "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn. Gavel to gavel coverage of political events assumes top spots on the Nielsen charts.edu/Studentorganizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China. Debate teaches individual decision-making for the information age. BRILLIANT DEBATE THEORIST." The public senses a deep desire for the ability to manage the information around them. more than any other segment of American society. Instead. Mitchell's reflections are necessarily more accurate in his own situation. URL: http://www. debate trains students in the very skills required for navigation in the public sphere of the information age. While there is a tremendous variation in the amount of training required for effective navigation of the public sphere. Proper training requires time. "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn. Let us do nothing to lessen that impact. 1995. the relative isolation of academic debate is one of its virtues. Let us encourage greater involvement in debate. Most importantly. they are unsure how to process and make sense of it all. Such involvement holds greater potential for reinvigoration of political discourse than direct mass activism. but elevate that discourse to our own level of deliberation .wfu. Debaters. Yet. Debaters acquire superior skills in information management and decision-making. URL: http://www. political discourse was controlled by those elements who controlled access to information. and delivery. Desperate to decide for themselves. Individuals who have learned to make and defend their own political decisions will continue to move easily into political life. Yet. In this environment. assessment. Teaching these skills is our virtue. Time is required for individuals to achieve escape velocity. So they watch CNN until they fall asleep. and beliefs. When they are finished. needs to drink from the pool of decision-making skills. Those who make decisions are envied and glorified. Mitchell's call for activism.wfu. A thirsty public. No other academic activity available today teaches people more about information gathering. students receive the space they need to test ideas. the public of the twenty-first century drinks deeply from the well of information." DRG.edu/Studentorganizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China. Debate must be nonpolitical to effectively test ideas. People realize that these half hour glimpses at the news do not even come close to covering all available information. let us take pride in the unique activity in which we engage. selection. even more dangerous is the potential for new forms of domination within our academic oasis. In the past. 1995. Yet the skills he has did not develop overnight. Instead of turning students of debate immediately outward. Because our activity is non-political. snake charmers and charlatans abound. Debate is the only academic activity that moves at the speed of the information age. It is no longer possible to control political discourse by limiting access to information. The risk of an information overload is already shifting control of political discourse to superior information managers. opinions. are capable of functioning effectively in the political world. Information is widely available." DRG. Alan Coverstone. Academic debate holds tremendous value as a space for training.htm As we enter the twenty-first century. This testing process is put at risk by an outward activist turn.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 61 Framework File Coverstone: Oasis key to Education Debate must be isolated from the public sphere to effectively teach the skills that are critical to success in the public sphere Alan Coverstone. Mitchell calls this the "desertification of the public sphere.htm Mitchell's argument underestimates the nature of academic debate in three ways. Let us not stoop to the level of modem political discourse. For the first time in human history we face the prospect of an entirely new threat. First. They desperately want to select information for themselves. debate teaches individuals how to make and defend their own decisions. we should be encouraging more to enter the oasis. control belongs to those who are capable of identifying and delivering bits of information to a thirsty public. BRILLIANT DEBATE THEORIST. as well as his examples of thriving participation should raise our awareness of both our responsibilities and opportunities. drunk on the product of anyone who claims a decision. The popularity of the evening news wanes as more and more information becomes available. its essential features will change.

Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan space in American political society. I was an easy mark for the present political powers. This is all in the absence of such individual motivation. Rather. Fiat-oriented debate is better than the activist model. Reading socialist literature avidly. cause elite colonization of debate. the same motivation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of us. URL: http://www. political action becomes a proper endeavor. by fiat. and other outmoded political arguments. I decided to fight City Hall. I accused the city of exploitation of its citizens for the purpose of capital accumulation. In this world we face well trained information managers. indeed. I learned to stop reading useless material and to keep my opinions to myself." DRG. crushing political discourse. It makes our oasis a target. political elites will not feel threatened. Yet. Back then I was highly skeptical of the "laboratory model" of "preparatory pedagogy. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as isolated and politically protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense. I learned about the issue in the free flow of information that is debate. Nowhere else are people allowed. This was not crammed down my throat. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly. let alone encouraged. young debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites. Alan Coverstone. Like many young debaters. Ready made information will increase and debaters will eat it up. I wasn't even ready to speak to the Mayor. Nov 09 2002." they will begin to infiltrate our space. driving the heuristic process by arguing against their convictions. Debate should capitalize on its isolation. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it. I was ready to take on the world. crushing political discourse. BRILLIANT DEBATE THEORIST. Yet one of Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In fact. to test all manner of political ideas. In this letter.html Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998. all of the members of the academic debate community will not reach that point together. I was completely embarrassed by the entire exchange.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 62 Framework File A/T: Mitchell Mitchell changed his mind. At that point. 1995. In many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community. I worry that a narrow diet of competitive contest round debating could starve students of opportunities to experience the rich political valence of their debating activities. the integrity of this space could be compromised by "activist turn" initiatives designed to bridge contest round advocacy with political activism. I thought I was ready to start the revolution. He called me a communist. An example should help illustrate this idea. Debate should be isolated--attempts to expand into the public sphere. Now I respect much more the value of a protected space where young people can experiment politically by taking imaginary positions. Yet I only had one side of the story. part of the natural impulse for activism which debate inspires. I wrote the Mayor a letter. cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of critical thinking. At some unspecified point in one's training. He said I was being silly and should pay the ticket. Debaters will experiment with political activism on their own. but I did not learn what Gordon might have hoped. an outward turn threatens to short circuit the learning process.htm Second. I had received a parking ticket which I felt was unfairly issued.edu/Studentorganizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China. when I wrote that debate institutions should pay more attention to argumentative agency. http://www. i. We can teach our students to examine all sides of an issue and reach individual conclusions before we force them into political exchanges. However.ndtceda. debate coach at Pittsburgh. Individuals trained in the art and practice of debate are. Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn. Do we really want to force students into that type of situation? I wrote the mayor on my own. "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn." where students were kept. The mayor's reply was simple and straightforward.com/archives/200211/0136. These days I have much more confidence in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating. public speaking. academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants.wfu. The intrigue of this. In reality. I went straight to the top. and the heuristic value for debaters of arguing against their convictions. Gordon Mitchell. A/T: Mitchell Debate as activism forces a homogenizing agenda. and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment. I presented a strong Marxist critique of parking meters in my town. I did learn from the experience. However. well suited to the task of entering the political world. . A political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in two ways. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information. Nevertheless. in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen.e. Sensing a threat from "debate. and it threatens to politicize the training process. I learned a great deal about socialism early on. was in its relative unfamiliarity. To prematurely turn debaters out threatens to undo the positive potential of involvement in debate. Unable to convince the parking department to see it my way.

Debaters do not focus on the broad themes that enable mass unity. targets his desire for mass action. He is looking for a community wide value set that discourages inaction. An outward turn. organized along the lines of mass action.htm My third. threatens to homogenize the individual members of the debate community. Even people who support the same proposals or candidates do so for different and inconsistent reasons. but this is by far the lesser of two evils. this reality means that mass political action is doomed to fail. Mitchell must be looking for more. Such an outcome will. The greatest danger in this proposal is the likelihood that the control of the media/government elite will be replaced by control of our own debate elite. at best. 1995. Most will decide that they must be involved whether or not they feel strongly committed to the issue. We are at our best when we teach students to tear apart the broad themes around which traditional political activity is organized. Some will decide that they do not need to get involved. .wfu. This means that an activist turn necessarily will compel political action from many who are not yet prepared. politicize and fracture our community. Political discourse is a dessert now because there are more people trying to "fit in" that there are people trying to break out. Still worse. it will coerce people to participate before making their own decisions. Debate trains people to make decisions by investigating the subtle nuances of public policies. The greatest virtue of academic debate is its ability to teach people that they can and must make their own decisions.edu/Studentorganizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China. At worst. Mitchell's proposal undermines the one unifying principle. Emphasizing mass action tends to discourage individual political action. Debaters learn to agree or disagree with opponents with respect. As a result. Mitchell places the cart before the horse. BRILLIANT DEBATE THEORIST. URL: http://www. Yet unity around this theme is not easily translated into unity on a partisan political issue. Rather than letting ideas and opinions drive action as they do now. "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn. and final reaction to Mitchell's proposal. As a group. we experience a wide array of political views within academic debate. The only theme that unites debaters is the realization that we are all free to make our own decisions. The danger is that we will replace mass control of the media/government elite with a mass control of our own elite. They are likely to join in political action out of a desire to "fit in. Only in academic debate will two supporters of political views argue vehemently against each other. he encourages an environment where action drives ideas for many people. Young debaters are particularly vulnerable." This cannot be what Mitchell desires.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 63 Framework File Alan Coverstone." DRG.

2. the visionaries who dare think the unthinkable. we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the opponents of reform. p 118) First. and those in power have to yield to their demands. But they lack the attention to detail that the Pedants have. it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces. What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the Utopians. the reformers will lose out by default. But being able to count up to two. Similarly. unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints. Utopianism and idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic vision. unexpectedly. it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any reform. and elsewhere. The physicists’ assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of parachutes. And the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat. turns out to be favourable to even radical innovation. when the opportunity arises. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out. the break-up of Yugoslavia. Let us call them. They are admirable people but they are conservative. the idealists. 42. detailed plan. Fifth. n. I want to distinguish between two types of people. but they will be creative tensions. Fourth. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. countervailing the selfinterested pressures of the obstructionist groups. and they have acquired an emotional vested interest in keeping them this way. There will be tensions in combining the two. Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. the unification of Germany. The names are due to Peter Berger. Utopianism is not helpful. excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. But for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. they will be on the wrong side of the barricades. there are the Utopians. The Pedants or technicians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work. the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction. . I have come across them in the British civil service.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 64 Framework File Fiat Good Utopian thinking makes politics possible by giving political thought a direction Streeten ‘99 (Paul. Development. or. but can serve other purposes well. when thinking of tomorrow’s problems. In negotiations. Otherwise. Ideas thought to be Utopian have become realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them. everything becomes a necessary constraint. and no good companions for reform. Only a few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. the disappearance of the Soviet Union. for want of a better name. that yesterday could have appeared utterly Utopian. if they do turn up. the Pedants and the Utopians. Second. between the technicians who pay attention to the details and the idealists who have the vision of a better future. to those who want to preserve the status quo. the marketization of China. They are also admirable. On the other hand. It is well known that there are three types of economists: those who can count and those who can’t. the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group. the end of apartheid in South Africa. It is for these five reasons that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable. Unless the case for change can be represented in the same detail as the case for no change. so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which they can start afresh. They should elaborate them in the same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and celebration. in the bureaucracy of the World Bank. it tends to be lost. they will have entered it on the wrong date in their diaries and fail to turn up. many of them young people. Third. Econ prof @ Boston. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will work out in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it. Just as physicists assume an atmospheric vacuum for some purposes. and promote the good cause with informed fantasy. All vision is lost. who uses them in a different context. When the day of the revolution comes. v. In a world that is regarded as the second-best of all feasible worlds. which can get lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible.

they necessarily invoke the specter of this tragic racial past. an answer is implied. acts that are respectful of the goods of democracy and liberty. distinguish between activities that silence and marginalize versus those that do not. "Good" political acts—acts of legitimate resistance and contest—are. Rather. n276 The tradition of legal discourse on American race relations [*1316] has been one steeped in racial animus and characterized by circumlocution. evasiveness. L. demonstrating. Washington University in St. contest or undermine basic rules of civility (rules which I will define further in a moment). 1311-1314. as for most other people. what makes an act an act of resistance rather than of cruelty or tyranny. acts that are nonviolent and designed to increase others' freedom and knowledge. despite strong rhetoric about disrupting all orders and undermining all rules." For if their aim is to give voice to those who have been silenced or marginalized. Ruth Lessl Shively. for them. p. they do not seek to annihilate or silence opposition. shouting others into silence. for what would be the point of rejecting the old system for its supposed tyrannies—its bullying and silencing tactics—only to take up more of the same? Wholesale rejection maintains the status quo Christopher A. Associate Professor of African & African American Studies. reluctance and denial. 1231. and do not. One might view the pedigree as providing good reason to dismiss opponents of race entirely. The steadfast reliance upon pedigreed rhetoric. Louis. or the like. their continued reliance upon pedigreed rhetoric to justify a system that only modestly responds to persistent racial disparities in the material lives of racial minorities suggests a deep. Yet. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. lying to the public. raising awareness.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 65 Framework File Plan Focus key to Change Critique is not an end in and of itself—refusing political action in favor of some pure subversion maintains the status quo." "civil" and "uncivil. indeed. In keeping with their democratic ambitions. some disruptions turn out to solidify the status quo and some subversions turn out to be counter-subversive. 79 S. For example. and weighing of the arguments they advance. for example. civil acts: meaning. 2000. When opponents avail themselves of rhetorical strategies used by nineteenth-century legal elites. ." "legitimate" and "illegitimate. 178-80 The first point here is that the ambiguists cannot embrace all disruptive actions or resist all attempts to categorize activities in terms of "good" and "bad. questioning and the like. essentially. at the very least. My point here is not just to say that the ambiguists are nice people who happen to reject violent and tyrannical tactics. unarticulated normative commitment to preserving the racial status quo in which whites remain comfortably above blacks. protesting. but to diversify and increase its voices and opportunities. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M. or what defines behavior as contestation as opposed to mere bullying or ostracization. the point of being in the ambiguist camp in the first place is to protest acts of tyranny and compulsion. They do not tell us these things. hitting or killing or threatening political opponents. they cannot. p. they must. They must tell us. Cal. consideration. It is to say that their goals imply and require this. their political examples uniformly suggest that the expansion of contest would involve only civil kinds of resistance and subversion: things like teaching. no ambiguists (in my readings) seek or sanction acts of "contest" that involve behaviors like burning crosses on people's lawns. September 2006. It is implicit in their democratic vision of society and. Associate Professor of Law. spoils the credibility of modern opponents of race preferences and creates an incentive for proponents to dismiss them without serious interrogation. Bracey. Southern California Law Review. For certain subversive or disruptive political activities—like threatening others with violence or shouting opponents into silence— are such that they undermine any further subversions and disruptions. In this sense. Proponents of this view may choose to indulge fully this liberal skepticism and simply reject the message along with the messenger. coupled with the apparent disconnect between claims of racial egalitarianism and material conditions of racial subordination as a result of persistent racial disparities. arguing. in any democratic vision of society. So. LexisNexis At the other end of the responsive spectrum is wholesale rejection. Moreover. Rev. Which is why the ambiguists must stop short of celebrating all differences or disorders. of course. since their own assumptions require them to resist such attempts at closure and categorization. After all.

20-1 There are two problems with a perfectionist stance. What is the line between interrogation and torture. Public disinformation whose sole purpose is to deceive the enemy might be justified. but they are no substitute for military operations when terrorists possess bases. may order the suspension of civil liberties need not mean that “anything goes. If the targeted killing of terrorists proves necessary. leaving aside the question of whether it is realistic. not always possible to anticipate terrible consequences of well-meant acts. Security. not always possible to preserve the liberty of the majority without suspending the liberties of a minority. Far from making ethical reflection irrelevant. Michael Ignatieff. The same balancing act needs to be observed in other cases. Judicial responses to the problem of terror have their place. Harvard University.” Even if liberties must be suspended. these dilemmas make ethical realism all the more essential to democratic reflection and good public policy. p. their suspension can be made temporary. they can be obliged to disclose it in private session or at a later date. However. it can be constrained by strict rules of engagement and subjected to legislative oversight and review. Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice. may withhold information from their voters. the value of any given abstraction is dependent on its ability to lend itself to practical decisions. not always possible to preserve full democratic disclosure and transparency in counterterrorist operations. training camps. Equally. nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy. Drawing these lines means keeping in clear sight the question of whether these means reinforce or betray the democratic identity they are supposed to defend. the perfectionist commitment to the right to life might preclude such attacks altogether and restrict our response to judicial pursuit of offenders through process of law. moreover. at the prospect of torturing a suspect might be prepared to kill the same suspect in a preemptive attack on a terrorist base. The interrogation of terrorist suspects can be kept free of torture. between targeted killing and unlawful assassination. 2004. To stick to a perfectionist commitment to the right to life when under terrorist attack might achieve moral consistency at the price of leaving us defenseless in the face of evildoers. between preemption and aggression? Even when legal and moral distinctions between these are clear in the abstract. The first is that articulating nonrevocable. The same person who shudders. It accepts as inevitable that it is not always possible to save human beings from harm without killing other human beings. A lesser evil morality is antiperfectionist in its assumptions. The fact that liberal democratic leaders may order the surreptitious killing of terrorists. but deliberately misleading a democratic electorate with a view to exaggerating risk or minimizing hazard can never be. and heavy weapons. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. if executives must withhold information from a legislature in public. and thus respect for one right might lead us to betray another.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 66 Framework File Plan Focus key to Change The abstractions of critique are attempts to secure a perfectionist stance insulated from the demands of political decisionmaking. Furthermore. The problem is deciding how to apply them in specific cases. is a human right. not always desirable for democratic leaders to avoid deception and perfidy. . abstractions are less than helpful when political leaders have to choose between them in practice. Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the JFK School of Government. rightly. and so on. the problem with perfectionist standards is that they contradict each other.

should be an active one. and ways that the person could try to get government to address the problem. While our textbooks and lectures might make this point. and a myriad of web resources. 37. public opinion. JKY) Students are not asked to be members of the American public. PS: Political Science and Politics. While some students might go on to hold elective or appointed offices in government. and from various geographic locations. Vol.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 67 Framework File Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency Public policy role playing in Academia is key to political agency and participation Larson. 2 (Apr. genders. gov-ernment action and debate on the is-sues relevant to it. Ultimately. pg. They need to see how this role can. A roleplaying experience can be instructive preparation for "real (political) life" when it focuses on the activities of those outside of officialdom. they are ideal for sensitizing students to the perspectives of people different from themselves. elections. ages. the three branches. and federalism). sexual orienta-tions. most students are. most will not. ‘We the People': Diversifying Role Playing in Undergraduate American Politics Courses” American Political Science Association. Studies show that after role playing students "become more aware of their own roles and understand more clearly other people's points of view" (Van Ments 1989. a simulation can effectively illustrate it through active learning. members of the American public after they graduate. classes. and arguably. I have been using such a public role-playing assignment in my "Introduction to American Government" course to challenge students and satisfy course goals. For many years. students see the interconnectedness of the various topics in the course (policy. 2004). most assignments do not fully utilize the potential of role playing for social attitude change. can also address diversity issues that elite role-playing assignments do not. Associate Professor of Political Science at Dickinson College. ‘04 (“Stephanie Greco. This is particularly true of those in introductory classes who might take only one class in political science. By looking at a problem. 30). interest groups. The assignment utilizes active learning through the use of role playing. . Playing the roles of citizens. proposed solutions. No. By focusing on elite roles. diversity. Students explore different types of information and sources in order to understand someone else's political problem and its history. Therefore. The public is an essential part of a democracy and arguably the one whose challenges and processes are the most immediately relevant for students in an American Government class. It teaches students about American government. an American government class can help students understand and empathize with people of different races. and the obstacles to enacting these solutions. interviewing. 303. occupations. The assignment described here brings "the people" back into politics through role playing by focusing specifically on people who tend to be left out of the political process. Yet. and will continue to be. the paper addresses the fundamental question underlying the debate between elitists and pluralists: "Does the public matter?" It does this by ask-ing students to explore a political prob-lem relevant to a fictional member of the public whom they are randomly as-signed. By having students role play other members of the mass public. or prospective citizens.. and the challenges confronted by "outside" groups in their attempts to get representation.

in other words. Indeed. it must at the same time enhance interdependence. and perhaps most telling of these: if governors in a system of divided government such as our own succeed in deliberating their way to the public interest (however imperfectly or irregularly). p. in other words. With Madison. .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 68 Framework File Policymaking key to Deliberation/Agency Deliberation about what institutions should do is key to citizen agency. At the same time. if not all-powerful. it will require that we seek to stimulate deliberation among all citizens. Collective choice. something that is at once less lofty (and less threatening) than the unity to which direct democracy is supposed to lead. after all. if my initial argument that decisionmaking spells the end of deliberation is on the mark. In the end. under direct and constant pressure to act rather than deliberate. Gundersen.. But we also need to resist the equation of politics and partisanship. they are every bit as likely to succeed as the average representative. indeed choice itself. Yes. I have already alluded to the first. for deliberation to work. If politics is seen as nothing more than a clash of partisan interests. perhaps more than anything else. precisely in the sense of coming to a deeper appreciation of the collective nature of the problems they face (Dale et al. of course. not the impetus of divided power. a changed way of thinking about partisanship. see also Gundersen n. Although I cannot prove the point. it is likely to stay at that level. to encourage them to discover and articulate them. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M. if not all-illuminating—as efficacious. 2000. as I started out by saying. too. or Congress—others who are. Political Theory and Partisan Politics. Citizen deliberation. deliberation will tend to heighten citizens appreciation of their interdependence. The theoretical mutuality of interests assumed by the Constitution exists among ordinary citizens. surely ordinary citizens can be counted upon to do the same thing. if deliberation will of itself diminish partisanship. then we have good reason to expect citizens to deliberate better than their representatives. As I argued above. Conversely. hence if the institutional reorientation suggested here is to take root. that is. Adolf G. At the same time. citizens must borrow a page from the participatory democrat's book by coming to view deliberation as their responsibility rather than something that is done only by others in city hall. will intensify citizens' appreciation of interdependence. with its clear specification of joint responsibilities. One can add to these theoretical considerations a lengthening list of empirical findings which suggest not only that citizens are willing and able to engage in political deliberation. Granted. there are compelling reasons to think that citizen deliberation yields an awareness of overlapping interests. but more democratic (and more deliberative) than encouraging political deliberation among a selected group of representatives. 108-9 Will deliberation work the same way among ordinary citizens? Yes and no. After all. it must be accompanied by a new way of thinking about partisanship. the results are likely to be analogous rather than identical to those in formal governmental bodies. To aim between Athens and Philadelphia requires. we need to view partisanship as inevitable. the claim that deliberation enhances interdependence is hardly a radical one. chapter 4). must be resuscitated as an allegiance to democratic deliberation.d. Institutions and ways of thinking tend to change together. But once they begin to do so. 1995. Dryzek 1990. The difference is that they have only their interests. It will require that we aspire to something new. is a partisan affair. since citizen deliberation must of course function in the absence of the institutional interdependence established by the US constitution. it must be seen as reasonable. Shifting our appraisal of partisanship will amount to a nothing less than a new attitude toward politics. Gundersen 1995. the state capitol. Politics. but also that they are quite able to do so—able.

and other outmoded political arguments. Still worse. An outward turn. The danger is that we will replace mass control of the media/government elite with a mass control of our own elite. I had received a parking ticket which I felt was unfairly issued. We are at our best when we teach students to tear apart the broad themes around which traditional political activity is organized. was in its relative unfamiliarity. At worst. My third. In many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community. threatens to homogenize the individual members of the debate community. an outward turn threatens to short circuit the learning process. The only theme that unites debaters is the realization that we are all free to make our own decisions. Unable to convince the parking department to see it my way. This is all part of the natural impulse for activism which debate inspires. Yet. Only in academic debate will two supporters of political views argue vehemently against each other. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it. As a result. Sensing a threat from "debate. young debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites.wfu. Accessed 429-2005. He called me a communist. Debate should capitalize on its isolation. Mitchell's proposal undermines the one unifying principle. I learned to stop reading useless material and to keep my opinions to myself. Debaters do not focus on the broad themes that enable mass unity.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China." they will begin to infiltrate our space.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 69 Framework File Policy Paradigm key to Education Exercising the role of political discourse allows for the education of different opinion and encourages freedom of thought within debaters. this reality means that mass political action is doomed to fail. As a group. Yet unity around this theme is not easily translated into unity on a partisan political issue. let alone encouraged. We can teach our students to examine all sides of an issue and reach individual conclusions before we force them into political exchanges. The mayor's reply was simple and straightforward. Yet one of Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn. Such an outcome will. I wasn't even ready to speak to the Mayor. ’95 [Alan Coverstone. at best. targets his desire for mass action. I was completely embarrassed by the entire exchange. I did learn from the experience. Even people who support the same proposals or candidates do so for different and inconsistent reasons. I was an easy mark for the present political powers. we experience a wide array of political views within academic debate. Debaters will experiment with political activism on their own. An example should help illustrate this idea. I thought I was ready to start the revolution. He said I was being silly and should pay the ticket. I learned about the issue in the free flow of information that is debate. organized along the lines of mass action. and final reaction to Mitchell's proposal. I presented a strong Marxist critique of parking meters in my town. I went straight to the top. Do we really want to force students into that type of situation? I wrote the mayor on my own. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan space in American political society. To prematurely turn debaters out threatens to undo the positive potential of involvement in debate. ] MAD As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly.htm. Ready made information will increase and debaters will eat it up. I learned a great deal about socialism early on. Nevertheless. political elites will not feel threatened. Rather. academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants. I was ready to take on the world. it will coerce people to participate before making their own decisions. Yet I only had one side of the story. but I did not learn what Gordon might have hoped. politicize and fracture our community. In this world we face well trained information managers." http://www. Coverstone. I decided to fight City Hall. Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. This was not crammed down my throat. In this letter. <CONTINUED> . I accused the city of exploitation of its citizens for the purpose of capital accumulation. The intrigue of this.Like many young debaters. I wrote the Mayor a letter. to test all manner of political ideas. Debaters learn to agree or disagree with opponents with respect. Nowhere else are people allowed. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information. Reading socialist literature avidly. The greatest virtue of academic debate is its ability to teach people that they can and must make their own decisions. Debate trains people to make decisions by investigating the subtle nuances of public policies. In reality. in the absence of such individual motivation.

