Critical Constructivism k Brian D.

Gonzaba

Critical Constructivism Criticism

Crit con 1nc shell 1/5..................................................................................................................... 2
Crit con 1nc shell 2/5..................................................................................................................... 3
Crit con 1nc shell 3/5..................................................................................................................... 4
Crit con 1nc shell 4/5..................................................................................................................... 5
Crit con 1nc shell 5/5..................................................................................................................... 6
reject the banking method........................................................................................................... 7
EXTRA LINK EVIDENCE/alt solves.............................................................................................. 8
AT: PERMUTATIONS......................................................................................................................... 9
AT: PICS BAD.................................................................................................................................. 11
AFF FAILS........................................................................................................................................ 12
Link of Omission........................................................................................................................... 13
O/v for k’ish affs............................................................................................................................ 14

1
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

CRIT CON 1NC SHELL 1/5

You are no longer the judge in this round because the affirmative has taken your
position determining and creating the guidelines for your evaluation at the end of
this debate determining only one way in which you can make your decision and only
one way in which we can ground our discussions of the world’s issues.

Paulo Friere explained that it is the oppressors who act upon the people of the world
to adjust them to a single reality only corresponding to their view of the world,
instead of that of the people. In this sense the 1ac’s ballot becomes a single
worldview and not that of the people. Forcing us to become trapped by the positivist
notions of the banking line.

Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Chapter 1, educator and director of the Department of Cultural Extension of Recife
University,1970

For the truly humanist educator and the authentic revolutionary, the object of action is the reality to be transformed by them together
with other people — not other men and women themselves. The oppressors are the ones who act upon the
people to indoctrinate them and adjust them to a reality which must remain untouched.
Unfortunately, however, in their desire to obtain the support of the people for revolutionary action, revolutionary
leaders often fall for the banking line of planning program content from the top down. They approach the
peasant or urban masses with projects which may correspond to their own view of the world, but
not to that of the people.[10] They forget that their fundamental objective is to fight
alongside the people for the recovery of the people’s stolen humanity, not to “win the
people over” to their side. Such a phrase does not belong in the vocabulary of revolutionary leaders, but in that of the
oppressor The revolutionary’s role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people — not to win
them over. In their political activity, the dominant elites utilize the banking concept to encourage
passivity in the oppressed, corresponding with the latter’s “submerged” state of consciousness, and take
advantage of that passivity to “fill” that consciousness with slogans which create even
more fear of freedom. This practice is incompatible with a truly liberating course of
action, which, by presenting the oppressor’s slogans as a problem, helps the oppressed to “eject” those slogans from within
themselves. After all the task of the humanists is surely not that of pitting their slogans against the slogans of the oppressors, with the
oppressed as the testing ground, “housing” the slogans of first one group and then the other. On the contrary, the
task of the
humanists is to see that the oppressed become aware of the fact that as dual beings, “housing”
the oppressors within themselves, they cannot be truly human. This task implies that revolutionary leaders do not go
to the people in order to bring them a message of “salvation,” but in order to come to
know through dialogue with them both their objective situation and their awareness of
that situation — the various levels of perception of themselves and of the world in which and with which they exist. One
cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails
to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural
invasion,[11]good intentions notwithstanding

2
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

CRIT CON 1NC SHELL 2/5

And it is from their panoptic approach that we find the controlling mechanism
of framework from their 1ac … specifically when they say __________________

It is this creation of community from being in common and single paradigm

cognition where we commit the community we call upon to the tomb.

Nancy in 1986 (Jean-Luc, The Inoperable Community. Pg. xxxviii-xli)

Finitude, or the infinite lack of infinite identity, if we can risk such a forumulation, is what makes community. That is,
community is made or is formed by the retreat or by the subtraction of something: this something,
which would be the fulfilled infinite identity of community, is what I call its “work.” All our political
programs imply this work: either as the product of the working community, or else the
community itself as work. But in