Political discourse is a dessert now because there are more people trying to "fit in" that there are people trying to break out. even more dangerous is the potential for new forms of domination within our academic oasis. Emphasizing mass action tends to discourage individual political action. more than any other segment of American society. but elevate that discourse to our own level of deliberation. are capable of functioning effectively in the political world. Such involvement holds greater potential for reinvigoration of political discourse than direct mass activism. let us take pride in the unique activity in which we engage. students receive the space they need to test ideas.As we enter the twenty-first century. Some will decide that they do not need to get involved. Let us encourage greater involvement in debate. Yet. He is looking for a community wide value set that discourages inaction. Let us do nothing to lessen that impact. Individuals who have learned to make and defend their own political decisions will continue to move easily into political life. and beliefs. We must be careful not to replace domination by media/government elites with domination with our community elite. Mitchell places the cart before the horse. Because our activity is non-political. Debaters acquire superior skills in information management and decision-making. but this is by far the lesser of two evils. This testing process is put at risk by an outward activist turn. The greatest danger in this proposal is the likelihood that the control of the media/government elite will be replaced by control of our own debate elite.Mitchell's call for activism. This means that an activist turn necessarily will compel political action from many who are not yet prepared. Let us not stoop to the level of modem political discourse. Most will decide that they must be involved whether or not they feel strongly committed to the issue. Rather than letting ideas and opinions drive action as they do now. as well as his examples of thriving participation should raise our awareness of both our responsibilities and opportunities." This cannot be what Mitchell desires. Young debaters are particularly vulnerable. opinions. . Debaters.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson <CONTINUED> 70 Framework File Mitchell must be looking for more. he encourages an environment where action drives ideas for many people. They are likely to join in political action out of a desire to "fit in.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 71 Framework File Policymaking key to Education Policymaking empowers debates by encouraging informed decisionmaking and good judgement about practical. August 5. Samuel Beckett’s “Fail again. you display vulnerability. Paris. Staying and leaving each have huge costs. Machiavelli argued that political judgment. Cambrige. Churchill and De Gaulle kept faith with their own judgment when smart opinion believed them to be mistaken. they are bound to revenge insults. 07 member of the independent international commission on Kosovo and former fellow at King’s College. But in the end. They must live and be judged by the same rules as everyone else. It is a common spectacle in legislatures for representatives to insult one another in the chamber and then retreat for a drink in the bar afterward. if you take attacks personally. The decision facing the United States over Iraq is paradigmatic of political judgment at its most difficult. That in itself suggests how American leaders are likely to decide the question. Antony’s College. Fail better” captures the inner obstinacy necessary to the political art. as it has been said. There we play for keeps.” The New York Times. . It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel. But they must decide. better information and factual criteria for decision-making can reduce the margin of uncertainty. École des Hautes Études.” Roosevelt and Churchill knew how to do wrong. to be effective.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t. Of course. and soon. even if far off. In private life. The game usually ends in tears. In the case of Iraq. Political careers often end badly because politicians live the human situation: making choices among competing goods with only ordinary instincts and fallible information to go by. is a dish best served cold. learning from failure matters as much as exploiting success. They accepted that democratic leaders cannot make up their own moral rules. at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else. Their willingness to wait for historical validation. and to make use of it or not according to necessity. no one knows — because no one can know — what exactly America can still do to create stability in Iraq. Yet in some areas political and personal judgments are very different. must follow principles more ruthless than those acceptable in ordinary life. deciding what course of action to pursue next requires first admitting that all courses of action thus far have failed. and St. The sign on Truman’s desk — “The buck stops here!” — reminds us that those who make good judgments in politics tend to be those who do not shrink from the responsibility of making them. yet they did not demand to be judged by different ethical standards than their fellow citizens did. But they also have to learn that revenge.html? ei=5090&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ex=1343966400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) Improvisation may not stave off failure. This is good for two reasons. In politics. because politics is theater. This saving hypocrisy of public life is not available in private life.nytimes. everyday problems. 2007 “Getting Iraq Wrong. Being human. http://www. In politics. Politicians have to learn to appear invulnerable without appearing inhuman. and Visiting Prof of Human Rights Practice at Harvard (Michael. Nothing is personal in politics. first is that it increases real world education and allows for debaters who are planning on entering the realm of policymaking to be prepared for that career. Oxford. looks now like greatness. In the current president the same faith that history will judge him kindly seems like brute stubbornness. He wrote that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong. you take attacks personally and would be a cold fish if you didn’t. Ignatieff. while the cost of leaving will be mostly borne by Iraqis. Benchmarks for progress in Iraq can help to decide how long America should stay there. Procrastination is even costlier in politics than it is in private life. a stricture that applies both at home and abroad — in Guantanamo. One thing is clear: The costs of staying will be borne by Americans.

while their kritikal arguments are admirable. 07 member of the independent international commission on Kosovo and former fellow at King’s College.html? ei=5090&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ex=1343966400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) In my political-science classes.” The New York Times. The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. Oxford. Antony’s College. too. They avoided all these mistakes. They didn’t believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. the mark of bad decisionmaking. Resisting the popular isn’t easy. A good compromise restores the peace and enables both parties to go about their business with some element of their vital interest satisfied. 2007 “Getting Iraq Wrong. École des Hautes Études. money-raising ability and rhetorical powers but not necessarily judgment in office and under fire. They labored. We might test judgment by asking. A bad one surrenders the public interest to compulsion or force. Campaigns and primaries test a candidate’s charm. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. . They didn’t suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 72 Framework File Policymaking key to Education Policymaking is more real world. and Visiting Prof of Human Rights Practice at Harvard (Michael.nytimes. Ignatieff. as President Bush did. Good judgment in politics is messy. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. Measuring good judgment in politics is not easy. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong. Knowing the difference between a good and a bad compromise is more important in politics than holding onto pure principle at any price. and St. that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it. with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq’s fissured sectarian history. They didn’t suppose. It means balancing policy and politics in imperfect compromises that always leave someone unhappy — often yourself. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. on the issue of Iraq. who best anticipated how events turned out. because resisting the popular isn’t always wise. they fall prey to the allure of popularity and sacrifice practical implications. bad public policy can often turn out to be very popular politics indeed. August 5. as everyone did. I used to teach that exercising good judgment meant making good public policy. Cambrige. http://www. In the real world. Paris. stamina. What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.

As a former denizen of Harvard. 2007 “Getting Iraq Wrong. Among intellectuals. and Visiting Prof of Human Rights Practice at Harvard (Michael. An intellectual’s responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. Paris. The attribute that underpins good judgment in politicians is a sense of reality. They have to work with the small number of ideas that happen to be true and the even smaller number that happen to be applicable to real life. without necessarily being able to explain how they know this or even what they know. “is understanding rather than knowledge — some kind of acquaintance with relevant facts of such a kind that it enables those who have it to tell what fits with what. referring to figures like Roosevelt and Churchill. what works and what doesn’t.nytimes. . false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to play with. I’ve learned that good judgment in politics looks different from good judgment in intellectual life. The only way any of us can improve our grasp of reality is to confront the world every day and learn. In politics. It is the street virtue par excellence. Politicians live by ideas just as much as professional thinkers do. Oxford.” Politicians cannot afford to cocoon themselves in the inner world of their own imaginings. mostly from our mistakes. In political life. They must not confuse the world as it is with the world as they wish it to be. Theory gets in the way. Cambrige. In academic life. Antony’s College.” Berlin wrote. They must see Iraq — or anywhere else — as it is.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 73 Framework File Policymaking key to Education Debate requires a distinction between plain intellectualism and political calculation.” The New York Times. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners. what means will work in what situations and how far. 07 member of the independent international commission on Kosovo and former fellow at King’s College. http://www. and St. Yet even lengthy experience can fail us in life and in politics. but they can’t afford the luxury of entertaining ideas that are merely interesting. Experience can imprison decision-makers in worn-out solutions while blinding them to the untried remedy that does the trick. judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea. Specifics matter more than generalities. false ideas can ruin the lives of millions and useless ones can waste precious resources. policymaker concerns must be of the reality of policy actions Ignatieff. August 5. everything is what it is and not another thing. A politician’s responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm. École des Hautes Études. “What is called wisdom in statesmen. whereas intellectual concerns are with exploring ideals regardless of their practical implications.html? ei=5090&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ex=1343966400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academics and commentators is that they care more about whether ideas are interesting than whether they are true. I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. what can be done in given circumstances and what cannot.

‘theory-driven work is part of a reductionist program’ in that it ‘dictates always opting for the description that calls for the explanation that flows from the preferred model or theory’. Vol. an image of warring theoretical approaches with each. In one respect. Millennium: Journal of International Studies.e.5 The justification offered for this strategy rests on the mistaken belief that it is necessary for social science because general explanations are required to characterise the classes of phenomena studied in similar terms. it is a philosophical weakness—but this does not undermine the point that. one need not be sympathetic to rational choice theory to recognise that it can provide powerful accounts of certain kinds of problems. although he goes on to comment that these terms are often used loosely. The first danger with the philosophical turn is that it has an inbuilt tendency to prioritise issues of ontology and epistemology over explanatory and/or interpretive power as if the latter two were merely a simple function of the former. it cultivates a theory-driven rather than problem-driven approach to IR. this is to misunderstand the enterprise of science since ‘whether there are general explanations for classes of phenomena is a question for social-scientific inquiry. for a certain class of problems. as Shapiro points out. Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”. be the case that the advocates of rational choice theory cannot give a good account of why this type of theory is powerful in accounting for this class of problems (i. wholly dependent on these philosophical commitments. Paraphrasing Ian Shapiro. if this is the case. rational choice theory may provide the best account available to us. It may. while the critical judgement of theoretical accounts in terms of their ontological and/or epistemological sophistication is one kind of critical judgement. loosely deployed or not. it is by no means clear that it is. It encourages this view because the turn to.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653) Commenting on the ‘philosophical turn’ in IR. despite occasional temporary tactical alliances. the point can be put like this: since it is the case that there is always a plurality of possible true descriptions of a given action.4 However. Thus. This image feeds back into IR exacerbating the first and second dangers. but it is also undesirable.6 Moreover. the theoretical approach that gets its ontology and epistemology right. event or phenomenon.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 74 Framework File Policymaking key to Change The popularization of more philosophical approaches to political discourse may be evident. for example.. such as the tragedy of the commons in which dilemmas of collective action are foregrounded. how it is that the relevant actors come to exhibit features in these circumstances that approximate the assumptions of rational choice theory) and. namely. yet. But while the explanatory and/or interpretive power of a theoretical account is not wholly independent of its ontological and/or epistemological commitments (otherwise criticism of these features would not be a criticism that had any value). Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David. and there is no doubt that such reflection can play a valuable role in making explicit the commitments that characterise (and help individuate) diverse theoretical positions. such a philosophical turn is not without its dangers and I will briefly mention three before turning to consider a confusion that has. No. it is not the only or even necessarily the most important kind. In other words. this strategy easily slips into the promotion of the pursuit of generality over that of empirical validity.sagepub. Yet. Owen 02. dedicated to the strategic achievement of sovereignty over the disciplinary field. and so a potentially vicious circle arises. However. in contrast. of course. http://mil. this is unsurprising since it is a characteristic feature of the social sciences that periods of disciplinary disorientation involve recourse to reflection on the philosophical commitments of different theoretical approaches. “Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism. helped to promote the IR theory wars by motivating this philosophical turn. it is clear that debates concerning ontology and epistemology play a central role in the contemporary IR theory wars. 31. ontology and epistemology stimulates the idea that there can only be one theoretical approach which gets things right. I will suggest. The third danger is that the preceding two combine to encourage the formation of a particular image of disciplinary debate in IR—what might be called (only slightly tongue in cheek) ‘the Highlander view’—namely. Policymaking key to Change Attempts by citizens or professionals to engage or change the law are worthwhile engagements which make it more effective and permanent and increasing freedom and activism within the public sphere. . and prioritisation of. Wæver remarks that ‘[a] frenzy for words like “epistemology” and “ontology” often signals this philosophical turn’. the challenge is to decide which is the most apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip on the action. not to be prejudged before conducting that inquiry’. event or phenomenon in question given the purposes of the inquiry.it prioritizes kritik over action and disavows any attempt to act to fix concrete problem and creates a vicious cycle whereby kritik overdetermines action entirely and paralyzes change. 3. from this standpoint. The second danger run by the philosophical turn is that because prioritisation of ontology and epistemology promotes theory-construction from philosophical first principles.

Work is what reconciles the failure of the unhappy consciousness to achieve justice. more "existential. (David Grey."321 But far more important.323 Or."324 In this state. . . and even academics can make it more permanent. This negative middle term or the formative activity is at the same time the individuality or pure being-for-self of consciousness which now . gives a spiritual turn to that worthy slogan "publish or perish. “Review: Duellism in Modern American Jurisprudence”. but this is simply what mere egotism requires. Evidence of consequential impact is gratifying. desire held in check.317 Hegel.e. more resilient.. in Hegelian terms. Work is the means of "subjective destitution" or "narcissistic loss"322 the complete externalization of the subject and the surrender of the fantasy support upon which the subject otherwise depends. the self gains a place in the world by the very work done. in Hegel's view. "subjective destitution" is the wages of cure at the end of analysis. private citizens. In Lacanian terms. however. lawyers. Work is."319 Work on law can increase freedom. . This objective structure can be altered by hard work. acquires an element of permanence.. 99) 75 Framework File Carlson 99. work forms and shapes the thing. Vicarious participation in litigation or legislation can nevertheless be defended as a participation in culture itself. we precisely lose the suspicion that law (i. .. judges. fear of disappearance into the Real. It is in the work itself that the value of legal scholarship can be found. is not the point. the positive freedom that relieves the worker of "anxiety". history or astrophysics could devise.320 When work is done. An altered legal world. then. The negative relation to the object becomes its form and something permanent. the big Other) does not exist. cure is "the ascesis that is necessary if consciousness is to reach genuine philosophic knowledge."318 but. fleetingness staved off.325 .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson Colombia Law Review v. more "existential.. Law professors can contribute to that culture by making law more coherent. they make themselves more resilient. and in this sense their project is at least as worthy as any that philosophy. Law has an objective structure that exceeds mere subjectivity. more to the point. the legal universe swells and fills itself out like an appetite that "grows by what it feeds on." By working the law. Professor of Law at Cardozo.

by making some starting commitments—to the conservative principle (maintaining the free institutions we have). Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice. So if we resort to the lesser evil. At some point—when we “have to destroy the village in order to save it”—we may conclude that we have slipped from the lesser to the greater. we should do so. Third. but whether we can succeed in choosing lesser evils and keep them from becoming greater ones. learning about policymaking is key to fostering the kind of critical thought which makes decision possible. we should chose evil means only as a last resort. we should act under a demonstrable state of necessity. . anticipating harms and coming to a rational judgment of which course of action is likely to inflict the least damage on the two principles. the issue is not whether we can avoid evil acts altogether. It is tempting to suppose that moral life can avoid this slope simply by avoiding evil means altogether. to the dignity principle (preserving individuals from gross harms)—and then reasoning out the consequences of various courses of action. Finally. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. having tried everything else. and we are entitled to stick to it even if the price proves higher than we anticipated. 18-19 In a war on terror. I would argue. Either we fight evil with evil or we succumb. Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the JFK School of Government. in full awareness that evil is involved. first. I would argue. Harvard University. 2004. Michael Ignatieff. When we are satisfied that a coercive measure is a genuine last resort. But not indefinitely so. we have chosen the lesser evil. justified by the facts as we can understand them. Second. Then we have no choice but to admit our error and reverse course. error is probably unavoidable. p.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 76 Framework File Policymaking key to Ethics Uncertainty does not imply deference to fate and fortune but rather that we either fight evil or we succumb to it. We should do so. In the situation of factual uncertainty in which most decisions about terrorism have to be taken. But no such angelic option may exist. we must satisfy a fourth obligation: we must justify our actions publicly to our fellow citizens and submit to their judgment as to their correctness.

the majority of the members of Congress were former high school and/or college debaters (Schachtman 1995. Department of Sociology Northwestern University. and countering potential opponents. and information processing. as well as a literature on "political socialization"2 (e. In other words. the means through which individuals acquire the skills to construct problems is understudied. similar to much interactionist analysis (a frequent criticism. and politicians began as high school debaters suggests that many participants receive an early taste of presenting contentious political discourse in this social sphere. By examining how adolescents learn to make claims that they and their (adult) judges define as effective. retrieval of data. Indeed. . the skills necessary for policy argumentation are developed. Indeed. although of course they express opinions in private spheres and through surveys and voting. but it hasn't sufficiently considered how individuals acquire the skills to play these roles. and social construction. the fact that numerous public policy analysts. we know less about socialization to these techniques through interaction (but see Adler and Adler 1998. the presentation of evidence (statistics and narratives). organizing talk to fit temporal slots.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 77 Framework File Policymaking key to Moral Decision Making Policymaking builds moral decision making skills Fine. involve sophisticated reasoning. for instance. While the percentage has dropped because of the increased diversity of legislators. discourse. However. performative abilities.. tch) Yet. constructionist research has effectively shown how people play roles in the creation of problems. For those who become moral entrepreneurs. While we have learned much about interpretation. Fine 1987. these discursive skills. little attention has been paid to how children learn to perform social problems discourse. lawyers. “GAMES AND TRUTHS: Learning To Construct Social Problems In High School Debate”. Through debate. Despite the development of a sociology of childhood and adolescence (Corsaro 1997). The assumption is that skills of moral entrepreneurship are easily accessible. but they acquire these skills through guided training in these techniques. we can understand how social problems entrepreneurs are socialized.g. most citizens feel incapable of participating in domains of. 249). a majority of debaters plan on careers in law or politics. of dramaturgical analysis). Niemi and Sobieszak 1977). It is not just that individuals "internalize" rules and strategies.' Participants in policy arenas have acquired abilities that others do not share. Eder 1995. 2k (Gary. One arena in which adolescents confront discourse on social problems is high school policy debate: a school-sponsored contest in which teams of adolescents compete in tournaments where they are evaluated on their ability to engage in claims-making. 103-104. Thorne 1993). Jennings and Niemi 1974. including claims making. impression management. such training serves them well. At one time. p.

even as the ethos of anti-politics becomes more compelling and even fashionable in the United States. Many ideological currents scrutinized here ^ localism.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 78 Framework File Political Vacuum DA The alternative causes a political vacuum Boggs. 773-4) The decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America poses a series of great dilemmas and challenges. enclave activism can be understood as a reaction against the chaos of urban life and the eclipse of public space. community radicalism could actually serve elite interests by siphoning off discontent and deflecting it away from the real centers of power. social Darwinism. Over time. the state would likely become what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal. December. The globalizing pressures exerted on the economy and political system reinforce this trend. comes at a time when agendas that ignore or side. ‘97 (Carl. and citizen participation within the general community – one of the hallmarks of a depoliticized society. the fate of the world hangs in the balance. or that gigantic state and military structures will lose their hold over people's lives. The unyielding truth is that. And such problems (ecological crisis. they remain very much alive in the 1990s. it is the vagaries of political power that will continue to decide the fate of human societies. further reducing the scope of local decisionmaking and rendering much local empowerment illusory. This last point demands further elaboration. and gaining levers of institutional power than with erecting barriers against outside intrusions. their influence on the national state was likely to be minimal owing to the complex maze of checks grass. as Mark Kann observes. p. The shrinkage of politics hardly means that corporate colonization will be less of a reality. The fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian world. could be the prelude to a powerful Leviathan designed to impose order in the face of disunity and atomized retreat. post. the federal state.developed countries. not very far removed from the rampant individualism. the widespread retreat from politics. In this way the eclipse of politics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more virulent guise – or it might help further rationalize the existing power structure. Theory & Society 26. That causes extinction Boggs. National University. and balances. Far from it: the space abdicated by a broad citizenry. As this ideological quagmire worsens. and global Such realities. finance. along with constitutional and legal obstacles to securing a national foothold. Wolin refers to the increasing sublimation and dilution of politics. but in a depoliticized culture it will be difficult to avoid. well-informed and ready to participate at many levels. spread of infectious diseases. legislative intricacies. remains a significant part of any transformative agenda.40 Like spiritual politics.modernism. While these currents have deep origins in popular movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In many ways the dilemmas of local activism go back to the origins of the American political system. The end result of this type of populism is a widespread turning-away from the concerns of power. just as citydwellers may look to gated communities as a way of protecting themselves against the Hobbesian features of civil society. along with a rejection of normal politics itself. as larger numbers of people turn away from public concerns toward private ones. that social hierarchies will somehow disappear. be reduced to impotence. clearly there is no iron law favoring an enclave outcome. the national government became stronger and more bureaucratized. with its expanded role in the military. making policy.step these global realities will. Professor of Political Science. and civic violence that have been so much a part of the American landscape. In either case. we negate the very idea of politics as a source of public ideals and visions. National University. p. 760-1) Grassroots politics. By diluting the life of common involvements. collective interests that had vanished from civil society. Professor of Political Science. Deep Ecology – intersect with and reinforce each other. December. ‘97 (Carl. overlapping forms of representation. metaphysics. Theory & Society 26. In his commentary on the state of citizenship today. too. At the same time. Despite their different outlooks and trajectories. urban decay.roots mayhem would disturb the national political system.74 In the meantime. foreign policy. Thus. which was set up to allow space for local participation apart from federal structures so that no amount of even where oppositional groups were able to carve out a local presence. spontaneism. they all share one thing in common: a depoliticized expression of struggles to combat and overcome alienation. can in fact be filled by authoritarian and reactionary elites – an already familiar dynamic in many lesser. an erosion of citizenship and a depleted capacity of individuals in large groups to work for social change. urgent problems that are destroying the fabric of American society will go unsolved – perhaps even unrecognized – only to fester more ominously into the future. The false sense of empowerment that comes with such mesmerizing impulses is accompanied by a loss of public engagement. often compelled progressive movements to stress local organizing.75 . Paradoxically. often inspired by localist sentiment. and a cumbersome winner-take-all electoral system that pushes the two main parties toward moderation. economy. Collective action within the enclave has less to do with rejuvenating public discourse. more than ever. poverty. technological displacement of workers) cannot be understood outside the larger social and global context of internationalized markets. of course. governance. and communications. assumed ever greater control over people's lives. Meanwhile.

action is a mere exercise of will. it ceases to exist altogether. The distinction between deliberation and contemplation is often missed or glossed over by deliberative democrats in their zeal to drive home the distinction between raw power (or partisanship) and deliberation. and deliberation does not simply wilt. Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M. Except in the abstract world of an ideal speech situation. which (in a democracy) requires moving from "the many as individuals" to "the many as one. is always partial. collective action—the raison d'etre of deliberation—paradoxically requires that deliberation give way to partisanship. is not the same thing as acting. 98-9 Deliberation. Choice. however closely tied to action. political accountability and deliberation require decision. but without action." .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 79 Framework File Consequentialism key to Deliberation/Accountability We must evaluate the consequences of institutional implementation of plan. Deliberation requires the consideration of alternatives. When we also remember that political choice is by definition collective. Indeed. always partisan. This seeming paradox is really no paradox at all: deliberation is thought that is directed at action. thought whose telos is a decision. Without deliberation. in other words. choice requires the elimination of all but one alternative. which in political life is collective. Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. deliberation is reduced to mere contemplation. even entails. it is undesirable—for to do so would be to abolish deliberation in the process. which requires choice. Adolf G. Hence. Gundersen. 2000. take away the need to decide or choose. Take away all prospect of action. we also need to recognize that eliminating partisanship is not only impossible. partisanship. However we construe the relationship between thought and action. However distinct deliberation and partisanship might be. deliberation is limited by partisanship. the very existence of political deliberation requires. we can see why political deliberation depends on partisanship: deliberation requires action. most of us would agree that there is an essential difference between thinking through a course of action and deciding upon or choosing one.

33 On what basis could they ever know? Even if they were actually on the train that was supposed to leave for Bristol. might not the happening be explained by Paddington leaving the train? We all know such conundrums. for whom nothing is certain. Rev.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 80 Framework File Consequentialism key to Ethics We’re obligated to attend to material suffering – even if some of our epistemology is flawed. torturing an innocent child is morally impermissible not because it fails to produce the greatest good. 71."(n4) or "shields"(n5) against the intrusive designs of the utility-maximizing consequenualist. narrowed. Some of them do. And even philosophical sceptics have to catch trains. as Blackstone also realizes.(n6) insulating each person from being sacrificed for the public good. ideas can be reclaimed for good purposes Ken Booth – professor of International Politics at University of Wales. 146 U. What matters from a cosmopolitan perspective is not the birthplace of an idea. Pa. World politics in the next century wdl be more Asian than the present one. p. Tom Stoppard enjoyably caricatured them in his clever comedy Jumpers. No. and in particular in the scene in which philosophical sceptics were discussing whether the train for Bristol left yesterday from Paddington station.. that governmental intervention going beyond what is minimally necessary to preserve social order is not justified. are a f a d a r feature of academic life. and so for whom the bases of action are always problematic. I do not see the dissemination of powerful social and political ideas as necessarily occurring in one direction only. 901."(n9) state violates deontological norms. should therefore simply be labelled 'imperialist' and rejected. JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. . For example. or snipe from the windows of ivory towers. but the meaning we give it. where harms of colossal proportion will be suffered unless some fight is violated. Attorney Advisor in the Competition Policy Division of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. “Human Wrongs and International Relations” Philosophical sceptics. 1. D. but because doing so would violate the child's rights. As the economic and political power of Asia grows. or enlarged. if stopping a terrorist from launching a salvo of nuclear missiles against China required killing several innocent hostages. the "local or occasional necessities of the state" sometimes demand that rights be "modified. or backed by Western opinion.C. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.(n7) Nothing more need be said. 959 Rights act as "trumps. For example. it does not follow that every idea originating in the West. flesh is being fed or famished. former associate with Arnold & Porter in Washington.Jan 1995 International Affairs Vol. Furthermore. we must engage with the real. This means having 'the courage of our confusions' and thinking and acting without certainty. L. Unless academics are merely to spread confusion. Rights clearly must give way in catastrophic cases. Meanwhile. for example. and indeed such people. so wdl its cultural power. sometimes the public good wins out. Morality must take a backseat to the possibility of catastrophic consequences Tim Stelzig. Aberystwyth . There are some ethnocentric ideasand individual human rights is one of them-for which we should not apologize."(n3) "side-constraints. it would be undeniably(n10)Libertarians have argued that such a Yet. March 1998.(n8) Bluntly put. In reply to those sensitive to post-colonial critiques of Western imperialism I would argue that just because many Western ideas were spread by commerce and the Gatling gun. and people are being tortured or killed.

These weapons would destroy cities. It began. and to assure that our actions do not foreclose the future. We must share. 2007 The inaugural meeting of the World Future Council was recently held in Hamburg. chosen for their diversity and pioneering commitment to building a better world.” The Call to Action is a challenge to each of us to take responsibility for assuring a positive future for humanity and for preserving life on our planet. a document calling for action to protect the future of all life. co-operate and innovate together in building a world worthy of our highest aspirations. The document states: “Today there is no alternative to an ethics of global responsibility for we are entering an era of consequences. May 17. civilization and possibly humanity itself.” online: http://www. countries. accessed August 12. It brought together 50 Councilors from all continents. “Today we stand at the crossroads of human history. Those of us alive now have the responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. The decision lies with each one of us!” We are challenged to consider what we are individually and collectively doing not only to radically undermine our present world through war and its preparation. The Hamburg Call to Action is a great document and I urge you to read and reflect upon it.wagingpeace.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 81 Framework File Consequentialism key – Nuclear War We have an ethical obligation to discuss consequences about nuclear war David Krieger. resource depletion. but also the effects of what we are doing upon future generations. But I draw your attention specifically to the section on nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons remain humanity’s most immediate catastrophic threat. if not forever. The danger posed by nuclear weapons in any hands must be confronted directly and urgently through a new initiative for the elimination of these instruments of annihilation. President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. the Council released the Hamburg Call to Action. Germany. At the conclusion of the four-day meeting. 2007.htm. Our actions – and our failures to act – will decide the future of life on earth for thousands of years. pollution and global warming.” .org/articles/2007/05/17_krieger_Responsibility_In_An_Era. “Responsibility in an Era of Consequences.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

82 Framework File

Consequentialism key – States (1/2)
Equating states and individual morally is a misappropriation of ethical analysis; while it may be possible for individuals to follow strict moral codes of conduct, states can only justify their decisions consequentially. Tim Stelzig, Attorney Advisor in the Competition Policy Division of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau,
former associate with Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, March 1998, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 901, p. 959

It might be argued that because the intervention of the modern state is so pervasive and burdensome, state action has become a threat by its very ubiquity. The argument here is not that the costs of governmental action outweigh the benefits. Instead, the claim is that the ubiquity of governmental action has altered the character of state intervention, such that it is no longer appropriate to
This observation forms the basis for a deep objection to the applicability of the distributive exemption to state action. conceptualize governmental intervention as a diversion for purposes of the distributive exemption. If so, deontological morality might require a government akin to the classic libertarian "night-

That is, state intervention might still be justified under the distributive exemption in order to protect society from the anarchy threatened by the state of nature. Trying to do more, however, might transform the diversionary character of the state's intervention into an independent threat that is not justified under the distributive exemption. If this objection succeeds, governmental action must be neither pervasive nor frequent.
watchman" state.(n256) One response is simply to say that governmental intervention is permissible until the state's pervasiveness, as such, develops into a threat. This response is not particularly useful, however, because the property of pervasiveness lies on a continuum. No clear boundaries separate the state that is oppressive due to its pervasiveness from the nonoppressive, but still activist, state. Thus, instead of attempting to counter the libertarian objection directly, let us grant its premise. Take it as given that over a period of many years and gradual expansion, the state has evolved such that it, along with previously recognized threats (e.g., the unchecked passions of others), now constitutes a threat. What is the result? The first thing to note is that because we are still working within the moral framework of deontology, the distributive exemption is still pertinent. The difference is that instead of drawing the analogy between the state and the passerby, we should draw the analogy between the state and the trolley. We, as citizens exercising control over our democratic state,(n257) now have the role analogous to the passerby in Thomson's example.(n258) As will be demonstrated below, this change has fewer implications than might be expected. It might be thought obvious that minimizing state-caused harm requires scaling back government. Even if downsizing government resulted in less overall good, one might argue that the inevitability(n259) and lesser-harm(n260) requirements that are embedded in the distributive exemption, their deontological character not perturbed by consequentialist concerns, mandate this result. However, things are not so simple. There are at least two reasons why an essentially libertarian conclusion does not follow from the second-order application of the distributive exemption to the state. First, the state is not the only threat facing society. Although the anarchy of the state of nature may not be lurking just around the corner, unfettered human passions are still a significant threat in the absence of the stabilizing influence of governmental action. The distributive exemption justifies governmental action to remedy those harms up to the point where the state is so pervasive that its ubiquity threatens harm. This limitation potentially still leaves significant room for an active state. As noted above, however, no clear boundary separates the pervasively oppressive state from the nonoppressive but active state. Thus, those who believe that indefensible ubiquity lies just beyond the night-watchman state bear the burden of demonstrating why this is so. In defending this claim, the libertarian must heed two points. First, traditional appeals to property rights and the like will not provide the libertarian with a sufficient defense, since the arguments above already have established that the distributive exemption permits infringement of such rights. The only harm relevant at this point in the argument is the harm resulting from the ubiquity of the modern state. Second, in arguing that the more-than-minimal state constitutes a threat by its ubiquity, the libertarian must show more than that a powerful government may be threatening to a citizen who feels insignificant in comparison. Vague anxieties of this sort are not harms protected by stringent rights. It is important to remember that the version of rights defended here is not absolute. Thomson's Tradeoff Idea, followed here, allows rights to be infringed when doing so produces significantly much more good.(n261) The libertarian therefore must show that the harms caused by the pervasiveness of the ubiquitous state are not significantly outweighed by the benefits of the governmental action in question. Demonstrating that we have stringent rights against governmental ubiquity would satisfy this burden, but defending that claim would be no easy task. Because this first point depends, in part, on drawing a line about which no clear standard exists, I will not press further here. The second reason that an essentially libertarian conclusion does not follow from the second-order application of the distributive exemption to the state is more fundamental. Because the state fills a special role in society, state action and the exercise of passion are interrelated and cannot properly be understood independently.(n262) In the case of an individual, "inaction" is not properly counted as action.(n263) But because the state is the only legitimate creator of certain types of social rules (i.e., legal rules), people act in reliance on both the existence and nonexistence of these rules. The special role of the state encompasses coordinating collective action by establishing the rules that define, in part, the parameters of permissible behavior. Therefore, the lack of state sanction against doing a particular thing legitimately may be relied on as a prima facie reason to think the thing socially permissible.(n264) Deregulation has causal impact. For example, the problems in the savings-and-loan industry in the 1980s are usually causally attributed to governmental deregulation.(n265) Failure to regulate also clearly has consequences. For instance, the future vitality of the Internet arguably depends in part on the degree to which the government fails to regulate its development.(n266) Thus, in the special case of the state, lack of intervention, and certainly deregulation, are actions for purposes of the

So although threats may be found in state action, threats also may exist in state inaction.(n267) If scaling back the state causes more societal harm than good, the state is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
distributive exemption. Minimizing governmental harm is no simple matter. It involves complex calculations and the interweaving of policies of inaction with policies of civil, criminal, and regulatory action. However one thinks these processes ideally should work in detail, this conclusion comports well with broadly liberal(n268) notions of proper governmental action. The distributive exemption claims that the desirable role for government is to attempt to provide for the general welfare as consequentially calculated, while taking into account the cost of governmental intervention.

Deontological principles of good standing have thus explained why the state is permitted to do that which would be deontologically impermissible for individuals to do. In short, an exception to deontology has swallowed up the rule with respect to state action. <CONTINUED>

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

83 Framework File

<CONTINUED>

Consequentialism key – States (2/2)
CONCLUSION
This Comment seeks to dissipate the tension Blackstone broached when he stated that the "eternal boundaries" provided by our "indelible rights" sometimes must be "modified" or "narrowed" by

Rights, as trumps against the world, ostensibly ought not to be things that may be cast aside. Yet, it is intuitively obvious that the state justifiably acts in ways impermissible for individuals as it collects taxes, punishes wrongdoers, and the like.
the "local or occasional necessities of the state."(n269) Others have offered explanations for why coercive state action is morally justified. This Comment adds another. This Comment began by adopting deontology as a foundational theoretic assumption and briefly describing how deontology was to be understood herein. I then examined the characteristics of two leading theories of rights--Dworkin's theory of legal rights and Thomson's theory of moral rights. Although with respect to rights, neither account

neither Dworkin nor Thomson is an absolutist

explains why the state, but not individuals, may act in ways seemingly justifiable only on consequentialist grounds: that is, why the state may override the trumping effect of rights. In attempting to provide an answer to this question, I first noted that deontology does not exhaust moral discourse. The deontologist is
forced to recognize that rights cannot capture everything of moral importance. I then provided several examples of distinctions recognized in the philosophical literature that delimit areas in which deontology does not apply, focusing in particular on the Trolley Problem and the distributive exemption from deontological norms that the Trolley Problem illustrates. The deontological exemption was examined fairly closely in order to enumerate the criteria that trigger the exemption and understand the principles that guide its application. By applying the distributive exemption to the state, I accomplished two things. First, I was able to provide a new justification for the existence of the coercive state, both when premised on the traditional assumptions of social contractarians, and when premised on a more realistic understanding of the modern state. Second, I was able to sketch the relationship between the constraints of rights and the demands of policy, justifying a state that provides for the general welfare without violating rights in a way objectionable to liberals. Libertarians have argued that such a state violates deontologicalnorms, that governmental intervention going beyond what is minimally necessary to preserve social order is not justified. Deontology does not require such a timid state and, moreover, finds desirable a state which promotes the general welfare to the fullest extent possible, even if in so doing it acts in ways

More specifically, I argued that the government must consequentially justify its policy choices. The elegance of this particular rationale for the contours of permissible governmental action is that it remains a deontological justification at base. One of the worries of full-blown consequentialism is that it requires too much, that any putative right may be set aside if doing so would produce greater good. The justification offered here does not suffer that flaw. The distributive exemption does not permit that any one be sacrificed for the betterment of others; rather, it only permits a redistribution of inevitable harms, a diversion of an existing threatened harm to many such that it results in harm to fewer individuals.
deontologically objectionable for anyone other than one filling the government's unique role in society.

Governments are uniquely obligate to rely on consequentialism Harries, is a Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for
Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia, and editor emeritus of The National Interest, a leading Washington-based foreign policy quarterly, 2005 (Owen, Orbis, p. 64 NB) The same point, expressed in different terms, is that those who conduct foreign policy are in the position of agents or trustees, not principals. As in the case of trustees, their first and overriding responsibility is not to give expression to their own moral views or preferences, but to secure the interests of those they serve. If they feel that the two conflict and that they are morally constrained from subordinating their own values to their duties as trustees, their proper course is not to insist on giving preference to the former but to resign.

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009
Holbrook/Nielson

84 Framework File

Critique Prevents Change (1/2)
Moral absolutism makes politics impossible—without analyzing the consequences of the institutional implementation of plans, it becomes impossible to actualize the goals of the critique. Jeffrey Isaac, 02 James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science and director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life at
Indiana University, Bloomington, Spring, Dissent, vol. 49, no. 2

POLITICS IS ABOUT ends and means--about the values that we pursue and the methods by which we pursue them. In a perfect world, there would be a perfect congruence between ends and means: our ends would always be achievable through means that were fully consistent with them; the tension between ends and means would not exist. But then there would be no need to pursue just ends, for these would already be realized. Such a world of absolute justice lies beyond politics.
The left has historically been burdened by the image of such a world. Marx's vision of the "riddle of history solved" and Engels's vision of the "withering away of the state" were two canonical expressions of the belief in an end-state in which perfect justice could be achieved once and for all. But the left has also developed a concurrent tradition of serious strategic thinking about politics. Centered around but not reducible to classical Marxism, this tradition has focused on such questions as the relations of class, party, and state; the consequences of parliamentary versus revolutionary strategies of social change; the problem of hegemony and the limits of mass politics; the role of violence in class struggle; and the relationship between class struggle and war. These questions preoccupied Karl Kautsky, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, and Antonio Gramsci--and also John Dewey, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, George Orwell, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus. The history of left political thought in the twentieth century is a history of serious arguments about ends and means in politics, arguments about how to pursue the difficult work of achieving social justice in an unjust world. Many of these arguments were foolish, many of their conclusions were specious, and many of the actions followed from them were barbaric. The problem of ends and means in politics was often handled poorly, but it was nonetheless taken seriously, even if so many on the left failed to think clearly about the proper relationship between their perfectionist visions and their often Machiavellian strategies. What is striking about much of the political discussion on the left today is its failure to engage this earlier tradition of argument. The left, particularly the campus left--by which I mean "progressive" faculty and student groups, often centered around labor solidarity organizations and campus Green affiliates--has become moralistic rather than politically serious. Some of its moralizing--about Chiapas, Palestine, and Iraq--continues the third worldism that plagued the New Left in its waning years. Some of it--about globalization and sweatshops--is new and in some ways promising (see my "Thinking About the Antisweatshop Movement," Dissent, Fall 2001). But what characterizes much campus left discourse is a substitution of moral rhetoric about evil policies or institutions for a sober consideration of what might improve or replace them, how the improvement might be achieved, and what the likely costs, as well as the benefits, are of any reasonable strategy. One consequence of this tendency is a failure to worry about methods of securing political support through democratic means or to recognize the distinctive value of democracy itself. It is not that conspiratorial or antidemocratic means are promoted. On the contrary, the means employed tend to be preeminently democratic--petitions, demonstrations, marches, boycotts, corporate campaigns, vigorous public criticism. And it is not that political democracy is derided. Projects such as the Green Party engage with electoral politics, locally and nationally, in order to win public office and achieve political objectives. BUT WHAT IS absent is a sober reckoning with the preoccupations and opinions of the vast majority of Americans, who are not drawn to vocal denunciations of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization and who do not believe that the discourse of "anti-imperialism" speaks to their lives. Equally absent is critical thinking about why citizens of liberal democratic states--including most workers and the poor--value liberal democracy and subscribe to what Jurgen Habermas has called "constitutional patriotism": a patriotic identification with the democratic state because of the civil, political, and social rights it defends. Vicarious identifications with Subcommandante Marcos or starving Iraqi children allow left activists to express a genuine solidarity with the oppressed elsewhere that is surely legitimate in a globalizing age. But these symbolic avowals are not an effective way of contending for political influence or power in the society in which these activists live. The ease with which the campus left responded to September 11 by rehearsing an all-too-familiar narrative of American militarism and imperialism is not simply disturbing. It is a sign of this left's alienation from the society in which it operates (the worst examples of this are statements of the Student Peace Action Coalition Network, which declare that "the United States Government is the world's greatest terror organization," and suggest that "homicidal psychopaths of the United States Government" engineered the World Trade Center attacks as a pretext for imperialist aggression. See http://www.gospan.org). Many left activists seem more able to identify with (idealized versions of) Iraqi or Afghan civilians than with American citizens, whether these are the people who perished in the Twin Towers or the rest of us who legitimately fear that we might be next. This is not because of any "disloyalty." Charges like that lack intellectual or political merit. It is because of a debilitating moralism; because it is easier to denounce wrong than to take real responsibility for correcting it, easier to locate and to oppose a remote evil than to address a proximate difficulty. The campus left says what it thinks. But it exhibits little interest in how and why so many Americans think differently. The "peace" demonstrations organized across the country within a few days of the September 11 attacks--in which local Green Party activists often played a crucial role--were, whatever else they were, a sign of their organizers' lack of judgment and common sense. Although they often expressed genuine horror about the terrorism, they focused their energy not on the legitimate fear and outrage of American citizens but rather on the evils of the American government and its widely supported response to the terror. Hardly anyone was paying attention, but they alienated anyone who was. This was utterly predictable. And that is my point. The predictable consequences did not matter. What mattered was simply the expression of righteous indignation about what is wrong with the United States, as if September 11 hadn't really happened. Whatever one thinks about America's deficiencies, it must be acknowledged that a political praxis preoccupation with this is foolish and self-defeating.

The other, more serious consequence of this moralizing tendency is the failure to think seriously about global politics. The campus left is rightly interested in the ills of global capitalism. But politically it seems limited to two options: expressions of "solidarity" with certain oppressed groups--Palestinians but not Syrians, Afghan civilians (though not those who welcome liberation from the Taliban), but not Bosnians or Kosovars or Rwandans-and automatic opposition to American foreign policy in the name of anti-imperialism. The economic discourse of the campus left is a universalist discourse of human needs and workers rights; but it is accompanied by a refusal to think in political terms about the realities of states, international institutions, violence, and power. This refusal is linked to a peculiar strain of pacifism, according to which any use of military force by the United States is viewed as aggression or militarism. <CONTINUED>

which denounces terrorism even though the U. from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. to the current post-September 11 antiwar movement. and the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition. war and injustice. it opposed what was then an imminent war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda. then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters. A military response to terrorist aggression is not in any obvious sense an act of aggression. But they typically are raised by left critics not to promote real debate about practical alternatives. The so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" was the product of a real learning experience that should not be forgotten.S. it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect." This declaration was hardly unique. the most important political questions are simply not asked. it is equally important. And it undermines political effectiveness. most revealingly. As Global Exchange declared in its antiwar statement of September 11: "vengeance offers no relief. and Hannah Arendt have taught. while hate takes us toward military action of any kind is figured as "aggression" or "vengeance". This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic. it is not clear that it is a political goal. intended or unintended. military intervention is an act of "aggression. Justice. as peace activists would have it. but if such tactics entail impotence. But they are also vague and empty. It is assumed that U. It is inconsistent with avowals of "materialism" and evocations of "struggle. They are unmentioned because to broach them is to enter a terrain that the campus left is unwilling to enter--the terrain of violence. policy and its likely consequences. or the political enforcement of the minimal conditions of global civility--these are unmentioned. (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice. the destructive capacities of modern warfare--which jeopardize the civilian/combatant distinction. And. whether substantial or marginal. And to develop such means is to develop.. involves contests over the distribution and use of power. and to meet violence with violence breeds more rage and more senseless deaths. by local student or faculty coalitions. the harm that will come to ordinary Iraqi or Serbian or Afghan citizens as a result of intervention. This unpragmatic approach has become a hallmark of post-cold war left commentary. retaliation can never guarantee healing. and introduce the possibility of enormous ecological devastation--make war under any circumstances something to be feared. from the Gulf War protests of 1991. Rather than engage in military aggression. while "healing" is surely a legitimate moral goal.S.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 85 Framework File Critique Prevents Change (2/2) <CONTINUED> A CASE IN POINT is a petition circulated on the campus of Indiana University within days of September 11. most assuredly is a political goal. But criminal and retributive justice. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. those in authority should apprehend and charge those individuals believed to be directly responsible for the attacks and try them in a court of law in accordance with due process of international law. one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. To compare the debates within the left about the two world wars or the Spanish Civil War with the predictable "anti-militarism" of today's campus left is to compare a discourse that was serious about political power with a discourse that is not. to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Drafted by the Bloomington Peace Coalition. rather it will harm innocent people and further the cycle of violence. and called for peace. moral purity is not simply a form of This is why. America's use of violence has caused much harm in the world. peace. the hypocrisy of official U. that is most significant. finally. or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international law are well intended and important. . In each case protesters have raised serious questions about U. Only love leads to peace with justice. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world. rather than the motives of action. the criterion of absolute harm avoidance would rule out the possibility of any military response. powerlessness.org. To accomplish anything in the political world. and. for the "criminals" in question are not law-abiding citizens but mass murderers. This requires us to ask a question that most "peace" activists would prefer not to ask: What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein." especially on the part of those many who are not pacifists. government has often supported terrorism. from Southeast Asia to Central and Latin America to Africa.. military response--is simply defined as aggression.. The concern may be morally laudable. It is virtually impossible either to "apprehend" and prosecute terrorists or to put an end to terrorist networks without the use of military force. This aversion to violence is understandable and in some ways laudable. it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. or a Milosevic." but no consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a response. Similar statements were issued on college campuses across the country. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not. power. Reinhold Niebuhr. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It promotes arrogance. These are important issues. reflecting a kind of personal integrity. but to avoid such a debate or to trump it. it is often a form of complicity in injustice. unless any military response--or at least any U. a realm of complex choices and dirty hands. legality is treated as having its own force. It declared: "Retaliation will not lead to healing.S. and to exercise." On this view None of these points withstands serious scrutiny. or Osama bin Laden have done what they have done. 9-11peace. Like many antiwar texts. They sound a few key themes: the broader context of grievances that supposedly explains why Saddam Hussein. to the denunciation of the 1999 U. The campus left offers no such account. the national Campus Greens." It supports redistributing wealth. harm to innocents. but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime--the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression. and it is oblivious to the tradition of left thinking about ends and means. In addition.S. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. is absolutely proscribed. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing. but in a strikingly ineffective way. always.-led NATO intervention in Kosovo. an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions. In categorically repudiating violence. It is the core of politics. The most notable thing about the Bloomington statement is its avoidance of political justice. Max Weber.. it calls for "social justice abroad. or Slobodan Milosevic. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli. And yet the left's reflexive hostility toward violence in the international domain is strange. and there are no police to "arrest" them. No civilized person should approach the topic of war with anything other than great trepidation. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence. While any justifiable military response should certainly be governed by just-war principles. it is the effects of action. As a result. protection against terrorist violence. "healing" is treated as the principal goal of any legitimate response. To do so would require it to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order. It alienates those who are not true believers. and the cycle of violence that is likely to ensue. independent of any means of enforcement. however. in large part.S. rhetoric. it is in tension with a commitment to human emancipation (is there no cause for which it is justifiable to fight?). because they are not accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand. Politics.S.

Today. Constellations. where the president of today’s only great power constructs an image of reality that is almost entirely artificial and is refuted by events every day. doubt the reality of the problems and realities invoked by the leaders of the two camps. Could one not be led here to paint a very pessimistic picture of political life around the world? There seem to be neither political actors nor social conflicts from which political actors could draw support. Europe has no analysis. The unreality of the discourses and policies of the opposed camps is so great that it empties of their content the European negotiation initiatives. no model of the future to propose. the Security Council. . How far we are from the Cold War! Almost always. that the leaders of states would sooner address God than their own populations and care little to nourish the political life of calculations and projects that might have direct consequences for the populations in question. research director at L’ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. This leads one to think that the actors and stakes at the center of world politics could well be nothing but shadows – in other words. Neither has any social content or real capacity for political influence. but higher civilian casualties. 10. and protests that are less political than ideological and moral on the other. one can. We see the arbitrariness of those in power and their discourses on the one hand. But the fragility is just as great at what can be called the center of the world system. political debates and decisions created the impression of having a pronounced real historical content. p. so much so that the principal actors seemed to have been fulfilling roles imposed on them by history. On the whole. Everything occurs as if discourses. This somber observation is all the easier to accept as Europe is also conscious of defending social rights and systems of social redistribution that no longer correspond to the hopes placed in the welfare state little more than a half century ago. if it has not succeeded in imposing a mediation or intervention. This impression of unreality is certainly great in dictatorships. We hear only two equally nonpolitical discourses: that of the mission conferred by God upon the US and that of a pacifism that risks being weakened by its lack of seriousness in analyzing the situation in the Middle East. No. 307-308) These observations assume still more importance if they are placed in a broader context. are at war – at the price of reduced military operations. since these categories are by definition constructed by societies themselves. These are two mutually opposed types of moral discourse. even must. has played a positive role to the extent that it has not let itself be convinced of the reality of confrontations that seem to correspond more to the discourse of the media and the White House than to the real world. to the contrary. equally devoid of content. In fact. 3.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 86 Framework File Calculability Good A retreat to the incalculable and a refusal to evaluate the consequences of action leaves the status quo intact Touraine 03. which on first view seemed. Vol. a weakening of political institutions as well as of people’s interest and confidence in their political representatives. no intitiative. to be justified by their resistance to the unreality of the situations created by American policy. It is in this sense that the declaration of a struggle of good and evil is acceptable. where he founded the Centre d'étude des mouvements sociaux (Alain. whose violence can never conceal their fragility and incoherence. we see a retreat from politics in most countries.

we look precisely at those moments of defiance and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. . 1997. Asst Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical debate.Kulynych Kulynych concludes aff – policy oriented debate is a defiant moment of performative politics Jessica Kulynych. thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. Polity. The existence of a goaloriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert policymakers and consuming citizens. the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. Winter. n2 p315(32) When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens out of the policy process.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 87 Framework File AT: Performance .

still defective. but you can find ways of mocking it and subverting it. and was changed--but not by people who took a Butler-like view of the possibilities. The law of rape. social upheaval. finding your personal freedom within those acts of carefully limited defiance? Yet it is a fact that the institution of slavery can be changed. (NEW REPUBLIC. and because I have a certain inevitable attachment to my existence. has at least improved. and to find pockets of personal freedom within them. I come into social being. www. February 22.html) What precisely does Butler offer when she counsels subversion? She tells us to engage in parodic performances. involving no unironic. resistance is always imagined as personal. who thought that power. "Called by an injurious name. more or less private. and use the language of subordination stingingly. organized public action for legal or institutional change. Isn't this like saying to a slave that the institution of slavery will never change. It was changed because people did not rest content with parodic performance: they demanded. because a certain narcissism takes hold of any term that confers existence. If Butler means only to warn us against the dangers of fantasizing an idyllic world in which sex raises no serious problems. so the best I can do is mock. where it did not exist before. It is also a fact that the institutional structures that shape women's lives have changed." In other words: I cannot escape the humiliating structures without ceasing to be. . but she warns us that the dream of escaping altogether from the oppressive structures is just a dream: it is within the oppressive structures that we must find little spaces for resistance. where bad. Yet frequently she goes much further. will never be changed in a deep way. should. I am led to embrace the terms that injure me because they constitute me socially.com/archive/0299/022299/nussbaum022299.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 88 Framework File AT: Performance – Butler Institutions can be changed. These things were changed by feminists who would not take parodic performance as their answer.tnr. and should not. and the continued inequality of women. she is wise to do so. law professor. marriage is no longer regarded as giving men monarchical control over women's bodies. In Butler. She suggests that the institutional structures that ensure the marginalization of lesbians and gay men in our society. yield before justice. we do not need to. the law of sexual harassment exists. rely merely on performative resistance Nussbaum 99 (Martha. and so our best hope is to thumb our noses at them. and to some extent they got. And here lies a dangerous quietism. and this resistance cannot hope to change the overall situation. and would.

unchangeable. these relations are obscured and therefore rendered fixed. unless Butler and other ludic materialists relinquish their attempts to avoid the trap of idealism by positing a "divine performative" capable of bringing objects "into being. In doing so. static. to presuppose the existence of "matter" that does not exist in any relation until discourse names and delineates it--i. Still." That is. ahistorical. v. due to the increasing globalization of capital--as reinforced by the support of international business deals such as NAFTA--women in both the "first" and "third" worlds are increasingly proletarianized and subordinated to the exploitation of capitalist processes of production. TELOS. namely. 25) Yet. . Whitewater.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 89 Framework File AT: Performance – Butler Overclaiming the dominance of interpellation renders relations unchangeable Nye 99 (Andrea. e. reified--in short. the relations of production. What does it mean for a feminist project that purports to work toward the emancipation (or at least "inclusion") of all "women" to accept a theory of materialism that excludes the possibility of theorizing and explaining the processes of production? This is a particularly problematic and devastating retreat for feminism in a time when.." they must necessarily presuppose the existence of "matter" that discourse makes sense of and delineates into "objects. that only exists in discursive relations--is violently to exclude the relations under which this presupposed "matter" is produced. teaches philosophy and feminist theory at the University of Wisconsin. Butler must presuppose the existence of "matter" that does not exist in any relation at all until it enters discourse.

the public sphere today "has to be `made. Vol. 106. thoroughly commodified representations of an illusory human subjectivity. MLN.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 90 Framework File AT: Performance Focus on the individual and the performative commodifies the individual and undermines the public sphere Saccamano 91 (Neil. Habermas stresses. 3. German Issue. Lacking its former social base. A political culture-debating public of autonomous private persons exploring their human subjectivity through literary self-representation becomes a depoliticized cultureconsuming mass of pseudo-autonomous individuals identifying with manufactured. consumer culture finally consumes politics itself. Apr. the dispersal of a political public sphere into competing collectives employing representative publicity to gain assent results from the transformation of producers of culture into consumers of culture.' it is not 'there' anymore" Absorbing the merely plebiscitary political sphere. p. No. 689) In fact.. .

The constant evaluation of the student achievement. since the student has both the short-term goal of winning a decision or the award in a tournament and the long-term goal on increasing knowledge and ability. Argumentation and debate: rational decision making. or policy. and the purpose of debate is to establish a fact. professor of communication and director of debate at John Carroll. 66 (Austin J. 5) The awarding of a formal decision is an essential part of interscholastic and intercollegiate debate. Debate as an educational method provides excellent motivation for learning. Their interpretation of the ballot assumes that we are engaged in substantive debate and not an educational debate Freely. and the purpose of the debate is to provide educational opportunities for the participants. The decision represents a judge’s evaluation of the completed contest and does not imply condemnation of the losing team. or coaches who have been well trained in contest debate.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 91 Framework File AT: Role of the Ballot Voting against them is not a condemnation of their project Moulton. p. provides for frequent opportunities to encourage growth and progress and to detect and remedy misunderstandings or misapplications. while others may stress reasoning and evidence. 20-21) 3. professor of communication and director of debate at John Carroll. Argumentation and debate: rational decision making. Judges are usually exdebaters. organization of argument. The importance of each area upon the final decision is decided by the judge. Substantive debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates have a special interest. it is presented before a judge or audience usually without direct power to render a decision on the proposition—indeed. 2 edition.. 2nd edition. This combination of short-term and long-term motivation provides for an optimum learning situation. nd . professors of argumentation have found that debate is the best method of providing training in this discipline. Debate is training in argumentation. 14) Debate may be classified into two broad categories: substantive and educational. 66 (Eugene. professor of communication and coach t Redlands. All education claims must be viewed through the lens of education in argumentationdebate is a unique form for this that cannot be replicated elsewhere Freely. value. refutatory effectiveness. 66 (Gender Edited) (Austin J. the debate is presented before a judge or audience with power to render a binding decision on the proposition. From classical times to the present. in the form of decisions rendered on debates. p. In addition to this training. in educational debate the judge is instructed to disregard the merits of the proposition and to render a decision on the merits of the debate. the judge has several guidelines to help him in making a valid decision in the major areas of debate: analysis. Educational debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates usually have an academic interest. p. Debate provides an unexcelled opportunity for the student to apply the theories of argumentation under conditions to increase his [or her] knowledge and understanding of these theories and his [or her] proficiency in their use. Some critics give major importance to analysis. and delivery. reasoning and evidence. The Dynamics of Debate.

Thinking expresses a will to truth. It embarks on a fatal search for essences. Discourses. Thinking cannot be done without language. It refuses to rely upon a preconceived standpoint. for it is in itself already a process of negating. organized. from both the traditional usage of concepts and the style in which they are presented. techniques. particularly with his reading of Nietzsche. languages mould a thought such that it gets drawn into subordination even where it appears to resist this tendency. For this purpose an engagement with the work of Theodor Adorno is useful. they maintain a certain unity across time. 40 Stretching the boundaries of language games. of resisting what is forced upon it. exclude what does not fit into the way we want to see things.” Alternatives. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods. 39 Identity thinking. selected.' 37 It is a process through which we try to understand the bewildering world that surrounds us. But thinking. seeks to extract the general out of the particular and thus forces unique things into an artificial unitary system of thought. When we think we identify choices. often without knowing it. a desire to control and impose order upon random and idiosyncratic events. is the key to realising this potential. “Forget IR Theory. They explain. Adorno's conceptual starting point for this journey is negative dialectics. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile. 227-29) The domain of global politics contains an unlimited number of terrains that offer possibilities for linguistic forms of dissent to interfere with the course of transversal struggles. of course.' he claims. Popular Dissent. There is no escape from the subjective dimension of thought. knowingly or unknowingly. and. Adorno's approach to language emerges out of opposition to what he calls identity thinking.29 <63-64> The procedural language of traditional framework arguments searches unceasingly for the capital-T Truth which purges the world of difference deemed irreducible to Identity. talked. at times abruptly. 38 In fact. 2000. This whitewashes the fact that discourses are produced such that they define what can and cannot be said through a violent process of control and exclusion Roland Bleiker. Thinking also contains critical potential. Cambridge University Press. and written of in a normal and rational way. a new totalising and exclusionary system of thought that would drift us back into the dangerous waters of identity thinking. Although the boundaries of discourses change. . in a Foucaultian sense. It permits us to break loose from the claws of the established order and to venture beyond the givenness of life. make sure that the discipline’s discursive boundaries remain intact. and instruments that are considered proper for the pursuit of knowledge. linguistically based site of transversal dissent (the subject of the subsequent chapter). a unity that dominates and transgresses individual authors. It rescues and develops what does not fit into prevailing totalising practices or what may emerge as a potential alternative to them. 2000. privilege one interpretation over others. each discipline recognizes true and false propositions based on the standards of evaluation it established to assess them. or social practices. Roland Bleiker. Within these margins. engaging in Sprachkritik. p. no possibility of extracting pure facts from observation.”28 Academic disciplines are powerful mechanisms to direct and control the production and diffusion of discourses. 'is to identify.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson ***Critical Debate Good*** 92 Framework File Critique Good – Long Shell (1/3) The traditional framework of policy debate assumes that discourse is a neutral medium through which thoughts are transmitted. They determine the limits of what can be thought. In every society the production of discourses is controlled. Before scrutinising a particular. and diffused by certain procedures. Adorno even claims that before dealing with specific speech contents. 1997 The doorkeepers of IR are those who. Adorno is ideally suited for this task because he epitomises both the 'To think. Human Agency and Global Politics. Negative dialectics is the constant awareness of non-identity. Adorno claims. at times gradually. to return to Nietzsche. it is necessary to theorise in more detail how the written word offers opportunities to engender human agency. has always already established a preconceived conceptual order prior to what thinking is trying to understand. is not only obeying the power of language and discourse. is the form of thinking that ignores these unavoidable socio-linguistic restraints. he points out. why “all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their origin in unreason thereby becomes improbable. 41 Adorno tries to open up such thinking spaces through a critique of language that calls for a radical departure strengths and dangers of writing dissent. This entails creating thinking space without succumbing to the temptation of searching for a Hegelean synthesis. And language. (Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge. are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process. texts. the refusal to subsume the particular under the general.

the very achievement that grounds the moral disposition they profess? Don’t they presuppose the very basis they criticize? <xiv-xv> . the first problem of evil is the question of how a benevolent. criticize the Enlightenment. the answer involves attribution of free will to humans to engender a gap between the creative power of the God and the behavior of humanity. (Identity\Difference. said Tocqueville. thought and lived as If their structure expressed the true order of things. and care for others are anchored. The depth grammar of a political theory is shaped. My personal identity is defined through the collective constituencies with which I identify or am identified by others (as white.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 93 Framework File Critique Good – Long Shell (2/3) Identity-thinking culminates in violence against the Other Connoly in 2k2 (William. a sports fan. many believers say. expanded edition) Here in a nutshell is the thesis of this study: to confess a. Intensifying the second problem of evil is the fact that we also experience the source of morality through our most heartfelt experiences of identity. What I call in this book “the second problem of evil” flows from the social logic of identity\difference relations. second. and augmenting a few formulations. or excluding the differences on which it depends to specify itself.. to congeal established identities into fixed forms. American. There is thus a paradoxical element in the politics of identity. . it would not exist in its distinctness and solidity. Identity requires difference in order to be. others say. are legalistic. refining. but a social paradox that might be negotiated. is always connected to a series of differences that help it be what it is. said Kant. . Identity/Difference.. without belief in free will and God? How could a morally responsible agent. and. by the way in which it either acknowledges or suppresses this paradox. then. The pursuit of identity feeds the polemicism Foucault describes in the epigraph at the beginning of this essay. It is not an airtight paradox conforming to a textbook example in logic. Jews. Atheists. It is the proclivity to marginalize or demonize difference to sanctify the identity you confess. Traditionally. Entrenched in this indispensable relation is a second set of tendencies. and so on). A few more things can be said to unpack that thesis. It operates as pressure to make space for the fullness of self-identity for one constituency by marginalizing. by whether it negotiates it pluralistically or translates it into an aggressive politics of exclusive universality. trustworthiness. but there is a drive to diminish difference to complete itself inside the pursuit of identity. 64) Identity is relational and collective.. egoistic. are restless. first. You need identity to act and to be ethical. it is further specified by comparison to a variety of things I am not. Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science @ Johns Hopkins University. particular identity is also to belong to difference. omnipotent God could allow intense suffering in the world. These differences are essential to its being. and amoral. Built into the dynamic of identity is a polemical temptation to translate differences through which it is specified into moral failings or abnormalities. demeaning. that definition allowed him to define Kantian-Christian morality as a more spiritual orientation to duties and rights. That definition allowed him to honor the American passion to exclude professed atheists from public office. male. lacking the spiritual source of morality upon which stability. How could someone be moral. The initial tendency is to describe the differences on which you depend in a way that gives privilege or priority to you. To come to terms affirmatively with the complexity of that connection is to support an ethos of identity and difference suitable to a democratic culture of deep pluralism. Typically. An identity is established In relation to a series of differences that have become socially recognized. If they did not coexist as differences. and it converts difference into otherness in order to secure its own self-certainty. and I proceed by reviewing. Identity.

Jack Levy. Humboldt. Max Horkheimer observed half a century ago that widespread hostility emerges as soon as theorists fail to limit themselves to verifying facts and ordering them into familiar categories — categories which are indispensable for the sustenance of entrenched forms of life. is to be treated primarily as a broadly sketched theme of inquiry. . The objective of this disruptive process is not to declare alternative forms of knowledge true or even superior. they have been evoked to determine what is and is not a proper subject-study of international relations. Tampere. anxieties emerge and defensive mechanisms become operative. the manner in which one explains the units' behaviour. It inevitably creates anxieties. but also decide what issues are worthwhile to be assessed in the first place. 49 By combining these two forms of delineating theoretical and analytical activities. 47 Likewise. 46 My analysis juxtaposes familiar images of agency in global politics. such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall. but through an alternative set of texts and narratives. state. 48 proper research is 'to learn facts about the world' and that all hypotheses about them 'need to be evaluated empirically before they can make a contribution to knowledge'.(Roland. a process that Shapiro describes as tackling an issue not by way of well-rehearsed debates. Bleiker.' 51 A disruptive reading and writing of the agency problematique in international theory combines a commitment to methodological pluralism with an interdisciplinary and multi-layered understanding of transversal struggles. techniques and instruments that are considered proper for this purpose. Barry Buzan convincingly points out that such approaches. fail to see that there are two different issues at stake. a disruptive reading of agency in global politics will not be met with uniform approval. the discipline of international relations has turned into a rather narrowly sketched field of inquiry . Disruptive writing disturbs. but to reveal what has been discussed above: that the nature of international relations is intrinsically linked to the stories that are being told about it. by virtue of what they are. by contrast. Academic disciplines. The latter. such as Renaissance perceptions of dissent or contemporary poetics. On one side are ontological questions that have to do with determining the proper units of analysis (individuals. with relatively unusual sites of investigation. then. and that an unsettling of these stories has the potential to redirect the theory and practice of global politics. Popular Dissent. There are those who are concerned with maintaining the proper epistemological boundaries of a coherent and selfcontained discipline. rather than a disciplinary set of rules that determine where to locate and how to study global politics. for instance. A focus that is all too often confined to states and systemic factors is further restricted by limits imposed on the types of knowledge that are considered legitimate to understand global politics. That is. Gazing beyond the boundaries of disciplinary knowledge is necessary to open up questions of transversal dissent and human agency.). discipline the production and diffusion of knowledge. defends a distinct separation between the work of historians and international relations scholars. International relations. etc. 50 As soon as these epistemological boundaries are transgressed. and on the other side are epistemological questions that concern the proper research method. are political scientists whose task is to 'formulate and test general theoretical propositions about Ensuing methodological principles. which have become particularly influential in North American academia. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. The former. The warning against such transgressions is loud and clear: 'A proposed topic that cannot be refined into a specific research project permitting valid descriptive or causal interference should be modified along the way or abandoned.D. he points out. Such conventions not only suggest on what ground things can be studied legitimately. have often been discussed in the context of the level of analysis problem. 00 Ph. Cambridge. which are strongly influenced by a positivist understanding of social dynamics. system. use theory 'primarily to structure their interpretations of particular events'. Human Agency and Global Politics.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 94 Framework File Critique Good – Long Shell (3/3) Critique solves—disruption of the status quo frees theory from the constraints of factsorting and opens thought to methodological pluralism. Consider how a group of highly influential scholars argue that the objective of relationships between variables and classes of events'. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Sudies in The Hague. Cambridge University Press) What follows may thus be called 'disruptive writing'. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods.

each discipline recognizes true and false propositions based on the standards of evaluation it established to assess them. Transversal practices of dissent that issue from such mobile subjectivities operate at the level of dailiness. 00 Ph. an individual can travel across various discursive fields of power and gain the critical insight necessary to escape at least some aspect of the prevailing order.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 95 Framework File Critique Good – Short Shell The traditional framework of policy debate assumes that discourse is a neutral medium through which thoughts are transmitted. Cambridge University Press) This chapter has mapped out some of the discursive terrains in which transversal dissent takes place. at times gradually. texts. In every society the production of discourses is controlled. Humboldt. and instruments that are considered proper for the pursuit of knowledge. make sure that the discipline’s discursive boundaries remain intact. Human Agency and Global Politics. Despite their power to frame social practices. to return to Nietzsche. and neither are the practices of dissent that interfere with them. and diffused by certain procedures. . They explain. talked. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile.D. Cambridge. Discourses. the sphere of everyday life has become an integral aspect of global politics — one that deserves the attention of scholars who devote themselves to the analysis of international relations. always already contains the potential to become something else than what it is.29 <63-64> Critique solves . Through a range of seemingly mundane acts of resistance. This whitewashes the fact that discourses are produced such that they define what can and cannot be said through a violent process of control and exclusion Roland Bleiker.” Alternatives. a unity that dominates and transgresses individual authors. Tampere. Within these margins. Bleiker. in doing so. Scrutinising the level of Being reveals how individuals can escape aspects of hegemony. Discourses are not invincible monolithic forces that subsume everything in reach. at times abruptly. selected. a shift of foci from epistemological to ontological issues is necessary. They determine the limits of what can be thought. the existential awareness of Being. knowingly or unknowingly. articulate a viable and non-essentialist concept of human agency. The power of discursive practices is not circumscribed by some ultimate spatial delineation. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. The remaining chapters seek to sustain this claim and. in a Foucaultian sense.Dissent at the epistemological and ontological level runs through the discursive cracks of hegemony to the heart of social change. why “all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their origin in unreason thereby becomes improbable. To excavate the possibilities for dissent that linger in these cracks. At a time when the flow of capital and information is increasingly trans-territorial. Theses transformations are not limited to existing boundaries of sovereignty. techniques. are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process.”28 Academic disciplines are powerful mechanisms to direct and control the production and diffusion of discourses. and written of in a normal and rational way. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. By shifting back and forth etween hyphenated identities. Popular Dissent. organized. a discursively entrenched hegemonic order can be fragmented and thin at times. they maintain a certain unity across time.(Roland. Although the boundaries of discourses change. “Forget IR Theory. 1997 The doorkeepers of IR are those who. Dasein. or social practices. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods. people can gradually transform societal values and thus promote powerful processes of social change.

. and in relation to.The question of action must take a backseat to questions of policy formation and assumptions surrounding problem-solving techniques. In recent years. . the horizon) against which the disciplinary discourse and practices of IR are conducted in order to make this background itself an object of reflection and evaluation. assumptions. Thus. the constitution of what phenomena are appropriate objects of theoretical or other forms of enquiry. the very practices of international politics with which they are engaged and it is entirely plausible (on standard Humean grounds) that. In a similar vein.13 We should be wary of such denunciations precisely because the issue at stake for the practitioners of this ‘prolix and self-indulgent discourse’ is the picturing of international politics and the implications of this picturing for the epistemic and ethical framing of the discipline. After all. one effect of the kind of challenge posed by postmodernists like Michael Shapiro and Rob Walker is to prevent us from becoming too readily bewitched. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. to use another term of art. for example. . a variety of disciplines have offered conceptualizations that challenge the familiar. No. Whether or not one agrees with Walker that this is currently required.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653) The first dimension concerns the relationship between positivist IR theory and postmodernist IR ‘theory’ (and the examples illustrate the claims concerning pluralism and factionalism made in the introduction to this section). even if it will always remain to some extent veiled. bordered world of the discourse of international relations.12 or find Keohane asserting sniffily that Neither neorealist nor neoliberal institutionalists are content with interpreting texts: both sets of theorists believe that there is an international political reality that can be partly understood.15 The aim of these comments is to draw to our attention the easily forgotten fact that our existing ways of picturing international politics emerge from. The most pressing questions of the age call not only for concrete policy options to be offered to existing elites and institutions. The persistence of this international imaginary has helped to support the political privilege of sovereignty affiliations and territorialities. It is exhibited when we read Walt warning of the danger of postmodernism as a kind of theoretical decadence since ‘issues of peace and war are too important for the field [of IR] to be diverted into a prolix and self-indulgent discourse that is divorced from the real world’.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 96 Framework File Epistemology First Epistemology comes first. for example.14 The point of these remarks is to call critically into question the background picture (or. neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists (hence the point-missing character of Keohane’s complaint). http://mil. Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David. 31. “Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism. namely. as Quentin Skinner has recently reminded us. for a serious rethinking of the ways in which it is possible for human beings to live together.sagepub. and more crucially. namely. inferences and assertability warrants that are taken for granted in the course of the debate between. it is easy to become bewitched into believing that the ways of thinking about them bequeathed to us by the mainstream of our intellectual traditions must be the ways of thinking about them. . it is remarkably difficult to avoid falling under the spell of our own intellectual heritage. . Rob Walker argues: Under the present circumstances the question ‘What is to be done?’ invites a degree of arrogance that is all too visible in the behaviour of the dominant political forces of our time. however. As we analyse and reflect on our normative concepts. . The kind of accounts provided by practitioners of this type are not competing theories (hence Keohane’s complaint) but conceptual reproblematisations of the background that informs theory construction. but also. Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”. concepts. under changing conditions of political activity. Michael Shapiro writes: The global system of sovereign states has been familiar both structurally and symbolically in the daily acts of imagination through which space and human identity are construed. 3. Vol. the distinctions.16 In this respect. Owen 02. it is a perfectly reasonable issue to raise. . these ways of guiding reflection and action may lose their epistemic and/or ethical value such that a deeper interrogation of the terms of international politics is required.

where such epistemic adequacy requires the construction of a positive theory that can explain the features of the world at issue. No. Firstly. Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”. we may reasonably point out that epistemic adequacy cannot be intelligibly specified independently of background ethical commitments concerning what matters to us and how it matters to us. However.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 97 Framework File Epistemology First The assumption that policymaking occurs in an objective vacuum is false--the preconditions for any communicative exchange include the establishment of some normative framework for evaluation. http://mil. An example of this position is provided by Linklater ’s version of critical IR theory. both regard the other as. Vol. The dual confusion in question leads fairly straightforwardly to the thought that what is at stake here are incompatible epistemological commitments and hence that debate between positivist and critical forms of IR theory needs to be conducted at an epistemological level. the positivist’s claim is that critical IR theory is ideological by virtue of its explicitly normative character. “Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism.g. . within the folds of what presents itself as a value-free account. Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David. as my remarks indicate. on the one hand. This finds expression in the thought that we need to get our epistemic account of the world sorted out before we can engage responsibly in ethical judgement about what to do. As Charles Taylor has argued. neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism) are necessarily either value-free or evaluative. its (radical) critics typically view its ethical characteristics as indicating that there is an evaluative or normative theory hidden.21 The confusion in IR theory arises because. more particularly. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. they presuppose a background picture which orients our thinking through the framing of not only what can be intelligibly up for grabs as true-or-false (the epistemic framing) but also what can be intelligibly up for grabs as good-or-bad (the ethical framing). Owen 02. the confusion between holding that forms of positivist IR theory (e. But this mutual disdain is also a product of the confusion of pictures and theories. we can reasonably point out that the kind of ethical adequacy required does not entail the construction of a moral ideal but only the existence of some shared ethical judgements concerning what matters to us that orient our epistemic enquiries. where such ethical adequacy requires the construction of a moral theory and. although forms of positivist IR theory are not normative theories. Consequently.23 Against this position. a condition of our intelligibility as agents is that we inhabit a moral framework which orients us in ethical space and our practices of epistemic theorising cannot be intelligibly conceived as existing independently of this orientation in thinking. this thought is mistaken insofar as the apparent incompatibility from which it derives is an illusion. there is the confusion of pictures and theories combined with the moralist overestimation of the ethical (ideological) commitments of IR theory. This finds expression in the thought that we need to get our ethical account sorted out before we can engage responsibly in epistemic judgement about what to know. An example of this position is provided by Waltz’s neorealism.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653) The third dimension concerns the relationship between positivist IR theory and critical IR theory.. Their framework arguments only serve to whitewash the value-ladenness of their procedural standards. 3..g. while. the critical theorist’s claim is that positivist IR theory is ideological by virtue of its failure to acknowledge and reflect on its own implicit normative commitments. namely. there is a confusion between pictures and theories combined with the scientistic suppression of the ethical presuppositions of IR theory.sagepub. in some sense. on the other hand. 31. Secondly.22 Against this first position. It does so because we can now see that. as it were. where White’s distinction enables us to make sense of a related confusion. a moral ideal that can direct the enterprise of epistemic theorising. producing ideological forms of knowledge. Waltz’s neorealism and Keohane’s neoliberal institutionalism). positivist IR theory typically suppresses acknowledgement of its own ethical presuppositions under the influence of the scientific model (e.

technology (Noe and Rebello. The effect of such a tactical action is not limited to the localized target. By returning to epistemological levels. They may contain cracks. the greatest events 'are not our loudest but our stillest hours. may gradually increase the level of adoption of such ethical environmental issues. In the case of tactical protest actions of environmentally sensitive consumers. How can we understand and conceptualize the processes through which people shape social and political life. Conclusion The task of articulating a discursive notion of human agency towered at the entrance of this essay and has never ceased to be its main puzzle.' This is why he stressed that the world revolves 'not around the inventors of new noise. 243) already knew that Foucault too. one must analyse institutions from the standpoint of power relations (Foucault. between suffocating in the narrow grip of totalizing knowledge claims and blindly roaming in a nihilistic world of absences? How to make a clear break with positivist forms of representing the political Confronting the difficulties that arise with this dualistic dilemma. pp. and in conjunction with similar actions. the supermarket. They shape political and social interactions. There are many political actions that seek immediate changes in policy or institutional structures. have produced easily recognizable marketing shifts in most parts of the industrial world. instead of looking at power from the vantage point of institutions.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 98 Framework File Ontology First The cracks which litter the façade of hegemony are ontological and epistemological in character.that is. discursive dissent is not the only practice of resistance that can exert human agency. 1995. Volume 2. March 2003. along the following circular trajectory of revealing and concealing: discourses are powerful forms of domination. 25-47 The above-mentioned refusal to buy milk bottled in non-reusable glass may help to clarify the suggestion that tactical manifestations of human agency are not bound by spatial dynamics. 69-85). one can then conceptualize how these transformed discursive practices engender processes of social change. Changing attitudes and consumption patters. one needs to shift foci again. discourses are not invincible. However. They may be By moving the gaze from epistemological to ontological spheres. The manifestations that issue from such actions operate along an indeterminate trajectory insofar as they promote a slow transformation of values whose effects transgress places and become visible and effective only by maturation over time. the crucial site for political investigations are not institutions. 219-222). To recognize the potential for human agency that opens up as a result of this process. Number 1. Or. trade. it may still be too early to ascertain a definitive manifestation of human agency. Although some of these actions undoubtedly achieve results. I have sought to advance a positive concept of human agency that is neither grounded in a stable essence nor dependent upon a presupposed notion of the subject. one can explore ways in which individuals use these cracks to escape aspects of the discursive order. I have used thin. For instance. but also offer possibilities for human agency. even though they are often the place where power is inscribed and crystallized. various indicators render such an assertion highly likely. rather. is what William Connolly has termed an ethos of critical responsiveness -.' And this is why. Foucault claims. including an increasing concern for health food sections are now a common feature in most supermarkets. Yet. investment. everyday forms of resistance to illustrate how discourses not only frame and subjugate our thoughts and behaviour. And there is empirical evidence that suggests that consumer preferences for costly 'ethical' production technologies can lead to increased competition between producers. in turn. Where is this fine line between essentialism and relativism. for Nietzsche (1982b. say. 1982. The ensuing without either abandoning the concept of human agency or falling back into a new form of essentialism? journey has taken me. Hence. their enduring effect may well be primarily discursive. such tactical dissent may affect practices of production. Over an extended period of time. they are often not as potent as they seem. Moving between various hyphenated identities. Contemporary Political Theory. a more firm and detailed theory of agency is unlikely to achieve more than essentialize a particular and necessarily subjective viewpoint on the political. They frame the parameters of thinking processes. which. such tactical expressions of human agency gradually transform societal values. advertisement and the like. instead. rather than institutional. unseen. However. deeply entrenched within the social nexus. but around the inventors of new values.desiring a more robust account of what constitutes human actions and their influence on political and social life. Needed. The consumer who changes his/her shopping habits engages in a tactical action that escapes the spatial controlling mechanisms of established political and economic boundaries. a cyclically reoccurring dilemma. unthought and a <CONTINUED> . is always located outside institutions. resistance on the level of the everyday and on thought can make possible new ways of life centered around neither a quest for essence nor the renunciation of subjectivity. Over an extended period of time. Needless to say. A defence of human agency through a Nietzschean approach does inevitably leave some observers unsatisfied -. Bleiker. an openness towards the unknown. which gradually transform societal values. rather than 'mere' shifts in societal consciousness. individuals use ensuing mobile subjectivities to engage in daily acts of dissent. Roland. The fundamental point of anchorage of power relations. this time from concerns with Being to an inquiry into tactical behaviours. painted in very broad strokes. Co-Director of the University of Queensland’s Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution.

One must move back and forth not only between unconnected bodies of literature. and indeed necessary. 1991. discursive domination and possibilities for dissent that arise from fissures in them. 2000. Some seek more environmental regulations. Others defend neo-liberal free trade. And. Anything else would suggest a static view of the world. An approach to understanding human agency remains useful only as long as it stays open and resists the temptation of 'digging deeper' by anchoring itself in a newly discovered essence. national or global governance. Each of these sites is crucial. everyday forms of resistance demonstrate that transformative potential is hidden in the very acceptance of ambiguity. then is to turn this inevitable ambiguity into a positive and enabling force. epistemology and ontology. it is precisely through this lack of coherence. These movements operate in a rather chaotic way. Indeed. efforts of coming to terms with them will never arrive at a stage of ultimate insight. thus generate regular and important public scrutiny and discussion of how norms. At a theoretical level too.' that is. 1995. an engagement with human agency needs to accept a certain level of ambiguity.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 99 Framework File Ontology First <CONTINUED> resulting effort to accept and theorize our limits to cognition (see Connolly. The key. 106-150).' Ensuing forms of human agency. values and institutions function. Some operate on the right end of the political spectrum. every process of revealing is at the same time a process of concealing. 154. space and time. anarchical as they may be. They are in some sense the quintessential aspect of postmodern politics. And there too. 1988). Others hail it. Others on the left. A discursive notion of human agency is grounded precisely in the recognition that there is no end to circles of revealing and concealing. even if these insights are at times incommensurable. control and certainty that the respective resistance movements offer a positive contribution to the political. the commitment always to resist 'attempts to allow one side or the other to achieve final victory. this ambiguity can be turned into a positive force. no matter how insightful it is. Walker. Since discursive dissent operates through a constant process of becoming something else than what it is. rather than a threat that needs to be warded off or suppressed at all cost. but none of them holds the key to ultimate insight. 10-12. of local resistance to metanarrative impositions (see White. a stable foundation that could bring order and certainty to a complex and turbulent late modern world. They come and go. 154-155) believes is the key to cultural democratization: a certain level of 'productive ambiguity. in both theory and practice. one conceals everything that is invisible from this vantage point. Each offers a unique vantage point. one in which the future can never tear down the boundaries of the present. . pressure groups and other loose organizations that challenge various aspects of local. abstraction and everydayness. one in which human agency is annihilated. In the domain of political practice. Some oppose globalization. of opening and closing spaces to think and act. Consider the countless and continuously spreading new social movements. move between different insights into the question of human agency. They are neither centrally controlled nor do they all seek the same objective. Just as the interaction of domination and resistance has no end. and for a discussion White. The present essay has sought to demonstrate how such an attitude towards human agency is possible. Revealing is always an act. One must thus think in circles. This is to say that by opening up a particular perspective. a theoretical engagement with its dynamics can never be exhaustive. but also between theory and practice. They embody what Connolly (1995. not something that remains stable.

The domain of dailiness. to move back and forth between various ways of constituting oneself. though. diplomatic negotiations. is 'the simplest and at the same time the highest. but traditional. open up possibilities for thinking beyond the narrow confines of the transversally established discursive order. Bleiker.D. One of these terrains is the sphere of dailiness. A brief rehearsal — even at the risk of appearing slightly repetitive While providing compelling evidence of subtle forms of domination. A shift from grand theoretical representations of dissent towards a discursive understanding of power relations is necessary to reach a more adequate understanding of the role that human agency plays in contemporary global politics. may or may not be able to escape aspects of the prevalent discursive order. of situating we must scrutinise how individuals. annihilated by impenetrable discursive forces. Being also has multiple dimensions. Such action. gossiping. the existential awareness of Being. which is all too often eclipsed by investigations that limit the domain of global politics to more visible sites of transversal struggle. Before drawing attention to the inherently transversal character of everyday activities. and an investigation into discursive dynamics illustrates why this the case.(Roland. They contain fissures and cracks. financial flows or trade-patterns. Discourses. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. Ontologically. are not as overarching as some analysts suggest. Cracks and weaknesses in globalised discursive practices can be seen best by shifting foci from epistemological to ontological issues. Being is always a product of discourse.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 100 Framework File Ontology First Ontological critique shows of being that-it-is—and thus that being contains within it the potential to be what it is not. even if they take on global dimensions. Cambridge University Press) Discourse is the most central concept in a non-essentialist assessment of human agency. dwelling. But recognising these transversal complexities does not necessarily lead into a pessimistic cul de sac. Popular Dissent. 00 Ph. Discursive criticism is key to formulate individual subjectivity such that it can resist domination. Exploring this thinking space already is action. It contains future potential. Heidegger claims. nondiscursive analysis of politics renders the everyday existence of human being invisible and thus an illegitimate site for a politics of resistance. In this sense. Entering this ubiquitous sphere compels us to one more shift. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. — is necessary to provide the prerequisite for an adequate discursive conceptualisation of human agency in global politics. display a clear 'commitment to causal analysis'. Tampere. seemingly mundane daily practices by which people constantly shape and reshape their environment. at the level of Being. Instead of focusing on ahistorical theories of power. it is always already that which it is not. preparing the ground for more open manifestations of dissent. everydayness is a site of political contestation. seek to see beyond the levels of analysis problematique that has come to frame international relations theory. Hyphenated identities permit a person to shift viewpoints constantly. Resulting methods of mental deplacement. This is to say that in addition to analysing how discourses mould and control our thinking process. Most approaches to international theory. The focus now rests on everyday forms of resistance. a discursive approach investigates how social dynamics have been imbued with meaning and how this process of rendering them rational circumscribes the boundaries within which the transversal interaction between domination and resistance takes place. Cambridge. it is necessary to point out that the effects they produce cannot be understood by drawing direct links between action and outcome. For this purpose we must. without losing the abstract insight provided by Heidegger. a discursive approach may run the risk of leaving us with an image of the world in which the capacity for human agency is all but erased. laughing. 4 . A discursive approach is not only able to deal better with entrenched systems of exclusion. This risk is particularly acute in a world that is characterised by increasingly heterogeneous and perhaps even elusive cross-territorial dynamics. 3 But how is one to understand processes knowledge. The previous chapter has outlined this position in detail. but also minimises the danger of imposing one's own subjective vision upon a series of far more complex social events. through which critical thinking breaks through the fog of discourse and gives rise to specific and identifiable expressions of human agency? The concept of tactic offers the opportunity to take a decisive step towards exploring the practical dimensions of Dasein. is at least as crucial to the conduct of global politics. including the influential constructivist contributions to the structure—agency debate. he continues. The sphere of dailiness is where such practical theorising is most effective. Human Agency and Global Politics. It is in these spheres that societal values are gradually transformed. shopping or cooking. for 'thinking acts insofar as it thinks'. as the prologue has already stressed. This thinking space provides the opportunity to redraw the boundaries of identity which control the parameters of actions available to an individual. because it concerns the relation of Being to man'. such as wars. the present analysis departs fundamentally from the manner in which agency in global politics has come to be theorised. Rather than limiting the study of global politics to specific spheres of inquiry — those related to the role of states and the restraints imposed on them by the structures of the international system — an analysis of transversal struggles pays attention to various political terrains and the crossterritorial dynamics through which they are intertwined with each other. Humboldt. singing. weak points which open up chances to turn discursive dynamics against themselves. But Being also is becoming. away from contemplating the becoming of Being towards investigating specific ways in which individuals employ their mobile subjectivities to escape discursive forms of domination. One can find such forms of resistance in acts like writing.

privilege one interpretation over others. to decide which issues are or are not legitimate concerns for international theorists. into reality per se. For him.[14] These disputes in international theory display strong parallels with the modern debates mentioned above: they have been waged fiercely and often emotionally."[18] It separates the possible from the impossible and directs the theory and practice of world politics on a particular path. At its most elementary level. as detached observer. countless scholars have engaged in relentless disputes about how to comprehend and conduct international politics. were carried out within a positivist frame because they failed to even touch upon issues of epistemology. And yet. Several so-called great debates superseded each other: an interwar opposition between idealism and realism was followed by a postwar methodological tension between behavioralism and traditionalism." he argues. realist perceptions of the international have gradually become accepted as common sense.[19] . "is the ultimate act of political power. through their positivist epistemologies. prof. to be precise. he points out. but its consequences are particularly evident in the domain of gender relations. Smith detects powerful mechanisms of control precisely in this ability to determine meaning and rationality. 23. exclude what does not fit into the way we want to see things. that our comprehension of facts can be separated from our relationship with them. In a recent and illuminating essay. The ability to define normality interferes with virtually all aspects of the international. positivism is the common theme that runs through a diverse set of traditional approaches to international theory. Even the debates about methodological issues. It implies that the social scientist. "is to identify. Alternatives." Adorno says.[17] As a result. and. It is from such a theoretical vantage point that scholars like Jim George or Richard Ashley have tried to show how positivist epistemologies have transformed one specific interpretation of world political realities. Vol. Seemingly nothing has been spared criticism. 98 asst. thinking expresses a will to truth. "To think. in the 1920s in the United Kingdom. globalism and neoversions of realism and liberalism. Issue 4) It is in this context that the study of international relations emerged as a coherent academic discipline.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 101 Framework File Policymaking – Link Traditional policy analysis assumes a separation of subject and object ontologically and epistemologically—the level of the assumption guarantees that positivism and realism have the privilege of defining political normalcy and reality. For a postmodernist. Steve Smith has drawn attention to this framing process. More recently. Everything has come under attack. to the point that any critique against them has to be evaluated in terms of an already existing and objectivized (realist) worldview. not only entrenched this patriarchal form of domination. The latter ones are more often latently used than explicitly acknowledged. Bleiker. Ever since then. can produce value-free knowledge. "Defining common sense. a desire to control and impose order upon random and idiosyncratic events. with the female constituted as a mere aberration from them.[15] Positivism entails not only methodological commitments (propositions about how to study world politics) but also epistemological and ontological frameworks (assumptions about how world politics can be known and how the knowers acquire their knowledge). There is no escape from this process. various paradigms have tried to convince each other that they have discovered the key to understanding world politics--among them are pluralism. no possibility of extracting pure facts from observation. positivism is based on an attempt to separate subject and object. Dominant realist approaches to international theory have. of International Studies at Pusan National University (Roland. World politics has for long been dominated by men. the dominant realist one. Masculine values and men as a group have been elevated to the status of a norm. often without knowing it. To disrespect these limits to cognition is to endow one particular and necessarily subjective form of knowledge with the power to determine factuality. Oct-Dec 1998. They have been framed by the urge to impose order upon a complex and elusive modern world. these debates have all been well framed. “Retracing and redrawing the boundaries of events: Postmodern interferences with international theory”."[16] When we think we identify choices. but also rendered it meaningful and natural.

Oct-Dec 1998. goods. Policymaking is obsolete. These now threaten to exhaust what "politics. The "subjects" of policy increasingly also become a matter of definition as well. By contrast. global governance promotes the very changes and unintended outcomes that it then serially reproblematizes in terms of policy failure. Yet serial policy failure--the fate and the fuel of all policy--compels them into a continuous search for the new analysis that will extract them from the aporias in which they constantly find themselves enmeshed. As a particular kind of intervention into life. cannot be understood through a spatial mode of representation that relies on a distinction between different levels of analysis. one is intervening. “Retracing and redrawing the boundaries of events: Postmodern interferences with international theory”. technological. a situation in which "the local is instantly global. cross-border flow of people. There is nothing so fiercely contested as an epistemological or ontological assumption. Such "paralysis of analysis" is precisely what policymakers seek to avoid since they are compelled constantly to respond to circumstances over which they ordinarily have in fact both more and less control than they proclaim.)[36] . Serial policy failure is rooted in the ontological and epistemological assumptions that fashion the ways in which global governance encounters and problematizes life as a process of emergence through fitness landscapes that constantly adaptive and changing ensembles have continuously to negotiate. It is to recognize the complex being questioned.[ 36] It is here that the "emergence" characteristic of governance begins to make its appearance.com/vb/showthread.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 102 Framework File Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense Serial policy failure drives policymakers to find the truth to make a policy succeed – the lack of evaluation of ontological assumptions to reach this truth spell the end of “politics” Dillon and Reid 1998 (Michael Dillon. and Complex Emergency”. he points out. The key dynamics took place in various interstices. is about."[35] (A world political event. The processes that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall are thus best characterized as a series of diverse but interconnected occurrences that transgressed the spatial and political givenness of both East German and Cold War international politics.php?t=979961&highlight=dillon+reid) Reproblematization of problems is constrained by the institutional and ideological investments surrounding accepted "problems. Vol. discrete policy problems. What they do not have is precisely the control that they want. and by the local conditions of application that govern the introduction of their policies. Advances in economic. In consequence.[33] David Campbell argues convincingly that globalized life is best seen "as a series of transversal struggles rather than as a complex of inter-national.[ 35] Serial policy failure is no simple shortcoming that science and policy--and policy science--will ultimately overcome. one is not describing or representing. And there is nothing so fiercely ridiculed as the suggestion that the real problem with problematizations exists precisely at the level of such assumptions." locally as well as globally. 98 asst. Issue 4) In rendering meaningful. since the concept population does not have a stable referent either and has itself also evolved in biophilosophical and biomolecular as well as Foucauldian "biopower" ways. professor of Politics at Lancaster University." and by the sheer difficulty of challenging the inescapable ontological and epistemological assumptions that go into their very formation. and international politics. domestic. such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall. http://www. 23. are modes of representation that have strong investments in the very borders that are currently to conceptualize global politics as a site of transversal struggles is to draw attention to the multiple and multilayered interactions that make up contemporary life.cross-x. Doctor of Philosophy in Politics. thinking and acting politically is displaced by the institutional and epistemic rivalries that infuse its power/ knowledge networks. it deliberately installs socially specific and radically inequitable distributions of wealth. opportunity. For it is increasingly recognized that there are no definitive policy solutions to objective. and mortal danger both locally and globally through the very detailed ways in which life is variously (policy) problematized by it. and Julian Reid. capital-in short. "the increasing irruptions of accelerated and nonterritorial contingencies upon our horizons. Alternatives."[32] This transformation has rendered obsolete the convention of investigating world politics through several distinct levels of analysis. Thus. multi-national or trans-national relations.the organized structures that inform policy decisions are breaking down around us more and more. in the transversal gray zones that loom along the boundaries between local. Liberal Peace. “Global Governance."[34] The latter. A nonlinear economy of power/knowledge.[29] An event today is no longer apprehensible through traditional spatial understandings of world politics. and informational domains have led to what could be called a "deterritorialization" of the world. ideas. Bleiker. global liberal governance is not a linear problem-solving process committed to the resolution of objective policy problems simply by bringing better information and knowledge to bear upon them. prof. of International Studies at Pusan National University (Roland. neat.

“Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton.” Tetlock says. Totalizing Defense: Political predictions from so called experts are about as accurate as monkeys throwing darts. people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 103 Framework File Policymaking – Impact: Violence/Defense At worst. or wrong for the right reasons. “Expert Political Judgment” is just one of more than a hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial formulas. recession). who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices. both in the areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert. In one. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world. advise governments and businesses. Tetlock also asked questions designed to determine how they reached their judgments. grades. They insist that they were just off on timing. just because they made a mistake.relying on traditional impact calculus means that all probability of impacts become actualized goes away. or blindsided by an improbable event. Tetlock also found that specialists are not significantly more reliable than non-specialists in guessing what is going to happen in the region they study.” he reports. and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?).newyorker. college counsellors were given information about a group of high-school students and asked to predict their freshman grades in college. On the first scale. The New Yorker.) And so on. the results of personality and vocational tests. professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. $35). “We reach the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge disconcertingly quickly. beyond a certain point. The results were unimpressive. “Experts in demand. and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are. whom they were also permitted to interview. the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be. or less of something (repression.” People who are not experts in the psychology of expertise are likely (I predict) to find Tetlock’s results a surprise and a matter for concern.com/printables/critics/051205crbo_books1) It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book. People who follow current events by reading the papers and newsmagazines regularly can guess what is likely to happen about as accurately as the specialists whom the papers quote. and personal statements from the students. The counsellors had access to test scores. data from a test used to diagnose brain damage were given to a group of clinical psychologists and their secretaries. and a staff writer at The New Yorker. Would there be a nonviolent end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Would Canada disintegrate? (Many experts believed that it would. . In one study. and in almost all of those studies the people either do no better than the formulas or do worse. By the end of the study. http://www. or almost right. (Louis. There are also many studies showing that expertise and experience do not make someone a better reader of the evidence. either. The respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo. The psychologists’ diagnoses were no better than the secretaries’. “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. on the ground that Quebec would succeed in seceding. Predictions that were produced by a formula using just test scores and grades were more accurate. Menand 05. but Tetlock found that knowing a lot can actually make a person less reliable. or ought to work. depth of knowledge. When they’re wrong. get quoted in newspaper articles. are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys. though. in 2003. and so on—are any better than journalists or attentive readers of the New York Times in ‘reading’ emerging situations. renown.” And the more famous the forecaster the more overblown the forecasts. they’re rarely held accountable. “In this age of academic hyperspecialization. the experts had made 82. and. and how they assessed the probability that rival theories and predictions were accurate. Our system of expertise is completely inside out: it rewards bad judgments over good ones. in other words. economic growth). No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people. They have that the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has. there is no reason for supposing that contributors to top journals—distinguished political scientists. “Everybody’s an Expert: Putting Predictions to the Test”. how they reacted when their predictions proved to be wrong. area study specialists.361 forecasts. the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. more of something (political freedom. Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a “three possible futures” form. Knowing a little might make someone a more reliable forecaster. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends. economists. how they evaluated new information that did not support their views. The accuracy of an expert’s predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence. “were more overconfident than their colleagues who eked out existences far from the limelight. and how accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes. For psychologists. nothing could be less surprising. and they rarely admit it.” and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass. but the experts are being paid. and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley—and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty years ago.

these identities are not frozen in time. Expressed in de Certeau's language. the most potent forms of transversal dissent operate in tactical. teleological and intentional explanations? The Interlude situated between chapters 7 and 8 deals with this question at a conceptual level. Cambridge. It does not assume that agency can be assessed only by establishing links between means and ends. By moving from epistemological to ontological levels of analysis. one must comprehend forms of action in the context of their regulatory environment. international theory) has framed the understanding of human action. transgress boundaries and may eventually promote social change far more effectively than the so-called great events of international politics. They move along an indeterminate trajectory. Furthermore. fragmented. . They are often thin. by extension. What is left of the concept of human agency if one no longer relies upon causal. Cambridge University Press) An approach that specifies operational schemes recognises these limits to cognition. Tampere. 00 Ph. unstable. They contain cracks. From this vantage point. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. A further deconstruction of the notion of discourse is necessary to appreciate the unfolding of transversal dissent through tactic and temporality.(Roland. the inquiry explores the ways in which people can resist discursive domination (chapter 7). discourses are not monolithic forces that crush everything in sight. Instead of establishing a new and better theory of agency. By tapping into these multiple and shifting dimensions of Being. but part of a constantly unfolding process of becoming. Such forms of discursive dissent can be found in countless seemingly insignificant daily acts of defiance. Bleiker. rather than strategic ways. Popular Dissent. it is content with formulating a framework that facilitates understanding of how human agency is incessantly constituted and reconstituted in the context of transversal struggles. Humboldt. causal and intentional. transgress political boundaries and slowly transform values. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 104 Framework File Policymaking – Critique Solves The power of policymaking lies in its ability to construct a binary opposition between productive and flawed discussions. Such an approach departs from ways in which traditional philosophy (and. Human Agency and Global Politics. 39 My analysis breaks with most elements that are entailed in this mode of analysis. individuals are able to think and act beyond the narrow confines of the established discursive order. Despite their power to frame the world. They engage in everyday forms of resistance that allow them to reshape the social context in which they are embedded. This framing process has revolved around three ways of explaining action: teleological. It does not assume that agency occurs only if it stands in a relationship with a declared intention. It does not assume that every form of agency needs an identifiable agent that causes an identifiable outcome. They transform values. Its objective is to outline a framework that facilitates an understanding of the discursive conditions that are necessary for the exertion of human agency.D. moving towards epistemological and ontological forms of kritik is key to examine the way in which policymaking predetermines all the answers. They becomes visible and effective only through maturation over time and space. Human beings have hyphenated identities.

an amateur intellectual being one ‘who considers that to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to raise moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized activity as it involves one’s country. December 2007. but also shedding habits. Needless to say. colleagues in history. jargons. in making connections across lines and barriers. its mode of interacting with its citizens as well as with other societies’. No. tones that have inhibited IR scholars from conversing with thinkers and intellectuals outside the discipline.jacket of expertise-oriented IR to venture into intellectual terrains that raise questions of global power and cultural negotiations in a myriad of intersecting and cross-cutting ways will yield richer and fuller conceptions of the ‘politics’ of global politics. It is to that that I turn next. who benefits from it. cultural studies. anthropology.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies.disciplinarity will also yield richer and fuller conceptions of the ‘global’ of global politics. p. 1.and cross. 36. instead of doing what one is supposed to do one can ask why one does it. Professor of Politics at Whitman College. who raise the question of the global in different and sometimes contradictory ways. than professional competence. in refusing to be tied down to a specialty. 26 . ‘(T)he intellectual’s spirit as an amateur’. in caring for ideas and values despite the restrictions of a profession’. 124 What Said offers in the place of professionalism is a spirit of ‘amateurism’ – ‘the desire to be moved not by profit or reward but by love for and unquenchable interest in the larger picture.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 105 Framework File Policymaking – Critique Solves Critical and cross-disciplinary approaches to IR reinvigorate the practice – critical approaches are key to improving the policymaking scene Shampa Biswas. comparative literature. that is. “Empire and Global Public Intellectuals: Reading Edward Said as an International Relations Theorist. 25 Said bemoans the disappearance of the ‘general secular intellectual’ – ‘figures of learning and authority. its power. a critical intellectual style’. how can it reconnect with a personal project and original thoughts. whose general scope over many fields gave them more Discarding the professional strait. inter. sociology as well as in non-academic venues.’ 24 This requires not just a stubborn intellectual independence. Vol. ‘can enter and transform the merely professional routine most of us go through into something much more lively and radical. Said argues. Arguing that the intellectual’s role is a ‘nonspecialist’ one.

while addressing the refugee problem as it is constituted. it orients IR to critical reflection on both the political constitution of such-and-such practice as a problem potentially requiring government and IR’s own disciplinary constitution of such-andsuch practice as a problem requiring government. IR also involves reflecting on the plausibility and value of features of its current constitution as a problem. With respect to the former. how? At what cost? With respect to the latter. it orients IR both to the task of addressing problematic practices but also to the task of reflecting on how these practices are constituted as problematic. it follows that rather than conceiving of IR in terms of a theoretical war of all against all. we acknowledge that there is a role for different kinds of theoretical practice in IR that engage with different issues. 3. etc.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 106 Framework File Policymaking – Critique Solves Kritiks provide the crucial link between knowledge and action. 31. such as this assumption concerning sovereignty and human welfare. IR is oriented to addressing the problem posed by refugees in terms of how this problem is governed and how existing ways of governing it may be improved. the nature of the assumptions. for example. In other words. However. http://mil. the assumption that the liberty and welfare of the human population is best served by its division into the civic populations of sovereign states who have a primary duty to their own populations. inferences. that is. Thus. If this argument has any cogency.sagepub. No. it orients IR to questions that are both epistemic and ethical: what are the effects of this kind of practice? Should we seek to govern these practices? If so. “Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism. . IR is also oriented to reflection on the background picture against which this problem is constituted as a problem including. How though are we to judge between rival positions within these different levels? Between rival accounts of problems and of problem-constitution? The pragmatist response is to argue that such judgement involves attending to the capacity of the contesting accounts to guide our judgement and action. Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. But how is this capacity to be judged? Responding to this question requires that we turn to the pragmatism’s concern with growth.a reorientation of political discourse towards epistemological concerns Owen 02. Vol. that are brought to bear in this process of problem-constitution. for example.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653) Another way of elucidating what is involved in this re-orientation is to note that it links knowledge (and the value of knowledge) to action by encouraging reflection on problems and problem-constitution. In other words. Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David.

it is appropriate to focus on the identity and agency of the state rather than.D.18 And they have come to be increasingly recognised as central aspects of global politics. the logic behind adapting a state-centric form of representation rests on the assumption that 'as long as states are the dominant actors in international politics. has been equally influential in directing ensuing discussions on a state-centric path. Various scholars have thus begun to question the prevalent spatial modes of representation and the artificial separation of levels of analysis that issues from them. questions of conceptualisation and representation are of crucial importance. This book demonstrates how an instance of transversal dissent may influence global politics at least as much as. that global life is better understood as a series of transversal struggles that increasingly challenge what Richard Ashley called 'the paradigm of sovereign man. or 'transna tional'.(Roland. a diplomatic treatise or a foreign policy decision. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. Campbell stresses that for all their efforts to understand a wide range of global phenomena. 00 Ph.16 Here too. There are disagreements on various fronts.14Representative for such forms of conceptualising is Mark Zacher's seemingly sensible claim that 'non-state actors such as multi national corporations and banks may increase in importance. 'multinational'. Bleiker. are not limited to established spheres of sovereignty. Ashley emphasises. but there are few signs that they are edging states from centre stage'. 'and not through the nation state system that people sort and play out the many contradictions at work in the global scene'.15 Debates about the role of human agency display similar state-centric tendencies. Tampere. James Rosenau is among several scholars who now acknowledge that it is along the shifting frontiers of trans versal struggles. say. Cambridge University Press) While opening up the study of global politics to a variety of new domains. Human Agency and Global Politics.19 . Popular Dissent. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. who has been instrumental in bringing issues of agency to the study of international relations. indeed. He explicitly and repeatedly acknowledges 'a commitment to states as units of analysis' and constructs much of his theoretical work around an examination of states and the constraints within which they operate. but virtually all discussions on agency in international theory remain focused on conceptualising state behaviour. They know no final boundaries between inside and out side. most efforts to rethink the international have not gone as far as they could have. as mentioned above. They suggest.' Transversal struggles.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 107 Framework File State-Centricity – Link An analysis of policymaking that proceeds from the state cannot provide the resources to articulate a capacity for human agency. Cambridge. They are neither domestic nor international. should have gone. for example. most approaches to international theory have displayed a remarkably persistent compulsion to anchor an under standing of the complexities of global life in a 'something-national' formulation — whether it is 'international'. Here too. a transnational social movement'. At a time when processes of globalisation are unfolding and national boundaries are becoming increasingly porous. or.17 Questions of agency in international theory should not and cannot be reduced to analyses of state behaviour. Alexander Wendt. Humboldt. states can no longer be viewed as the only consequential actors in world affairs.

Cambridge. promotes and naturalises certain political practices and the territorial context within which they take place. as a set of 'stories' — of which the state-centric approach to international theory is a perfect example. It is part of a legitimisation process that highlights. Tampere. and they go beyond a mere recognition that a state-centric approach to international theory engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of the state and thus precludes an adequate understanding of the radical transformations that are currently unfolding in global life. these stories provide the state with a sense of identity.(Roland. They create boundaries between an inside and an outside. States remain central actors in international politics and they have to be recognised and theorised as such. my analysis will examine various ways in which states and the boundaries between them have mediated the formation. but also. Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theorists who convincingly portray the state not only as an institution. Shapiro stresses that such state-stories also exclude.focusiung exclusively on the state-centric approach to policymaking legitimates violent exclusion of alternative viewpoints. Humboldt. coherence and unity.' And it is these processes of exclusion that impose a certain political order and provide the state with a legitimate rationale for violent encounters. Human Agency and Global Politics. my reading of dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point. There are compelling reasons for such a strategy. for they seek 'to repress or delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space they reflect. 00 Ph. functioning and impact of dissent. Bleiker. Cambridge University Press) To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to declare the state obsolete. and primarily. between a people and its others.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 108 Framework File State-Centricity – Impact: Violence While states still serve important functions in policymaking.D. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. Popular Dissent. However.22 . Taken together. In fact.

exchanges and practices not reducible to the state. The state-centricity of International Relations has not just circumscribed the ability of scholars to understand a vast ensemble of globally oriented movements. He points in this context to the rather common intellectual tendency to be alert to the abuses of others while remaining blind to those of one’s own. but he cautions against the dangers of such restrictions upon the intellectual imagination. 125-126 In making a case for the exilic orientation. he critiques nationalistically based systems of education and the tendency in much of political commentary to frame analysis in terms of ‘we’.which automatically sets up a series of (often hostile) oppositions to ‘others’. different domestic exigencies shape the discipline in different contexts. it is the powerful hold of the nation-state upon intellectual thinking that Said most bemoans.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 109 Framework File State-Centricity – Impact: Education State-centricity makes critical understanding of the world impossible. certain domestic political constraints and pressures. particular (nationally framed) issues and. there is good reason to be cautious about how scholarly sympathies are expressed and circumscribed when the reach of one’s work (issues covered. ‘us’ and ‘our’ . 34 Specifically. 33 While this is to be expected to an extent. people affected) so obviously extends beyond the national context. 1. Professor of Politics at Whitman College. Shampa Biswas. “Empire and Global Public Intellectuals: Reading Edward Said as an International Relations Theorist. 36. different historical resonances of different issues. 31 The nation-state of course has a particular pride of place in the study of global politics. For scholars of the global. p. 35 . Said argues that the hold of the nation is such that even intellectuals progressive on domestic issues become collaborators of empire when it comes to state actions abroad. December 2007. Said acknowledges the fact that all intellectual work occurs in a (national) context which imposes upon one’s intellect certain linguistic boundaries. most invidiously. but also inhibited a critical intellectual orientation to the world outside the national borders within which scholarship is produced.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies.particularly evident in coverage of the war on terrorism . 32 Comparing the development of IR in two different national contexts – the French and the German ones – Gerard Holden has argued that different intellectual influences. Vol. No. the (often unconscious) hold of the nation-state can be especially pernicious in the ways that it limits the scope and range of the intellectual imagination.

Instead. 00 Ph. the idea is to understand the interdependent and mutually constitutive relationship between them. neither agents nor structures have the final word. though. Sketched in an overly broad manner. to a structural determinism and an equally farfetched belief in the autonomy of rational actors.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 110 Framework File State-Centricity – Impact: Agency Agency can only be articulated in opposition to the restrictive structuralisms of the status quo—in other words. Cambridge. Bleiker.D. mostly in the context of the so-called structure—agency debate. Although strongly wedded to a state-centric view. this debate nevertheless evokes a number of important conceptual issues that are relevant as well to an understanding of transversal dynamics. 26 Expressed in other words. Neither structure nor agency receive analytical priority. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. we can claim our agency only by rejecting the state-centric view of politics. Giddens speaks of the 'duality of structure. can be recognised by observing how the work of Anthony Giddens has shaped the structure—agency debate in international relations. If pushed to their logical end-point. .(Roland. Popular Dissent. Giddens stresses. Humboldt. 27 The actions that emerge from this awareness then shape the processes through which social systems are structurally maintained and reproduced. respectively.' of structural properties that are constraining as well as enabling. will 'know a great deal about the conditions of reproduction of the society of which he or she is a member'. Tampere. The roots of the structure—agency debate can be traced back to a feeling of discontent about how traditional approaches to international theory have dealt with issues of agency. who accept the existence of anarchy but seek to understand the behaviour of states and other international actors in terms of their individual attributes and their ability to engage in cooperative bargaining. the point of departure looked as follows: At one end of the spectrum were neorealists. 25 Some of the key premises. Cambridge University Press) Questions of agency have been discussed extensively in international theory. But structures are not immutable either. Human actions are always embedded in and constrained by the structural context within which they form and evolve. The discussions that have evolved in the wake of this assumption are highly complex and cannot possibly be summarised here. the two positions amount. A human being. Human Agency and Global Politics. They are both 'the medium and outcome of the contingently accomplished activities of situated actors'. At the other end we find neoliberals. who explain state identity and behaviour through a series of structural restraints that are said to emanate from the anarchical nature of the international system. 24 The structure—agency debate is located somewhere between these two poles.

The state becomes. as a set of 'stories' — of which the state-centric approach to international theory is a perfect example. Shapiro stresses that such state-stories also exclude. and the interior other (those strains of abnormality. In fact. and primarily. first. and sacrifice engendered by the civilization of productivity itself. In the second. <p206> .ment and revenge against those elements that threaten to signify its inefficacy.' And it is these processes of exclusion that impose a certain political order and provide the state with a legitimate rationale for violent encounters. second.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 111 Framework File State-Centricity – Impact: Identity It is bad to focus on the state in IR. the instrument of campaigns against those elements most disturbing to the collective identity. It launches dramatized crusades against the internal other (low-level criminals. Identity/Difference. States remain central actors in international politics and they have to be recognised and theorised as such. for they seek 'to repress or delegitimise other stories and the practices of identity and space they reflect. Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science @ Johns Hopkins University. and third. Michael Shapiro is among an increasing number of theorists who convincingly portray the state not only as an institution. culminating in violence Connoly in 2k2 (William. In the third. We have entered a world in which state power is simultaneously magnified and increasingly disconnected from the ends that justify its magni. these stories provide the state with a sense of identity. It is part of a legitimisation process that highlights. There are compelling reasons for such a strategy. even though it expands as a pivotal agent of power. the state increasingly sustains collective identity through theatrical displays of punish. the presidency is organized into a medium of rhetorical diversion and reassurance. Taken together. Human Agency and Global Politics) To expand the scope of international theory and to bring transversal struggles into focus is not to declare the state obsolete. between a people and its others. the state no longer emerges as a consummate agent of efficacy. functioning and impact of dissent. The state sustains collective identity through an increasing process of oppressive power struggles. In the first instance. drug users. the external other (foreign enemies and terrorists). my reading of dissent and agency makes the state neither its main focus nor its starting point. Popular Dissent.the state creates boundaries within its self and excludes and represses certain aspects in order to reflect a certain identity Bleiker in 2000 (Roland. the screen upon which much of the resentment against the adverse effects of the civilization of produc. injury. However. and the underclass). and they go beyond a mere recognition that a state-centric approach to international theory engenders a form of representation that privileges the authority of the state and thus precludes an adequate understanding of the radical transformations that are currently unfolding in global life. subversion.fication. the welfare apparatus of the state is singled out for criticism and reformation. but also. disloyalists. As obstacles to its efficacy multiply. coherence and unity. and perversity that may reside within anyone).tivity and private affluence is projected. the state disciplinary-police-punitive apparatus is marshaled to constitute and stigmatize constituencies whose terms of existence might otherwise provide signs of defeat. my analysis will examine various ways in which states and the boundaries between them have mediated the formation.ities. the vehicle through which rhetorical reassurances about the glory and durability of that civilization are transmitted back to the populace.4 A crack in the very unity of "power" has opened up. promotes and naturalises certain political practices and the territorial context within which they take place. Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Queensland. expanded edition) In several domains. They create boundaries between an inside and an outside. racial minor.

This creates a feeling of responsibility to eradicate the Other for the Self Connoly in 2k2 (William. punishment or love. Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science @ Johns Hopkins University. and principled individual as morally responsible for willful deviations from normal identity and. Identity/Difference. But everything turns upon how these contingent formations are lived and how they relate to different formations in others. self-interested. by treating alternative types of sexuality as immoral. <p177> Modern politics wrongly alienates difference as evil because of its quest to maintain a unified identity. it treats another contingent identity as the natural stan. others will eventually pay a price for the self-loathing you feel . It grounds its ethical idealism in the loathing of a self for what it is. For such deviations. The modern individual. in short. When this track is pursued very far. even though there is more to identity than this. contains resentment against the human condition in its own identity. first. This demand grounds your sexual ethic in the self-idealization of a contingent. deviant. <p80> . or sick. if they proliferate.dard everyone must attain. . expanded edition) Without a particular set of entrenched formations you could not have an identity. relational identity that takes itself to be natural and independent.repression. The demand to ethicize or universalize the entrenched contingencies on the grounds that they flow from a true identity is a recipe for repression of difference. Resentment against injuries to oneself flowing from the standard of self-responsibility becomes translated into rancor against those whom one construes as escaping the dictates of that standard. for surely you will want to purge any signs of this tendency in them too. Only if these deviations are false or evil can it see itself as true. responsible individual can redirect resentment against the human condition into the self. it calls upon you to purge any such dispositions lingering in yourself and to support the treatment or punishment of others who manifest them more robustly. Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science @ Johns Hopkins University. by treating that in itself and other selves which falls below the threshold of responsibility as a natural defect in need of conquest or conversion. expanded edition) The modern normal. second. make the self-identical self appear to be a sucker for accepting the disciplines and restraints required to maintain itself in this way. The alternative demand to purge the entrenched contingency in yourself because it is unworthy of ethicization is a recipe for self. free. and this comes out most clearly in the intensity of the resentment it expresses against any others who deviate significantly from that identity.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 112 Framework File Identity Impact The attempt to view identity through entrenched formations causes violence against both the self and the other Connoly in 2k2 (William. by treating the rational. Identity/Difference.

cut off abruptly. to resist their distorting power and return the conceptual to the non-conceptual. What. Adorno even goes as far as intentionally using the same concept in different ways in order to liberate it from the narrow definition that language itself had already imposed upon it. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. the question of style. such that the resulting text appears as if it always could be interrupted. Knowing the dangers of exclusion and objectification inherent in any form of conceptualising does not release us from the need to employ concepts in order to express our thoughts. .(Roland. This disenchantment with the concept is the antidote of critical philosophy. for instance. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. Cambridge University Press) New concepts can help to widen the purview of traditional perceptions of international relations. The main problem is a discursively entrenched language game in which the term 'international' embodies social practices that assign nation-states priority and thus legitimise and objectivise ensuing political practices. 53 The first step towards disenchanting the concept is simply refusing to define it monologically. there is no logical and authentic relationship between.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 113 Framework File State-Centricity – Critique Solves The issue with policymaking is that it is self-legitimating. Indeed. 00 Ph. Bleiker. or even understood.D. 54 That contradictions could arise out of this practice does not bother Adorno. he claims. the meaning of term 'international' and a state-centric view of the world. Contradictions are only contradictions if one assumes the existence of a prior universal standard of reference. Humboldt. Human Agency and Global Politics. but it is important to emphasise that the issue of representation can never be solved. 'International' is only what we make of the term. he considers them essential. is simply the superstition of those who fear cold water. Thus Adorno advocates writing in fragments.it not only justifies its own actions by virtue of discursive framing but it excludes other perspectives by virtue of a monolithic and purely state-centric form of calculation. 52 The daring task is to open up with concepts what does not fit into concepts. Popular Dissent. any time. which we must avoid if we are to escape the dangers of identity thinking. But Nietzsche's bath has already catapulted us into the vortex of the next linguistic terrain of resistance. at a purely terminological level. Tampere. the fragmentary and the discontinuous. 57 The belief that one does not reach deep enough this way. Contradictions are to be preferred over artificially constructed meanings and the silencing of underlying conflicts. in relation to each other. 56 Here too we hear the advice of Nietzsche. From the perspective of the later Wittgenstein. no matter how violent they may be. any place. we need to think in fragments. then. 55 Just as reality is fragmented. Cambridge. 'quickly into them and quickly out again'. and negative only as long as our consciousness strives for a totalising standpoint. dissonant. What is different appears as divergent. Concepts should achieve meaning only gradually. It prevents the concept from becoming an absolute in itself. is the point? Adorno claims that we must not turn the necessity to operate with concepts into the virtue of assigning them priority. One cannot eliminate the contradictory. who recommends that one should approach deep problems like taking a cold bath. Unity is not found by evening out discontinuities.

they reveal the multifaceted nature of the social sphere and avoid totalizing as is the common trap in traditional policy analysis. Authors have exposed the state-centrism of realist and liberal approaches to international theory. for instance. one could say. "where totality ends. and hermeneutics. of course. Given the acceptance of epistemological fragmentation. It is a desire to squeeze freely floating and thus somewhat worrisome ideas into surveyable categories--to cut off and smoothen the various overlapping edges so that each piece neatly fits into its assigned place. at least at this point."[26] Its vision is the vision of plurality. deconstruction. and where its relations take place. 23. a privileged site of knowledge.[28] Moreover. as a methodological and epistemological position. their narrow perceptions of what the international is. Time to shift. and ethics. They have challenged the masculine and Eurocentric values of existing approaches or reexamined such notions as security. various authors have already done so competently. it is precisely the acceptance of difference. agency. very difficult to talk about the postmodern without descending into cliches or doing grave injustice to individual authors who explore various terrains of difference. It is. It is not my intention here to survey these diverse postmodern approaches to world politics. Insight through fragmentation. and difference. a positive attempt to secure and explore multiple dimensions of the processes that legitimize and ground social practices. which revolves around the issue of what knowledge is. identity. is not to define what postmodern international theories are. Jane Flax recognized this difficulty and admits that by speaking about postmodernism one already runs "the risk of violating some of its central values--heterogeneity. of International Studies at Pusan National University (Roland. It draws attention to the constituted and multiple dimensions of social practices. Fragmented insight." Wolfgang Welsch says.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 114 Framework File Identity – Critique Solves Kritiks are better for debate. Bleiker. "The postmodern begins. it becomes. Alternatives. The task of this article. multiplicity. The postmodern notion of episteme rejects the existence of truth beyond power. how it is constructed. a privileged form of insight into the human mind. geopolitics. If there is a unifying point in postmodernism then. then. sovereignty. and how it relates to language and power. Vol. Issue 4) Postmodernism can thus be considered. but to gaze at some of the multiplicities through which they work. “Retracing and redrawing the boundaries of events: Postmodern interferences with international theory”. 98 asst. Once the end of totalizing thought is accepted."[27] There have been numerous attempts to apply postmodern ideas to the domain of world politics. Epistemology here is not. Oct-Dec 1998. as it was in pre-Kantean philosophy. prof. diplomacy. And they have used a multitude of postpositivist methodologies to do so--genealogies. surveying a body of literature is not unproblematic. . the refusal to uphold one position as the correct and desirable one. a modern attempt to bring order and certainty into a world of chaos and flux. it is almost self-evident that this search is characterized more by diversity than by a single and coherent set of positions and assumptions about life.

Not every action is equally justifiable. instance. by politics itself. There is no longer an objective measuring device that can set the standard to evaluate whether or not a particular insight into an event. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. If existing theories revealed anything. most international relations theories do not fare well when judged by such a measuring device. If one abandons the notion of Truth. by its own logic. the idea that an event can be apprehended as part of a natural order. Not every thought is equally thoughtful. such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall. How. as something that exists independently of the meaning we have given it — if one abandons this separation of object and subject. From such a vantage-point there is no more room for interference and human agency. Roxanne Doty. 57 Hollis and Smith pursue a similar line of argument.' she stresses. Cambridge. the inability of international theory to anticipate the collapse of the Cold War system calls for a more specific.D. 00 Ph. Indeed. The very nature of a past event becomes indeterminate insofar as its identification is dependent upon ever-changing forms of linguistic expressions that imbue the event with meaning.' Jean Elshtain points out. a self-engendered paradox beyond which it cannot press'. and that theorists who engage in it 'can claim no scientific. the momentous transformations that took place when the Berlin Wall crumbled and the Soviet-led alliance system fell apart.. Popular Dissent. practitioners of international relations were entirely unprepared. 'If 1989 taught us nothing else. They emphasise that there are always two stories to tell — neither of which is likely ever to have the last word — an inside story and an outside story. if not most. This is to say that the debate is fundamentally undecidable. Dissent. i. they failed rather strikingly. 'An empire collapsed. but equally fundamental. None of the influential contributions to international theory was able to anticipate. let alone predict. Human Agency and Global Politics. Tampere. It seems that precisely when theories of international politics should have best served us. Describing. 55 This book is devoted to the latter task — and reassessing questions of evaluation is an integral part of it.ing of transversal struggles that can grapple with those moments when people walk through walls precisely when nobody expects them to do so.' 54 > For others. The point of a theoretical inquiry. in particular. annihilate human agency. in this case. is the process that reshapes these entrenched perceptions and the ensuing political practices.e. rethinking of the agency problematique'. Rather.' 53 For Elshtain this crucial failure demands a rethinking of what theory is and does. Cambridge University Press) Prediction. 'and many. Bleiker. believes that the agent—structure debate 'encounters an aporia. then the process of judging a particular approach to describing and explaining an event becomes a very muddled affair. Humboldt. one epistemological and the other ontological. for is true or false. however. the case of East Germany. one about understanding and one about explaining international relations. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. as it were. may well predict certain events only because their theoretical premises have become so objectivised that they have started to shape decision makers and political dynamics. Not every perception is equally perceptive. can one judge? . but only at first sight.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 115 Framework File Link/Impact – Predictability The predictive model of policymaking is flawed. it doesn’t account for individual discourses meaning that its means to arrive at a decision is never guided by realistic projections. authentically and scientifically. Consider. objective grounds for determining whether the force of agency or that of structure is operative at any single instant'. is a highly problematic standard to evaluate the adequacy of theoretical propositions. it was how closely they were intertwined with the Cold War and ensuing perceptions of world politics. The very notion of prediction does. explaining and prescribing may be less unproblematic processes of evaluation.(Roland. one about agents and another about structures. once more. overtaken. is not to ignore the constantly changing domain of international relations. the main objective must consist of facilitating an understand. But this does not mean that all insights have the same value. A predictive approach thus runs the risk of ending up in a form of inquiry that imposes a static image upon a far more complex set of transversal political practices. such as Martin Hollis and Steve Smith. no more possibility for politics to overtake theory. Important theories. such as realist interpretations of international politics. 'it should have taught us humility. 56 The inability to determine objective meanings is also the reason why various critical international relations scholars stress that there can be no ultimate way of assessing human agency. 58 The value of an insight cannot be evaluated in relation to a set of objectively existing criteria. To assert that international relations is a domain of political dynamics whose future should be predictable through a convincing set of theoretical propositions is to assume that the course of global politics is to a certain extent predetermined. Prediction is a problematic assessment tool even if a theory is able to anticipate future events. then.

and the contours of this framing process. Humboldt. The question of the limit has therefore to be posed in a way that invokes a thinking which resists the siren calls of fatal philosophers and historians alike. We must reject limits in favor of the possibilities of new political thought Dillon In 96 (Michael. in particular. They are all well framed.(Roland. 33 The refusal to accept the contingency of foundations has been a constant modern theme ever since la Boétie and his fellow Renaissance humanists disenchanted the world and placed 'man' at its centre. do and be in virtue of the operation of it. Senior Lecturer In Politics And International Relations At The University Of Lancaster. when the one and only commonly accepted point of reference vanished. all of which are promoted by an insistence upon security. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. The Politics Of Security) What is most at issue here. 00 Ph. it helps to predetermine the answer to every question and exclude alternatives. Connolly emphasises. and why the question concerning limits has to be posed. many prominent modern approaches embarked upon desperate evasive attempts to find replacements for the fallen God. Human Agency and Global Politics. its value as an activity is completely lost. When the old theocentric world crumbled.limits both serves to reign in the discussion but more importantly. . as the invocation of our submission to it. completeness. is the question of the limit and of how to finesse the closure of the fatally deterministic or apocalyptic thinking to which the issue of limits ordinarily gives rise in onto-theological thought: as the authoritative specification of an eschaton. or in terms of the closure of what it is possible for us to say. which seeks continuously to keep ‘open the play of [ possibility by subtracting the sense of necessity. the range of these debates is not as boundless as it appears at first sight. in terms of that which keeps things in play (for ‘ demarcation is lacking nothing can come to presence as it is’) exciting a thinking. have to a large extent been drawn by the recurring unwillingness to deal with the death of God. Bleiker. Cambridge. instead. That is why limits have to be thought differently. instead of accepting the absence of stable foundations and dealing with the new burden of responsibility. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. meaning that even if debate still exists.D. 34 The affirmatives framework arguments call for limitations in how things are to be interpreted-this is the same obsession with limits characterized by modern thought. He emphasises that modern debates all have a distinctive character. Cambridge University Press) But while the waging of fierce intellectual debates emerged as a key feature of modernity. and smugness from established organ-izations of life’. the death of God became the key dilemma around which modern debates were waged. Yet. then. William Connolly leads us right to the core of this paradoxical issue. Tampere. Popular Dissent.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 116 Framework File Link/Impact – Limits The concept of limits is based in the same ideal goal of policymaking to posit a single acceptable perspective on things.

SENIOR LECTURER IN POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LANCASTER. It. also self-propagating. while keeping the question of the very violence entailed in judgement open. That is why the political is always concerned with the remainder or the surplus that politics as rule produces. The political alone offers some way of addressing it short of the dissolution of all limits.Limits THEIR FRAMEWORK ARGUMENTS ARE A FORM OF POLITICIZING VIOLENCETHE ACT OF SECURING MODES OF THINKING THROUGH STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS ON WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IS WHAT PERPETUATES OUR VIOLENCE TOWARD THE OTHER DILLON IN 96 (MICHAEL. Herein lies the possibility of a politics of freedom in which the function of politics is to preserve that dangerous and violent freedom.) More to the point. sovereign decided ness of their own limits. and violence-inducing. particularly that threatened by those who dogmatically insist upon the violent. it is intimately related to the conundrum of being-in-common itself. and not an externality to be exterminated. yet not even violence can do that securely because violence. Because we are free we have to enact ourselves. either of normalising surveillance or of policing love. it is also the chief threat to order: ‘the practice of violence changes the world. The conundrum of violence is consequently not one problem amongst many. (Another way of saying that danger is inherent to the free (in)security of human being. but the most probable change is to a more violent world’. to sustain that capacity to invent standards and exercise judgement — and to enlarge it where possible — against existing standards and judgements. The political arises precisely because we are condemned by our mortal life to be free. premised alike upon the violent. we violently articulate standards and judgements. therefore. like the being-in-common from which it arises is. Neither can it be mastered and overcome by regimes. can secure an end to violence. begets violence. denial of violence and difference. because the violence which it can always threaten itself with. human being is always potentially a violent mortal puzzle to itself. In enacting ourselves. THE POLITICS OF SECURITY) Only violence. in consequence of the very differential composition of the life that it is. For. <P150-151> . in its freedom. it seems. Offered as the final guarantor. but is always committed against. cannot be mastered and overcome by greater violence.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 117 Framework File Link/Impact . of course. or relies upon.

Human Agency and Global Politics. as postmodernism. to illuminate what they authorise. However. 2000. It is misleading in designating a new historical epoque. but to acknowledge their contingent character. but through the body of knowledge referred to. the recognition that power pervades all aspects of society. to reopen this political domain is not to do away with foundations as such. do not actually use this term. 33 Parallel to this defence of the actor against structural determinism I attempt to salvage the notion of human agency from postmodern annihilations of the subject. And those who do barely have enough in common to be lumped together into the same category. Deleuze or Cixous.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 118 Framework File Link/Impact – Ground Foundations should be viewed as contingent because a subject and its agency are framed by specific regimes of power. but also because the act of compartmentalising history expresses an inherently modern urge to control our environment. It merely shows that political closure occurs through attempts to establish foundational norms that lie beyond power. but upon the underlying logic of functional and structural necessity. One must scrutinise how social change can be brought about by a reworking of the power regimes that constitute our subjectivity. including the position of the critic.social change will occur once these power regimes are reworked Roland Bleiker. But this is not the end of human agency. If anything unites them. Cambridge University Press. One must come to terms with how the subject and its agency are constituted and framed by specific regimes of power. in the largest sense. Likewise. 2000. Yet. 36 . 32 Most of them were advanced against the determinism of structuralist foundations Most scholarship. 35 To appreciate the practical relevance of this claim one must investigate the possibilities for agency that arise out of existing webs of power and discourse. Structuralist positions. p. Affirming from negation and grounding an understanding of human agency in nothingness is not as problematic as it may appear at first sight. I elaborate what could be called a postmodern position on human agency. locate the emergence of social change not in agents and their actions. For her. it is the acceptance of difference and the ensuing willingness to come to terms with the death of God. (Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge. such as Foucault. not only because we have hardly transgressed the parameters of modernity. be it in international theory or in scholarship about revolutions. to act with more awareness of their function. I advance this position not against. does not necessarily lead to a nihilistic relativism. Popular Dissent. Revolutionary change is said to be dependent not upon conscious subjectivity. Butler argues persuasively that 'the constituted character of the subject is the very precondition of its agency'. but in the structural conditions within which their behaviour is confined. Quite to the contrary. Judith Butler has demonstrated this convincingly. exclude and foreclose. many of the authors who are labelled postmodern. Derrida. The term postmodernism may be more useful to indicate a certain epistemological or ontological stance. 37-39) We know of proclamations that herald the return of the actor. except that I discard the actual term postmodernism as an unfortunate misnomer.

Human Agency and Global Politics. Tampere. 40 To draw attention to these and other positivist pitfalls is not to invalidate constructivist approaches or scientific inquiries as such. even at an analytical level. can we hope to understand the behaviour of agents and the workings of social arrangements. Wendt too acknowledges the importance of causal and scientific analyses. for instance. For her. that Wendt hopes to assess the influence of social structures in a systematic and scientifically legitimate manner. Cambridge University Press) A post-positivist understanding of agency runs counter to currently influential 'constructivist' contributions to questions of agency in international theory. 38 While offering various insightful contributions. . Among them is a common concern with the social construction of meaning. Only through a systematic analysis. and Martha Finnemore has. declares himself a 'constructivist'. Wendt. Nicholas Onuf stresses that 'constructivists need not repudiate positivism just because it is liable to criticism'. There are many domains in which systematic empirical analyses of international relations can be useful. most recently. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. rather than merely material. Wendt and other constructivists exhibit. scientific realism provides a legitimate way of recognising the crucial causal impact of unobservable phenomena. As opposed to a more narrow empiricist approach. This is to say that they take 'social structures and agents in turn as temporarily given in order to examine the explanatory effects of the other'. which is implied in scientific realism. for instance. and that these structures shape the identity and interests of actors.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 119 Framework File Link – Constructivism Constructivism makes epistemological and ontological assumptions about the world akin to those made by scientific realism Bleiker. Humboldt. 00 Ph. the existence of pre-given units — be they structures or agents. 39 Doty draws attention to some of them. It is through the methodological principles of scientific realism. Popular Dissent. 'an overwhelming but underrecognized commitment to many of the general tenets of that disposition'. is not among them. espoused by writers such as Roy Bhaskar. that the structures of international politics are social. rather than adds to our understanding of transversal forms of human agency. 35 Although rejecting the strict tenets of logical positivism. The former are sceptical of all forms of positivist knowledge while the latter remain faithful. Cambridge. 36 So-called 'bracketing' is the method through which Wendt and other constructivists attempt to achieve this objective. though.D. he insists. embarked on such an application through an alternate bracketing of agency and structure. Instead. Combined with the analytical separation between object and subject. which is to say that he acknowledges that the world is 'socially constructed'. Constructivists share various traits with postmodernists. For all their efforts to reach beyond the dominant neorealist and neoliberal interpretations of international relations. postmodernists and constructivists differ sharply. at least to some extent. Both approaches reject. as Campbell notes. has tried to supply a more explicit basis for the empirical applicability of a constructivist approach. The conceptualisation of agency. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. however. norms and values shape actors and issues in global affairs. 34 With regard to questions of epistemology. the notion of autonomous and rational actors. such as structures. they scrutinise how rules. to traditional scientific and causal principles. state identity and international politics in general. the constructivist reliance on scientific perceptions of international politics detracts from. David Dessler.(Roland. the process of bracketing presupposes. 37 Various authors have investigated questions of agency in international relations along this path. by its very logic. constructivists thus re-establish the very oppositional conceptualisation that the structure—agency debate was initially supposed to overcome.

Cambridge. Poetry resists the temptation to provide 'concrete' answers to 'concrete' questions. Bleiker. In fact. critical arguments are necessary to transform and examine values over time. Humboldt. A poetic search for thinking space.(Roland. Popular Dissent. shaping how we respond to these issues. for instance. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. And in doing so it comes to terms with the death of God. Tampere. 00 Ph. It does not bring certainty. creates ambivalence and doubt.D. Cambridge University Press) Discursive and transversal forms of dissent unleash their power only through a long process that entails digging. absurd. makes room for a more tolerant politics. taboo. poetry generates more questions. Human Agency and Global Politics.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 120 Framework File Critique solves Change Kritik is key to long term change. They work through a gradual and largely inaudible transformation of values. even if policymaking is a little better in the short run. underneath the foundations of authority. acknowledges that there are no quick and miraculous forms of dissent to discursive domination. 48 . visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. slowly. recognises that a society is oppressive and closed if all major questions either have an answer or are considered irrational.

December 2007. as contingent ‘historical choices made by men and women’ that are changeable. an ability to see things ‘not simply as they are. The tender soul has fixed his love on one spot in the world. 36.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Professor of Politics at Whitman College. 41 The first of these abilities interjects a comparativist approach as critical to the study of global politics. the strong man has extended his love to all places. perhaps even more universal idea of how to think. The now famous passage from Hugo of St Victor. but he is perfect to whom the entire world is as a foreign land. p. arguing that it is the intellectual’s task to show how the nation ‘is not a natural or god-given entity but is a constructed. 127-128 What the exilic orientation makes possible is this ability to universalise by enabling first. manufactured. but as they have come to be that way’. 1. locating one’s work in a temporal and spatial plane that is always larger than one’s immediate (national) context and in the process historicising and politicising what may appear naturalised in any particular (national) context. with a history of struggle and conquest behind it’.ness of the nation-state in the study of global politics. 40 The second of these abilities displaces the ontological given. 42 . he to whom every soil is as his native one is already strong. No. Said suggests. about a human rights issue in one situation by comparison with another’. “Empire and Global Public Intellectuals: Reading Edward Said as an International Relations Theorist. ‘[n]ever solidarity before criticism’. even in some cases invented object.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 121 Framework File Critique solves “Root Cause” Critical lenses allow us to view policymaking in a “comparativist approach. ‘a double perspective that never sees things in isolation’ so that from the juxtaposition of ideas and experiences ‘one gets a better. Vol. the perfect man has extinguished his. for the intellectual who feels pulled by the demands of loyalty and patriotism. cited by Auerbach.” evaluating the present along with its underlying causes and roots Shampa Biswas. 39 and second. appears in Said’s writings on at least four different occasions: The man who finds his homeland sweet is still a tender beginner. say.

This is not a question of refusing people individual or collective identity. It has direct purchase. consistent with the openness of human being. Generalised routines never satisfactorily fit the singular case. which are on terms with the ineradicable and irreducible Otherness human beings encounter within themselves as well as with others. in fact. out in the open and on the move. and in a position of having to decide. For a way of being that is gratuitously given its being to be. It re-raises. or the moment of decision and judgement. This turn of thought also re-poses the question of policy. are always already en route. It does so as the moment of ethical encounter for human beings. and the necessary play of both presence and absence which takes place there. there is. in respect of themselves with others in that Otherness. For its borders both separate and join — differentiate as they individuate — constitute the politically abject as they constitute the politically subject. then the entire range of our political concerns must take a different turn as well. they are prone to violent foreclosure which excites its own resistance. and if the project of thought has taken a significantly different turn. also. It necessarily. Given no peace. upon what most preoccupies everyday politics. SENIOR LECTURER IN POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LANCASTER. enframed and sustained by institutional practices. rather than viciously and unsustainably circumscribed. Limits. there is no way out of this predicament. other than to immerse ourselves in the routinised everyday in the hope that we will never have to confront it. material but mutable. too. alert to their relationality. for example. THE POLITICS OF SECURITY) Now. because they are indebted to it. politically. or the body inevitably begins to age and crack-up. such a recourse is always unsafe. emphasises also the undecidability of borders. We are temporal beings and temporality is a motility which treats the everyday like a vagrant. Short of death. Rather. Necessary but contingent. old habits are continuously overwhelmed by the new. an Otherness they share with others. In respect of the question of public space. However much this moment is rendered. That bi-focality. Ironically. if we think the political in the way that we do because of the way that we think. that being is a free being which has responsibly to assume its taking place in the world as a responsive being. however rooted they may think that they are. Exposed to. Their mode of decision en route (simultaneously deciding and being decided) is consequently their ethos. re-poses the ancient concern with forms of government. A freedom to be that can only be enjoyed within mutably habitable. the thought of the political itself. in what I would call the politics of the thought of the political. and constituted by. the turn of thought insists upon a bi focal interpretation of the limits set by the institutional delineation of public space. human beings are always already both decided. it is continuously told to move-on. that cultivates its freedom to be. <P 7-8> . limits. it is a matter of construing the institutional question of the political in a way. because the everyday has a disturbing habit of breaking-down. no escape from encountering it as an ethical encounter. precise but porous. as a technologised decisional administration of things. namely ‘policy’.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 122 Framework File Rethinking Solves In rethinking the political we inevitably open up new possibilities for freedom—this affects both the way we interact in public space and our policy decisions DILLON IN 96 (MICHAEL. The scope of that turn is such that it must traverse all of our traditional political concerns. in as much as it raises the question of the public space. also. beings which.

‘human acts’ and ‘consequences’ should both be construed broadly to include. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. First. criticism in the sense of an art of reflexive indocility which protests against being governed like this.25 it has two significant advantages with respect to this literature. regional. and publics form. Fourth. 3. effects ranging from transformations of being to transformations of environment across both material and conceptual registers. No.com/cgi/reprint/31/3/653) First. “Reorienting International Relations: On Pragmatism. the fact the efforts at governing the effects of certain practices themselves involve practices which have consequences. This starting point is. of government. Reader in Political Theory at the University of Southampton (David. Pluralism and Practical Reasoning”. its reflexive application to practices of government and governance clarifies the relationship between government and freedom such that the legitimacy of practices of government is seen to depend not simply on its efficacy but on the consent of those who are governed by it. Third. not to mention rough and ready. knowledge and action in orienting itself to our conduct and the ways in which we seek to conduct our conduct. http://mil. and particularly importantly. It follows from this account that (political) publics are specified relative to practices of political government in terms of advocating a practice of government at a given level and/or in terms of contesting a practice. and private transactions. transactions whose significant effects do not extend beyond the parties engaged in the transaction. Publics can be local. Second. on the contrary. human practices in general and. or in contesting these practices. the focus on perception opens up a space within which questions of the background picture informing the discourse and practices of international relations can be perspicuously posed. others relatively passing. on this account. Dewey’s pragmatist approach to the issue of government links perception. as I shall illustrate in the next section. 31. in the latter case. a literature prompted in part by Kratochwil and Ruggie.sagepub. but also for the emergence and development of forms of contesting or governing government (such as. dissolve and reform over time— some may be relatively enduring. or proposed practice. meaning that weighing these representation comes 1st insofar as they constitute what is seen as threatening even before resposes to those threats can be theorized.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 123 Framework File A/T: Consequentialism How we evaluate consequences is first determined by the visibility of those consequences vis-à-vis their construction within discourse. but with government of the common or public affairs of humanity.26 This is still fairly general. This fourth point is significant because it indicates that Dewey is providing a way of accounting not only for the emergence and development of forms of government. the reflexive character of this starting point. Although this approach may be readily aligned with the burgeoning literature within IR on government and governance. Vol. Dewey’s stress on the relationship between common perception and action-coordination directed to governing the effects of the practices in question. as I have noted. transactions which have significant effects for others beyond those involved in the transaction. but that may not be a bad thing since. we may take it as a strength of Dewey’s approach that it does not presuppose what we might call methodological statecentrism.27 . Second. Dewey’s point concerning the perception of consequences draws to our attention the fact that the visibility of consequences is dependent on the background picture in terms of which the practices in question are situated and hence the central role that world-disclosure plays in the constitution of forms of government. at this costs and with these consequences). In the contemporary context. very general and since our concern is not with government in general. for example. transnational or global. publics are formed on the basis of the shared practical judgement that a given (type of) transaction has consequences of extensive significance—and it would be wholly against Dewey’s general ethical orientation to seek to specify standards of significance in advance. Owen 02. In other words. precisely because it takes government as its focus. that is. in the former case. it is methodologically suited to reflecting not only on states but on the whole panoply of agencies involved in government and governance. national. without prejudging their significance. it is appropriate to note that Dewey specifies this more restricted sense by distinguishing between public transactions.

Indeed. University of Wales. Perhaps the greatest form of isolation and self-righteousness is to accept the policymakers' view of the world as the starting point. This has extremely important political and intellectual consequences since it questions the very notion of talking 'truth' to power. 00 Ph. 4 (Oct. their view of the world is biased to favor the system. and Wallace himself cannot be accused of simply adopting the agenda of the powerful.D. but surely he would admit that these dangers are profound and very difficult to avoid. Cambridge. This situation is made all the worse once the possibility arises of getting funding from policy-making bodies. and racism fit into that world-view? Yet aren't these every bit as 'political' and 'international' as the traditional agenda? This seems to me to take us very far indeed from the idea of 'speaking truth to power'. academics spend much time trying to avoid these dangers. “Power and Truth. is no longer solely associated with mass uprisings and other heroic acts of defiance. 513. various new forms of dissent come into view. Cambridge University Press) Once one conceptualises global politics as a series of overlapping transversal struggles. For academics such 'givens' are rarely seen as such. Smith. Human Agency and Global Politics. Dissent. academics need a critical distance from which to look at the activities of governments. but takes place in a variety of other. why should academics take the policy agenda of governments as the starting point? Why do we privilege that starting point rather than the needs and wants of the have-nots in our society or in the global political system? Indeed. Roleplaying shouldn’t be restricted to policymaking Bleiker. . likewise. 1997 (Steve. an act that supports the existing division of resources in the world. excluding opposing viewpoints. In my view. you tend to have to write as if they are given as well. Of course.. transversal dissent is located in countless non-heroic practices that make up the realm of the everyday and its multiple connections with contemporary global life. Professor and Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University. No. It is also operative in powerful but largely inaudible processes that take place against the backdrop of great events. the danger must be of telling the powerful what they want to hear and of working within their world-view. p. This turns their role playing good claims.” Review of International Studies. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard. I see no connection between this and speaking 'truth to power'. Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. Aberystwyth. so that the academic sees the world as the policy-maker sees it. so as to ensure that one is indeed 'listened to'. It is more a case of accepting the policy agenda of those to whom one is talking and then giving them a series of alternative ways of proceeding. Policy-makers see certain things as givens.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 124 Framework File Roleplaying Bad Role playing as policymakers creates a regime of ‘truth’ that supports the existing division of resources and power structures. University of Wales. Humboldt. They will be involved in problem-solving. 1997). and thereby must accept the 'givens' of the policy debate. Popular Dissent. famine.(Roland. more than anywhere else. albeit in the name of academic neutrality. Vol. But more importantly. often mundane and unrecognised domains. however much the individual academic wants to maintain the independence of his or her research. Human agency is then no longer limited to the deliberations of statesmen or the strategic victories of military commanders. Where would questions of gender. 23. My objection is really to those who pretend that any of this has anything to do with truth and academic objectivity. Tampere. I can also admit the tendency to make what one says acceptable to those 'listening'. A Reply to William Wallace. therefore if you write about them in order to influence the policy debate. maybe speaking 'truth to power' is itself a very political act. NAP) Those academics who do get involved in talking truth to power must accept that in so doing they must adopt the agenda of those to whom they are talking. especially if one wants to have influence and prestige within the policy-making community.

was not content to let the controversy pass without comment. In Murphy’s opinion. hence.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 125 Framework File Switch Side Debate Bad Switch side debate bad. No. and.D. Modern debating. 1 January 2005. however. Murphy held that debating both sides of the question was unethical because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate by divorcing it from a genuine search for truth. the military academies and the teacher colleges of Nebraska were debating in favour of the next resolution. was not content to let the controversy pass without comment. 19. each debate round allows a unique pedagogical opportunity to learn and evaluate behaviour. ‘is geared to the public platform and to rhetorical. the US Naval Academy and. The relationship between debate as a competitive activity amenable to pedagogical intervention and debating both sides as a specific technique of debate pedagogy and tournament administration. Since each debate is a situated rhetorical event with changing interlocutors and different individual judges. Director of Undergraduate Studies (Ph. MAD Richard Murphy (1957). Murphy held that debating both sides of / the question was unethical because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate by divorcing it from a genuine search for truth. While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches back to the challenges against the ancient practice of dissoi logoi . Murphy reasoned. Yet. however. Philosophy of Communication. Citizenship. but was the effect of intellectual struggle. University of Illinois) Rhetorical Studies. . 102 _/126 ISSN 0950-2386 print/ISSN 1466-4348 online –2005 Taylor & Francis Group .‘public utterance is a public commitment’ Ronald Walter Greene & Darrin Hicks. Murphy had no doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public advocacy and was. pp. Murphy’s case against the ethics of debating both sides rested on what he thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle: A public utterance is a public commitment. although this point would be severely attacked by proponents of switch-side debating. rhetorical. discuss it with others until they know their position. Murphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten years. LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens Cultural Studies Vol. rather… The technique of debating both sides increases the efficiency of debate to train students in critical thinking and argumentative advocacy by modifying the side of the resolution the debater advocates. If debate is a form of public speaking. the US Military Academy. did not appear naturally. Murphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten years. we want to turn our attention to the unique cultural history of debate during the Cold War. and a public utterance entails a public commitment. subsequently. then speakers have an ethical obligation to study the question. In the midst of Joseph McCarthy’s impending censure by the US Senate. however. Murphy claimed. 1995. take a stand and then _/ and only then engage in public advocacy in favour of their viewpoint. switch-side debating remained the national standard. debate was best imagined as a species of public speaking akin to public advocacy on the affairs of the day. Cultural Studies/Cultural Policy. all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska refused to affirm the resolution _ ‘Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the People’s Republic of China’. Richard Murphy (1957). by the fall of 1955.

most likely because he assumed it to be self-evident.D.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 126 Framework File Switch Side Debate Bad SWITCH SIDE DEBATE BAD –distrust of public advocates and United States Government Officials. LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens Cultural Studies Vol. For Murphy. it would completely undermine her or his ethos and result in the loss of the means of identification with an audience. the assumption of sincerity is intimately articulated to the notion of ethical argumentation in a democratic political culture. sincerity is a necessary element of public reason and. Debate would be seen as a game of power rather than the method of democracy. a charitable interpretation of Murphy’s position. Citizenship. 1995. Ronald Walter Greene & Darrin Hicks. University of Illinois) Rhetorical Studies. Hence. Cultural Studies/Cultural Policy. pp. they will not afford legitimacy to their claims and will opt to settle disputes through force or some seemingly neutral modus vivendi such as voting or arbitration. No. desire or naked self-interest. The ultimate danger of switch-side debating was that it would engender a distrust of public advocates. 1 January 2005. 19. a necessary condition of critical deliberation in a democratic society. Director of Undergraduate Studies (Ph. auditors must believe that advocates are arguing from conviction and not from greed. The public would come to see the debaters who would come to occupy public offices as ‘public liars’ more interested in politics as vocation than as a calling. 139 _/126 ISSN 0950-2386 print/ISSN 1466-4348 online –2005 Taylor & Francis Group . If auditors believe that advocates are insincere. therefore. If a speaker were to repudiate this assumption by advocating contradictory positions in a public forum. Although he never explicitly states why this is true. would show that his axiom rests on the following argument: If public reason is to have any legitimate force. MAD The interdependency of logos and ethos was not only a matter of rhetorical principle for Murphy but also a foundational premise of public reason in a democratic society. Philosophy of Communication. The real danger of undermining the assumption of sincerity was not that individual speakers would be rendered ineffective although this certainly did make training students to debate both sides bad rhetorical pedagogy. certainly a more generous interpretation than his detractors were willing to give. .

the US is granted a status and history that is deemed unique from other nations at the same time as that uniqueness qualifies the US to be the leader and judge of democratic attributes. vision of free speech. One way Cold War liberalism made possible the emergence of US world leadership was by pulling together a national and international commitment to ‘American exceptionalism’. It is our argument that during the cold war. characteristics and norms. In the aftermath of World War II. 301_/2). Day sets out a deliberative-oriented vision of democracy whereby the liberal citizen materializes by divorcing his/her speech from the sincerity principle. the process by which the US emerged as a nation whereby citizens claim the right to free speech creates a moral geography in which other nations are not granted the ‘maturity’ necessary for free speech and/or simultaneously must conform to the U.S. MAD Our argument here rests on Day’s attempt to ethically defend debating both sides by linking the pedagogical rationale of debate to a public ethic. In so doing. pp. LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens Cultural Studies Vol. the proliferation of free speech as a characteristic of the US helped to warrant Cold War liberal claims to American exceptionalism. To embody one’s commitment to the democratic norm of free and full expression required students to argumentatively perform positions they might personally oppose in order to instantiate the circulation of free and full expression and to secure a commitment toward debate as a democratic form of decision-making. 1 January 2005. Thus. Director of Undergraduate Studies (Ph. Philosophy of Communication. For Passavant. According to Nikhil Pal Singh (1998). No. the debate-free speech assemblage helped to make possible the emergence of ‘America’s’ status as an exemplar of democracy.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 127 Framework File Switch Side Debate Bad Switch side debate undermines democracy and the activism that has been constructed by public discourse that ensures the freedom of speech. Cultural Studies/Cultural Policy. full and free expression . The argument that we will develop in this section begins with the premise that a key element of Cold War liberalism was the attempt to re-position the United States as the leader of the Free World (Greene 1999). in this case. constitutional theorists to grant ‘America’ the status of a nation whereby ‘one legitimately claims the right to free speech’ (pp. Ronald Walter Greene & Darrin Hicks. what is important here is that when faced with an ethical criticism of debating both sides. 1995. . We are not claiming that debate actually creates a situation in which students who participate in the activity abandon their convictions and commitments on the issues of the day nor are we claiming that debate asks students to embrace an ungrounded relativism. As Paul Passavant (1996) suggests. 146 _/126 ISSN 0950-2386 print/ISSN 1466-4348 online –2005 Taylor & Francis Group . For us. the ‘Millian paradigm’ of free speech has been appropriated by U.S. University of Illinois) Rhetorical Studies. 19. the debate over debate was a struggle over the ethical attributes required for liberal citizenship. American exceptionalism is a product of the attempt to conceptualize the United States as a concrete representative of the universal norms of democracy. Citizenship.D.

sometimes incommensurable forms of insights. Martin Heidegger argues.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 128 Framework File A/T: Shively It is no longer a question of searching for Truth. no matter how insightful it is. Such an approach recognizes that the key to circumventing the ordering mechanisms of revealing is to think in circles--not to rest too long at one point. Inclusiveness does not lie in the search for a utopian. a disciplinary act that "banishes man into that kind of revealing that is an ordering."[54] There is no all-encompassing gaze. The enframing that occurs by such processes of revealing. But the celebration of difference is a process. not an end point. 23. of International Studies at Pusan National University (Roland. all-encompassing worldview. Often there is no common discursive ground. Every process of revealing is at the same time a process of concealing. Issue 4) In the absence of authentic knowledge. but that no form of knowledge can serve as the ultimate arbiter for thought and action. no language that can establish a link between the inside and the outside. postmodernism must deal with its own will to power and to subvert that of others. Every form of thinking. Every social order. Heidegger continues. Alternatives. one conceals everything that is invisible from this vantage point. an ideal. Accepting difference and facilitating dialogue becomes more important than searching for the elusive Truth. a will that cannot but "privilege. even the ones that are based on the acceptance of difference."[55] This is why one must move back and forth between different. A call for tolerance and inclusion cannot be void of power. “Retracing and redrawing the boundaries of events: Postmodern interferences with international theory”. The link has to be searched first. Vol. Bleiker. This is not to avoid accountability. prof. but rather of accepting difference and facilitating dialog. But dialogue is a process. the formulation of theoretical positions and practical action requires modesty. Oct-Dec 1998. and create in some manner. but to pay at least as much attention to linkages between than to contents of mental resting places. expresses a will to power. some international theorists recognize. but to take on responsibility in the form of bringing modesty to a majority. but in the acceptance of the will to power--in the recognition that we need to evaluate and judge. As a critical practice. 98 asst. . excludes what does not fit into their view of the world. an ideal. oppress. By opening up a particular perspective. runs the risk of making us forget that enframing is a claim. "it drives out every other possibility for revealing. not an end point." And where this ordering holds sway. We cannot rely upon common terms for discussion as they so often freeze alternative thought and prevent real debate from occurring.

The potlatch was a practice modeled on American indigenous communities of increasingly committed giving. not about technicalities or who is right. and only the further elaboration of these by others can constitute the corresponding return gift’” (p. but the players who have not yet made their move. We should never sublimate our feral interests and instead should seek the highest level of meaning. Let us find games that fulfill our revolutionary potential. or email. the International Letterists. ever increasing the stakes of the gifts until the gifts were so outlandish the offers exposed the foolish nature of ownership. we should strive to bring about the kinds of realizations that elicit revolutionary transformation. and the receiver. few of them are moments of consumption. Every relationship that emerged along side revolutionary dialogue became a potlatch. Pittsburgh) is Assistant Professor at Marist College. indigenous would give everything they had to each other. is the highest form of game. In a recent biography of Debord and the situationists.. Potlatch. I don’t remember when I bought my television. Potlatch became so important to these revolutionaries that they named their first journal potlatch because the writings held within the journal would hopefully be given on and on in an ever increasing spiral. Moments when I first learned about ideas. the object or gift which the Letterist International gave functioned symbolically between the giver. rather. MAD One of the most important Situationist tactics was articulated in the potlatch. 2001. perhaps it is not the game. Snider’s gaming does not bring us forward in direct revolutionary thinking. Every non-capitalist moment eked out of the day was articulated as a potlatch. Debate provides a few minutes carved out of lives that are otherwise consumed by pop-up ads. What was exchanged in Debord’s vision was not necessarily goods but rather ideas. Schnurer 2k9 Gaming As Control: Will To Power.D. that allows us to think in terms of interests and what ideas we can gain. ‘Don’t collect Potlatch!’ ran a line at the end of the journals second year. I treasure a collection of moments in debate. to embrace the confluence of potential meaning in debate and lunge forward. The parts of the potlatch where humans draw out moments of freedom with each other are increasingly the only thing that keeps me interested in debate.7 Debate is the ultimate potlatch. Let us push gaming further.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 129 Framework File AT: Education Debate should be about something more meaningful. The Prison Of Debate And Game Called Potlatch. demanding that we offer up something inside of ourselves without asking for something in return. it encourages revolutionary thought and then focuses its power into the system of debate. and watching my debaters grow and develop.. In this case. the author Hussey describes the Potlatch. Poughkeepsie. take whatever moments we can for ourselves and try to push for as much change as we possibly can. Debate should be about taking risks and creating new meaning out of our desires. p. 148). but I remember with painful longing the last bicycle ride I took with friends. late nights in the squad room. It is also the living moment of poetry. Alongside the memories of moments with friends and in nature. The relationship between the two constitutes a third term – the gift is also a catalyst of the future in the form of a crystallization of desire. indicating all the possible spaces where revolution could emerge without capitalist economies. When I think about the moments that I treasure in my life. Most significantly. Rather. In the potlatch.. Potlatch became an extended metaphor for the Situationists/Letterists. “Time is working against you!” (Hussey. The solution for Snider is not to continue looking for a way to explain and systematize debate but. the friendships that emerged. a moment which breaks down or reverses conventional chronological patterns. 89) Non-competitive social structure was only one threat from the Potlatch. . Debord and the Situationists wanted people to take their initial offerings In our own lives. New York. Maxwell (Ph. Situationist biographer Jappe discovers an obscure quotation by Debord on the Potlatch (Debord himself was remarkably close-lipped about the meaning of Potlatch): “Debord refers explicitly to the Indian custom of Potlatch and announces that ‘the nonsaleable goods that a free bulletin such as this is able to distribute are novel desires and problems.

religious minorities. something is wrong with the atmosphere—not with the canary. LRP We rarely learn of the common ground in our experiences or of the ways that the lives and struggles of oppressed groups can and have benefited the entire society. 01 (‘Understanding Race. Boston: McGraw Hill. education. family life.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 130 Framework File AT: Education – Must come from Oppressed We must understand social processes from the perspective of the oppressed Weber. the atmosphere was safe. and professional school attendance rates. high unemployment and poverty rates. the atmosphere was toxic. Trying to "fix" the canary or blaming the toxic atmosphere on the canary makes the atmosphere no less toxic to everyone in it. poor and working classes. women. When oppressed groups experience high death rates from lack of access to medical care. If the canary became sick or died. and religion. we can develop a broader and healthier assessment of societal processes that affect us all—international relations. and all racial groups. the workings of the economy. and Sexuality. and lesbians—are like the canary: They signal when the atmosphere is not healthy. expanded protection against discrimination to women. and declining standardized test scores. although fought for and won primarily by African Americans. . Gender. increasing high school dropout rates. declining college. gays. the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A Conceptual Framework’. Members of oppressed groups—people of color. graduate. Class. high infant mortality rates. In a similar vein. By learning about the atmosphere from the experience of the canary. If the canary thrived. Lani Guinier (1998b) compares the experiences of women and people of color to the miner's canary. Miners used to take a canary into the mines to signal whether or not the air was safe to breathe. bisexuals. For example.

Gaming was the paradigm for debaters-first advocates. He argued firmly and correctly. one whose explanatory value comes with a price. included everyone. that debate oratory need not be modeled on “real life” communication needs. 1984). Snider’s early work was a vigorous defense of non-applied communication work. the quest for new tactics. a game that shatters all previous structures. Snider positions himself and his theoretical work in . This prose is emblematic of the We Are the World approach that encourages well-intentioned surface level change. 216). Poughkeepsie. 1984. arguments. we should encompass a paradigm that includes all paradigms. the name of the game is called POTLACH.1 Snider’s new gaming advocacy is a laundry list of positive changes in the policy debate community. the actual value of gaming is questionable. one that has become increasingly popular among college policy debaters. titled “Gaming and the ‘Excesses’ of the ‘New’ Debate. Juxtapose these claims with Snider’s 2003 advocacy of gaming. and literature were obvious outgrowths of competitors at work. Snider’s big-tent vision of debate is a relatively recent turn in the gaming literature. Snider’s final word on the question of praxis is “debate need not imitate all it sees in the ‘real world.D. In chapter five of his dissertation . Maxwell (Ph. It also argued for a vision of debate. Criticism of Snider’s work only returns us to the central question of what kind of framework is valuable for debate. In this essay I turn to a particular game called the potlatch. The Prison Of Debate And Game Called Potlatch. Early versions of gaming were vigorous defenses of “new debate” complete with fast-talking and innovative arguments (Snider. In this essay. MAD While innovative and transformative. This essay seeks to agitate the gamers. who juxtaposes a college debater with an activist “outside the classroom building” who is debating on a microphone and advocates seizing the administration building. gaming is also another form of boundary drawing. and there are a delightful variety of ways to serve debate just as there are to serve food. it encourages us to turn our attention and love back to the circle of debate. because it didn’t stake out a model. p.. strategies. is that gaming did much more than just explain paradigms. Paradigms were potent because they included and excluded – Snider’s version of the world theoretically. One must wonder what the explicatory value of gaming really is. New York.” Snider’s diverse vision includes all of the formats of debate in vigorous dialogue – but not much revolutionary potential. Because gaming framed everything in terms of competition. Speaking quickly and using jargon were defendable practices under a paradigm of gaming. Schnurer 2k9 Gaming As Control: Will To Power. Reality Check: Despite Snider’s intentions to explain why paradigms worked in debate. While gaming is positive and valuable for participants in debate circles. Gaming was the paradigm of change in debate. it modeled the stakes. “Debate can be thought of as our intellectual food. if it tells us that debate is “us”? The answer of course.” Snider quotes argumentation theorist Wayne Brockriede . and push them to look beyond the game and consider breaking even the most solid of rules…. Pittsburgh) is Assistant Professor at Marist College.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 131 Framework File AT: Real World Debate has its own reality. Snider describes a token multicultural buffet as one of the benefits of gaming.’ it merely has to be part of that reality in and of itself” (Snider.

pain."(Navarrette 1997:278). . And these exceptions tend to reinforce the views of dominant groups that the system is not oppressive but is indeed open and fair. So even though a pervasive pattern of oppression exists. perhaps taking comfort that I am different from the cultural caricature that they envision when they hear the word "Chic ano. in A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano. A Conceptual Framework’. some students in the college prep track never went to college. the rags-to-riches stories so popular in the United States are always more complex than we are led to believe. implicitly. and Sexuality. Class. Weber.. like the new girlfriend back home whose im¬measurable love is sustaining me. Jr.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 132 Framework File AT: Individual Success Means Debate is Equal Exceptions to the rule. LRP In my high school. He describes the guilt. They wink and nod at me. like my old friends. However. Boston: McGraw Hill. those members of minority groups who structurally succeed but remain psychologically troubled serve to reinforce the current system of domination by obscuring the idea that oppression is pervasive and all-encompassing. there are always individual exceptions. Gender. are incompetent and unintelligent and unmoti¬vated and hopeless. For exam¬ple. and isolation he felt in graduate school: White student colleagues smile at me as they tell me. because those who have benefited from the current arrangements are not inclined to see the ways that the ex¬clusion of others has made their inclusion in the successful mainstream possible. some home economics students did. Ruben Navar¬rette. went from valedictorian of his class in a school system with a 50 percent dropout rate for Latinos/as to Harvard University and then to graduate school in education at the University of California at Los Angeles. a 24-year-old Mexican-American man. The system only allows certain individuals to succeed in hopes of convincing the majority that the system is fair and tolerant of difference. 01 (‘Understanding Race. that people like my parents.

and establishing bodily norms and techniques for observing. distribution.. and system colonization. repressive mechanisms . medicine and so on. accessed Jstor) While separately both Habermas and Foucault challenge the traditional understanding of participation. Theoretical focus on the distinctions between Habermas and Foucault has all too often obscured important parallels between these two theorists. and Postmodern Participation. but rather [they operate] by producing new objects and subjects of knowledge. Habermas. The gender and racial subtexts infusing the system are not the results of conscious intention. but creates us differently as the effect of its functioning. Habermas is also describing a world where power is productive and dispersed and where political action is constrained and normalized. As Young explains.. Focusing on the disciplinary elements of the Habermasian critique opens the door for exploring the postmodern character of Habermasian politics. monitoring and controlling bodily movements.9 The very practices of administration. "the conscious actions of many individuals daily contribute to maintaining and reproducing oppression. sexual harassment protocols. and systemizes projects and people. but is rather the unintended consequence of a multitude of small adjustments. Created as a part of these subjectivities are new gestures and norms of bodily behavior. Although these practices can clearly be repressive. Foucault's sensitivity to the workings of disciplinary power is central to the articulation of a plausible. does not merely prevent us from developing. These disciplinary techniques not only control us. As Iris Young points out.. It creates new categories of knowledge and expertise. and capacities. job segregation. Bureaucratic power is not a power that is possessed by any individual or agency."' The very practices that Habermas chronicles are exemplary of a power that has no definitive subject. by inciting and channeling desires. and so forth. and do not understand themselves as agents of oppression. categorizes. Bureaucratization and colonization also create new subjects as the objects of bureaucratic expertise. such as the embarrassed shuffling of food stamps at the grocery checkout and the demeaning sexual reference at the office copier. In the following discussion I will argue for a performative redefinition of participation that will reinvigorate the micro-politics demanded by Foucault. 2 (Winter."8 Colonization and bureaucratization also fit the pattern of a power that is not primarily repressive but productive. not merely its target. technocracy. their combined insights further and irrevocably extend that challenge. describes a type of power that cannot be adequately characterized in terms of the intentions of those who possess it. and often more powerful. as well as provide a more nuanced version of the discursive politics demanded by Habermas. In his descriptions of bureaucracy.. their most insidious effects are productive.. and appropriate for. Disciplinary technologies are. bureaucratization breaks up. generating and focusing individual and group energies. as Sawicki describes. but rather of implicit gender and racial norms and expectations infecting the economy and the state. The social welfare client and the consumer citizen are the creation of bureaucratic power.. Polity. or seizure . as described by Foucault and implied by Habermas. 30. not. Habermas. postmodern version of discursive politics. Modern disciplinary power. processes. welfare lists.. his prescription for contemporary democracy (discursive politics) ought to be sensitive to. Specifically. The decisionmaking paradigm inherent in the traditional forms of political engagement engages in an unconscious exercise of power over the self which regulates discourse and produces for itself legitimate methods for engagement which rarely result in change. Vol. No. Because Habermas does describe a disciplinary world. and consensual corporate decisionmaking. we must "analyze the exercise of power [in contemporary societies] as the effect of often liberal and humane practices of education. but those people are simply doing their jobs or living their lives. 315-346. 1997). “Performing Politics: Foucault. 97. The extension of lifeworld gender norms into the system creates the possibility for sexual harassment. production and distribution of consumer goods. flex-time work schedules. and decisionmaking on which Habermas focuses his attention can and must be analyzed as productive disciplinary practices. but exists in the exercise of decisionmaking. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 133 Framework File Performativity Shell (1/2) A. [that] operate primarily through violence . a disciplinary world.. Colonization is not the result of conscious intention. like Foucault. but also enable us to be more efficient and more productive. the Habermas-Foucault debate has underemphasized the extent to which Habermas also describes a disciplinary society. Bodily movements are monitored and regularized by means of political opinion polls. Rather than simply holding people back. parental leave. bureaucratic administration. Kulynych. .

315-346. It is a reoccurring disruption that ensures an endless reconstitution of power." Accepting the idea of participation as resistance has two broad implications that fundamentally transform the participation debate. Habermas. resistance "can be seen as a successor concept to Arendt's notion of political action: where the space for action is usurped. is crucial for understanding contemporary political action. No. 97. activities. there is only a risk of education and real change in a world where we embrace their presence. it requires that we look anew at traditional participatory activities and evaluate their performative potential. Often only the act of resistance provides any meaningful sense of "citizenship" in this privatized contemporary world. Second. while there may be some disadvantages to allowing kritiks."70 Performative resistance recognizes disciplinary power. and more meaningful. fundamentally missing the real. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. Resistance brings those norms back into an arena of contestation. resistance is not undertaken as a protest against the subjugation of a reified ideal subject. In other words. and thus allows us to see the world of political action differently. Disciplinary technologies effect the internalization of norms-a removal from view of the mechanisms that create us as subjects. Vol. 1997). The failure to reconceptualize political participation as resistance furthers an illusion of democratic control that obscures the techniques of disciplinary power and their role in global strategies of domination.or world-creating and as demonstration. Performative resistance does not eliminate power and it is not effected in the name of some subjugated agency.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 134 Framework File Performativity Shell (2/2) B. Kulynych. it is possible. First. where action in the strict sense is no longer possible. enables innovation in deliberation. which is the very thing internalized norms are designed to suppress. By its very existence resistance ensures resistibility. The impact is discipline and domination. . although much more humble opportunities for citizens to "take part" in their own "governance. but rather its purpose is disruption and recreation. A performative concept redirects our attention away from the normal apparatus of government and economy. 2 (Winter. and therefore allows us to see a much broader range of political actions. making our identities self-evident. Consequently. reveals the contingency of both subjectivity and subjection. and Postmodern Participation. I disagree. and locations for political action. enables action in the face of that power. accessed Jstor) The notion of performativity as both identity. resistance becomes the primary vehicle of spontaneity and agonistic subjectivity. to conceptualize contemporary participation as a performative rather than a representative action. While Chaloupka suggests that the role of the protestor is "tellingly different" from that of the citizen. “Performing Politics: Foucault. Kritikal arguments are key to break down the illusion of active change brought on by the hegemony of political calculation within debate. 30. As Dana Villa points out. it widens the parameters of participation to include a host of new actors. Polity. but rather resistance. as the action of thoroughly constructed subjects.

Vol. subjectifications. and self-development. No. 97 Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. the administrative state must also manage the details of our lives formerly considered private. legitimacy. Habermas recommends a discursive concept of participation based on communicative action in a deliberative public sphere. and consumption. and possibilities that exist therein. In order to fulfill its function as the manager of the economy. their insights have not yet been integrated into a postmodern understanding of political participation. the public has become less and less interested in government.' Rather than focus primarily on the differences between discursive participation and resistance. 1997). Habermas. Habermas. and requires exclusively technical and instrumental debate. Kulynych. leisure. Vol. “Performing Politics: Foucault. and Postmodern Participation. and in our attitude toward this world. Kulynych. albeit incomplete suggestions for reconceptualizing political participation in ways appropriate for postmodern societies. the increasingly technical nature of political decisionmaking. productive. protection of private interests. today it is more fitting to ask what participation means.4 Correlatively. 1997). “Performing Politics: Foucault.3 As the state is forced to take an ever larger role in directing a complex global. and the subsequent colonization of a formerly sacred private sphere by a ubiquitous administrative state render traditional modes of political participation unable to provide influence. The unique political and economic configuration of advanced. system legitimacy. The escalating interdependence of state and economy. While numerous political and social theorists have sought to portray and understand this change. I maintain that it is possible and fruitful to combine these two strategies. and the advance of technology and bureaucracy combine with an increasing philosophical skepticism toward truth and subjectivity to produce a world that is often incompatible with our traditional understandings of democracy. 315-346. oppressions. privacy. capitalist. 30. accessed Jstor) Though political scientists have often asked why people participate in politics. few have been more influential than Jurgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Polity. the subtlety and ubiquity of disciplinary power. This question is particularly urgent if we recognize and accept the emergence of a postmodern world. Yet.6 Accordingly. Traditional ideals of political participation including policy analysis fail to engage the modern systems of state function and in fact lessen the possibility for public criticism to influence political change. Ironically. constructions. This failure of integration is a direct result of an excessively polarized debate that has elided their similarities and exaggerated their differences. As long as we define the purpose of participation only in terms of influence. Each provides valuable conceptual resources for understanding contemporary societies and the kinds of dominations. legitimacy.it is impossible to effectively engage in modern democratic society through traditional means. . and perhaps even self. the simultaneous solidification and fracture of personal and collective identity. privacy. theorists are much less optimistic about the possibilities for citizens to acquire or develop feelings of autonomy and efficacy from the attempt to communicate interests to a system that is essentially impervious to citizen interests. These fundamental changes inevitably alter the meaning of basic democratic concepts such as political participation. 2 (Winter. identities. Foucault's complex genealogical descriptions of disciplinary power net. and Foucault recommends a micro-politics of resistance. Polity. and self-development. 30.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 135 Framework File Link – Traditional Politics The post-modern nature of today’s world prohibits traditional modes of participation. repressions.5 The difficulty of participation in Habermas's world is exacerbated by the added complexity of a political system structured by hierarchical gender and racial norms. Nancy Fraser uses Habermas's analysis of the contemporary situation to demonstrate how the infusion of these hierarchical gender and racial norms into the functioning of the state and economy ensures that political channels of communication between citizens and the state are unequally structured and therefore cannot function as mechanisms for the equal protection of interests. This siege of private life and the complicity of this ideology of "civil privatism" in the functioning of the modern administrative state makes a mockery of the idea that there exist private interests that can be protected from state intervention. eschews discussion of long-term goals. welfare state economy. welfare state capitalism. Unfortunately. the technical and instrumental rationality of modern policymaking significantly lessens the possibility for public influence on state policy. the expansive increase in bureaucratization. Similarly. and Postmodern Participation. 97 Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica.works challenge the traditional assumption that political power is located primarily in the formal apparatus of the state . No. and normalizing.2 In the following discussion I utilize the contemporary concept of performativity to integrate both deliberation and resistance into a new understanding of political participation as performative resistance. we will be unable to see how political action can be effective in the contemporary world. 2 (Winter. accessed Jstor) Political scientists have traditionally understood political participation as an activity that assures individual influence over the political system. as the state's role in our "private" lives continues to grow.development. To say that the world is now "postmodern" is to highlight fundamental changes in both the condition of the contemporary world. Habermas describes a world where the possibilities for efficacious political action are quite limited. the scope of administration inevitably grows. we have become less interested in politics at precisely the same moment when our lives are becoming increasingly "politicized" and administered. focusing instead on personal and social mores. Habermas and Foucault describe the impact of the conditions of postmodernity on the possibility for efficacious political action in remarkably similar ways. The traditional understanding of political participation tells us nothing about what types of political action are appropriate in a world where power is typically and predominantly disciplinary. They also provide promising. 315-346.

30. 315-346. and Postmodern Participation. Indeed Seyla Benhabib reformulates Habermas's speech act perspective to make it sensitive to the above critique. humor. 1997). gesture. or emotion has no necessary place in the ideal speech situation. “Performing Politics: Foucault. culture. A procedural approach can require that we accommodate all utterances and that we not marginalize speaking subjects. accessed Jstor) Certainly. spirit. What has been defined as unacceptable in Habermas's formulation is any speech that is not intended to convey an idea. by definition. Vol. or affectation could be defined as deviant or immature communicators. because the communicative action approach is procedural it is particularly unsuited to address issues of speech content. a procedural approach does not address the cultural context that makes some statements convincing and others not. Habermas. making any definition of participation that is limited exclusively to regulated political discourse inevitably exclusionary. This sort of normalization creates citizens as subjects of rational debate. a definition of citizenship based on participation in an ideal form of interaction can easily become a tool for the exclusion of deviant communicators from the category of citizens. It cannot require that we take seriously or be convinced by the statements of such interlocutors. racist and sexist. Kulynych. Polity.26 She suggests that feminists concerned with inequities and imbalances in communication can actually benefit from the Habermasian requirement that all positions and issues be made " 'public' in the sense of making [them] accessible to debate. 2 (Winter.30 Therefore. Speech evocative of identity. and. therefore. it misses the relationship between procedure and content that is at the core of feminist and deconstructive critiques of language. not a critique of ideal speech as it is formulated by Habermas."27 The "radical proceduralism" of the discourse model makes it ideally suited to identify inequities in communication because it precludes our accepting unexamined and unjustified positions. 97. The norm of rational debate favors critical argument and reasoned debate over other forms of communication. She argues that feminists concerned with the discourse model of democracy have often confused the historically biased practices of deliberative assemblies with the normative ideal of rational deliberation. as Fraser explains. . No. and hence persons whose speech is richly colored with rhetoric. action and moral-political transformation.28 Even such a sophisticated and sensitive approach to ideal speech as Benhabib's cannot cleanse communicative action of its exclusivity. one might suggest that the above cases are really just failures of speech. but the entire attempt to set conditions for "ideal speech" is inevitably exclusive. Therefore. The model of an ideal speech situation establishes a norm of rational interaction that is defined by the very types of interaction it excludes. It is not only that acquiring language is a process of mastering a symbolic heritage that is systematically gendered. Correlatively.29 Defining ideal speech inevitably entails defining unacceptable speech.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 136 Framework File Link – Ideal Speech A procedural method of policymaking debate posits an ‘ideal speech’ which necessarily excludes other forms of discourse. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. reflection. In other words.

and then "translate" that communicative power into administrative power via the procedurally regulated public spheres of parliaments and the judiciary. and informal opinion-formation. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. 315-346. communicatively achieved argument and negotiation. not only detect and identify problems but also convincingly and influentially thematize them. This informal participation is primarily about generating "public discourses that uncover topics of relevance to all of society.. it is communication governed by rational. Kulynych. Second. Thus."'3 This system communicates problems "that must be processed by the political system. . informal participation must not only indicate when problems need to be addressed.'" Informal participation is crucial because it is the source of both legitimacy and innovation in formal decisionmaking. from the perspective of democratic theory. though unspecialized."12 Informal participation has two main functions. like Schumpeter. Vol. The extent to which this translation occurs is the measure of a healthy constitutional democracy. 1997). For Habermas. Participation equals discursive participation. the public sphere must. preferences. Habermas distinguishes two types of discursive participation: problem-solving or decision-oriented deliberation.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 137 Framework File Performance key to Political Participation Engaging in nontraditional debate which has moved away from the exclusive focus on policy analysis is key to reinvigorate true democracy and encouraging real participation. If they ignore informal participation. subcultural publics having fluid temporal. which takes place primarily in formal democratic institutions such as parliaments and is regulated or governed by democratic procedures. the entire populous can and must participate in the informal deliberation that takes place outside of. it must also provide an "effective problematization" of those issues. political participation takes on a new character. and one better suited to the sort of societies we currently inhabit. “Performing Politics: Foucault. No."14 Habermas labels this the "signal" function. it acts as a "warning system with sensors that. Habermas moves the focus of participation away from policymaking and toward redefining legitimate democratic processes that serve as the necessary background for subsequent policymaking. and dramatize them in such a way that they are taken up and dealt with by parliamentary complexes. are sensitive throughout society. Informal participation originating in the public sphere is also the resource for innovative descriptions and presentations of interests.. 30. accessed Jstor) Habermas regards a public sphere of rational debate as the only possible foundation for democratic politics in the contemporary world. 97. [and] effected in an open and inclusive network of overlapping. As long as decisionmaking is open to the influence of informal opinion-formation. which is opinion-formation "uncoupled from decisions. contribute to the resolution of problems. interpret values."10 In this discursive definition of democracy. Democracies are systems that achieve the formation of public opinion and public will through a correct process of public communication." "In many ways this two-tiered description of discursive participation is a radically different understanding of political participation. Polity. democracy is a method. amplify the pressure of problems. While only a limited number of specially trained individuals can reasonably engage in decisionmaking participation. generate good reasons. that is. Habermas. As Habermas argues. state decisionmakers have no connection to the center of democracy: the political public sphere. or uncoupled from. furnish them with possible solutions. formal decisionmaking structures. and Postmodern Participation. in addition. then state policies are legitimate because they are grounded in free and equal communication that meets the democratic requirement of equal participation. and debunk bad ones. 2 (Winter. the "political public sphere" is the "fundamental concept of a theory of democracy. and issues. social and substantive boundaries. First.

she concludes that a dual standard of interpretation and evaluation is required for full understanding of the prospects for citizen participation. and Postmodern Participation.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 138 Framework File Performance key to Political Participation Kritiks access citizenship better. Like Habermas. 1997). and they expand the communicative as opposed to the bureaucratic or market realms of societal activity. Habermas. She insists that deliberative politics can resist the tendency toward authoritarianism common to even a communicative. The existence of a goal-oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert policymakers and consuming citizens.they allow engagement without relying on exclusionary political calculus and technical knowledge.87 Yet her analysis is incomplete. In the discursive understanding of participation. 86 Her work skillfully maps the precarious position of citizen groups as they enter into problem. From a performative perspective. They demonstrate that alternatives are possible. She agrees with Alberto Melucci that the impact of [these] movements cannot . be judged by normal criteria of efficacy and success. The power of the kritik is that it blurs the line between laypeople and political analysts. 30. Polity. “Performing Politics: Foucault.. Kulynych. This enlarged understanding can be demonstrated by considering the examination of citizen politics in Germany presented in Carol Hager's Technological Democracy: Bureaucracy and Citizenry in the West German Energy Debate.. Hager relies too heavily on a discursive reconstitution of political action. accessed Jstor) A performative perspective on participation enriches our understanding of deliberative democracy.solving in contemporary democracies. These groups offer a different way of perceiving and naming the world. but to disrupt and resist the norms and identities that structure such a realm and its participants. it is precisely these elements of citizen action that cannot be explained by a theory of communicative action.allowing a radically inclusive reformation of the democratic processes. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical debate. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens out of the policy <CONTINUED> . 2 (Winter. Deliberation is thus an end in itself. legitimation dimension of citizen action. she advocates focusing as well on the discursive. After detailing the German citizen foray into technical debate and the subsequent creation of energy commissions to deliberate on the long-term goals of energy policy. It is here that a performative conception of political action implicitly informs Hager's discussion. Unfortunately. Though she recognized many of the limitations of Habermas's theory discussed above. 315-346. Hager follows Habermas in reconstituting participation discursively and asserts that the legitimation dimension offers an alternative reason for optimism about the efficacy of citizen action. she insists on the innovative and creative potential of citizen initiatives. She bases her optimism on the non-hierarchical. but rather in terms of solving through consensus. Vol. sometimes even chaotic and incoherent. deliberative search for objective truth. the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. 97. and on the diversity and spontaneity of citizen groups. the goal of action is not only to secure a realm for deliberative politics. Where traditional understandings of participation focus on the policy dimension and concern themselves with the citizens' success or failure to attain policy preferences. While Habermas theorizes that political solutions will emerge from dialogue. we look precisely at those moments of defiance and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Through the creation of numerous networks of communication and the generation of publicity. Hager maintains that a sense of political efficacy is enhanced by this politically interactive role even though citizens were only minimally successful in influencing or controlling the outcome of the policy debate. and citizens have succeeded whenever they are able to secure a realm of deliberative politics where the aim is forging consensus among participants. citizen action furthers democracy by assuming a substantive role in governing and by forcing participants in the policy process to legitimate their positions politically rather than technically. and that legitimation debates can avoid the tendency to devolve into the technical search for the better argument.. and experienced a real lack of autonomy as they were coerced into adopting the terms of the technical debate. . forms of decisionmaking practiced by citizen initiatives.. No. When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective. success is not defined in terms of getting. a performative understanding of participation highlights the limits of dialogue and the creative and often uncontrollable effect of unpremeditated action on the very foundations of communication. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. rather than achieving victory by some over others.

epistemic standards of evaluation become possible.lights the moments of defiant creativity and disruptive diversity that inevitably accompany citizen expeditions into unexplored territory. legitimation perspective. In practice. rather they are agonistic expressions of what cannot be captured by deliberative rationality. controlled attempt to discern the best. Only when scholars recognize the performative will they be able to grasp the intricacies of contemporary political action and the possibilities for an actually diverse and participatory democracy. Hager cannot explain how citizens are able to introduce genuinely new and different "ways of perceiving and naming the world" into a realm where such epistemic standards are unimaginable. but visceral and often uncontrollable. however. and discursive understandings see the tendency toward devolution into technical debate and procedural imperative. and wit-work precisely on the slippage between what is said and what is meant.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 139 Framework File Performance key to Political Participation <CONTINUED> process. that alternative. Performative actions are not alternative ways of deliberating. Consider. deliberation and debate are about the sincere. as is the laughter that is evoked from such strategies. This attitude of defiance. Without an understanding of the performative aspect of political action. a public hearing. satire. that gesture toward meanings that are inexpressible and identities that are unimaginable within the current cultural imagery. least biased arguments that most precisely express an interlocutor's ideas and interests. where citizen action is by definition precluded. It is the performative aspects of participation that cannot be captured or constrained within the confines of rational discourse. or what can be said and what can be conceived. These performances provide the resource for diversity and spontaneity. most rational. the performative perspective explains and high. for example. they resist the confines of that rationality and gesture toward places where words. thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. deliberation is a much less deliberative and much more performative activity. manifest in the very chaos and spontaneity that Hager points toward as a counter to Habermas's strictly dialogic and procedural approach. simply cannot be explained by an exclusively discursive theory. The disruptive potential of the energy commissions continues to defy technical bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding. Where traditional understandings of political participation see the energy commissions' failure to recapture the decisionmaking process as an expression of the power of the bureaucracy. As such. Strategies such as humor are not merely rational. The literary aspects of debate-irony. sarcasm. When seen from a discursive. It is in the process of acting as citizens in a technical bureaucratic setting. . arguments. and claims are not enough.

315-346. as is evident in some of the terminology he employs in describing the role of public discourses. It requires a kind of political action that can effectively disrupt the culturally common sensical and actually provide new and compelling alternatives to disciplinary constructions of such things as gender difference. 97. Habermas.the form of the message is just as influential as the content.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 140 Framework File Performance key to Education Political engagement is more than simple argument. and no message can be understood without understanding its method. 2 (Winter. Polity. “Performing Politics: Foucault. 30. accessed Jstor) How to convincingly thematize an alternative to something that is taken for granted is the very problem postmodernists have so often taken up. and Postmodern Participation. they must also thematize and dramatize. It is here that Habermas would benefit from attending to the productive character of disciplinary power in creating distinctly and authentically gendered beings in the first place. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. Discourses must not only identify. Kulynych. Habermas's demand that public discourses be both "attention catching" and "innovative" as well as "convincing" and "justifiable" requires more than rational argumentation.42 They can be metaphorically described as "performances" and "presentations" that invoke not only "forums" but also "stages" and "arenas. . No. Habermas also recognizes this problem. Vol."43 These are images that imply more than the careful presentation of validity claims. 1997).

Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 141 Framework File Performance key to Change Performative resistance is a crucial break with traditional political debate. Again. However. 30.creating is crucial given the subjectifying nature of modern power that McCarthy so clearly recognizes. 315-346. Fraser's concerns reflect a real normative confusion in Foucault. in the way the subject constitutes himself in an active fashion.63 He utilizes liberal ideals. the resistant citizen. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. then the possibility of a resistant citizen emerges. Kulynych. such as personal liberty. Foucault seems clearly to be searching for a way to understand innovative and experimental subjectivities that are not a return to the idea of a liberated human essence. and his social group. once we think of the activity of self-creation performatively. accessed Jstor) Performative resistance brings into being the citizen it purports to represent. the protestor's usage moves toward the contingent realm of strategies and emotions.resistance is a self-constituted activity that is necessary for the inclusion of alternative perspectives. It is indeed incongruous to ask what it is that resists. the world-creating facet of performativity is not adequate for answering Fraser's normative query." The demonstration in this sense is not an explanation but an exposure. as Chaloupka sees it. “Performing Politics: Foucault. client-citizen is re-created as a public actor in the moment of resistance. suggested. to demonstrate means "to point out. The protestor is not trying to make a point. suggested and imposed on him by his culture.62 As long as we look at this type of resistance as expressive of the subject. Polity. As he stated in a 1984 interview. a meaning derived from the French demontrer (to demonstrate). He interrogates the development of disciplinary power at the same time he denies that there is a foundation for his own normativity." Chaloupka plays upon the dual meaning of demonstration to highlight the performative aspects of protest."64 In this sense. Here demonstration does not establish objectivity and logic. to prove that the system is unjust. They are patterns that he finds in his culture and which are proposed. to describe and explain. No. William Chaloupka provides a second understanding of performativity that helps explain Foucault's "cryptonormativism. Rather. Foucault himself seemed to be leaning toward this sort of notion of performative action in his focus on care for the self and on an aesthetic of "self-creation. the protestor exposes the contingency of justice itself. But demonstration has also an alternative meaning." or identity. I would say that if now I am interested. through the use of the demonstration as tactic. so much as it shows up the objective order. But. 97. which already exists. and Postmodern Participation. and imposed. 1997). assertively getting in the way. is created by the act of resistance. The above notion of performativity as "world creating. in fact." In these later thoughts. Habermas. Vol. . then McCarthy is right: the intent of the subject's actions are proposed. a demonstration is also "a show. In the typical usage. by the practices of the self. his society. His focus on the active constitution of the self is additional evidence of a move toward a more performative notion of resistance. and montrer (to show). and hardly what we would label autonomous. The thoroughly privatized. but combines them with a critique that eschews normative grounding.formative helps explain this apparent contradiction. a defiance embodied in action that flies in the face of acceptability.66 Thus the performative aspect of demonstration cannot be adequately captured with the lens of truth and justice. They make their point. these practices are nevertheless not something that the individual invents by himself. protesters utilize their actions as a vehicle for their interests. Accordingly. to make known.65 Thus. since the citizen as participant. an understanding of resistance as per. 2 (Winter. to expose the malevolence of enlightenment liberation.

but rather what and how we should resist. to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such. the ability to align and arrange arguments that support a position. By unearthing the contingency of the "self-evident. rather it reveals the existence of subjection where we had not previously seen it. Making a point is a function of discourse. Just as a protestor exposes the contingency of concepts like justice. This notion of performativity is also important for understanding the possibilities for innovation in Habermasian deliberative participation. what kinds of familiar." or "showing up. Thus.Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 142 Framework File Performance key to Policymaking Kritik is a pre-requisite to policy. but rather “How and what are we resisting?” Kulynych. performative resistance. . we are merely doing disciplinary society one better." then we no longer need the introduction of normative notions. No.revealing that which is excluded from normal discussions is key to identifying effective solutions. Polity. when considered as critique. 2 (Winter. accessed Jstor) Foucault comes close to saying what Chaloupka argues here when he states.68 Any convincing account of the politics of deliberation must take account of the creative potential that resides in the performance of debate. . 30. Vol. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions. more than the speeches and carefully coherent position papers. a dialogue exposes the limits and contingency of rational argumentation. The oral histories of demonstrations (the next day over coffee) linger over the jokes and funny signs and slogans. We bring normativity to our performances as ethical principles that are themselves subject to resistance. In effect. does not need to tell us what is wrong. he mocks it. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. I am not suggesting that we can get a normative anchor out of the notion of performativity. “Performing Politics: Foucault. then we can see that deliberative politics cannot be confined to the rational statement of validity claims. 1997). but rather as "showing. the question is not should we resist (since resistance is always." performative resistance enables politics. 97. unchallenged. Indeed it is precisely the non-rational aspects of deliberation that carry the potential for innovation. In his description of the poignant reminders of demonstration Chaloupka recognizes that it is at the margins that the actual force of the demonstration resides. the outrages and improprieties. Thus. Deliberation must be theatrical: it is in the performance of deliberation that that which cannot be argued for finds expression. or rather. Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believes. utilizing puns and jokes and caricature to "expose" the limits of what is being said. unconsidered modes of thought the practices we accept rest. the question is not “Should we resist?”. already present). that performativity is not about normative distinctions. I am suggesting performative resistance makes no such normative distinctions.pens at the microphone. and Postmodern Participation. Habermas. language and discourse. To the contrary. a critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. the performative protestor does not argue against the state. Yet.67 If we interpret the "to show" here not as pointing out what is wrong with disciplinary society (which would leave Foucault subject to Fraser's normative criticism). The protestor works at the margins of discourse. 315-346. Once we are sensitive to the performative nature of speech.. no matter what hap..

he contends that those contests provide the raw material for global domination. as well as the complicity of formalized protest in bolstering the status quo. at the same time they verify system legitimacy by focusing protest toward the formal legal structures of government. more globalized. Lacking clear choices and substantive discussion of long-term goals.85 .Arizaona Debate Institute 2009 Holbrook/Nielson 143 Framework File Performance key to Inclusion Incorporating kritiks expands the domain of the political. 315-346. personal relationships. 1997). for example. In other words. Performative participation captures the sense of destabilization and disruption that more and more characterizes today's electorate. 2 (Winter. Yearly Washington marches. Similarly Habermas has moved from a relatively pessimistic and defensive view of the political process (where democracy was limited to a communicative but protected public sphere whose legitimate opinions made few inroads into political administration). in the deliberations of civil society. While Foucault concentrates on contests at the micro-level. to a more promising theorization of a "democratized administration" in a constitutional state that "translates" legitimate influence into political and administrative power. rather. Rather it rearranges their purpose and priority. Vol. a performative concept of participation may shed new light on phenomena such as the "Perot vote. both Habermas and Foucault direct attention away from traditional participatory activities directed at the formal apparatus of government. its purpose depends upon the surrounding environment." where citizens admittedly cast their vote with little expectation of influencing the outcome. The breakdown of the distinction between participation and resistance means that conventional political activities may also take on the character of resistance. Although my theorization of a performative concept of participation as resistance is designed to reiterate the importance of focusing on more surprising instances of this expansion and redefinition of participation does not preclude the continuance of representative institutions and formalized participation. and in the problem-solving institutions of the constitutional state. 97. Habermas. but necessarily within it. the vote is not merely a conduit for the expression of particular citizen interests or preferences. For example. unconventional activities such as protest marches may in turn appear to communicate citizen preferences and sustain system legitimacy in systems where those activities become institutionalized. and more institutionalized power regimes. and Postmodern Participation. but also at the level of public decisionmaking. Kulynych. may actually diffuse discontent by providing a legitimate outlet for protest. Political participation must also account for the performative potential of traditional acts of participation in modern societies where these acts no longer fill traditional purposes. Overall. a performative conception of participation effectively undermines any firm separation between problem solving and world disclosure. Proposals for group representation in legislative institutions by theorists such as Young and Guinier make more sense from a performative perspective because they encourage the performative reconstitution of identity not only in private life. accessed Jstor) Understanding participation as performative resistance also provides a theoretical grounding for rethinking conventional participatory activities. An expanded notion of political participation as performative resistance allows for a more effective thematization of social problems. 30. Yet they also connect these participatory activities back to larger. voting or nonvoting itself may become a form of protest. Winthrop U Prof of Polysci (Jessica. returning to policymaking arguments by reinvigorating their effectiveness in the public sphere. “Performing Politics: Foucault. Performative resistance is evident in intimate and participation . and it demonstrates how performative resistance is not above or below traditional participation. No. Polity. Likewise. While Habermas insists on a separation between the problem-solving that takes place in parliaments and the world-disclosing that is the function of the public sphere.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->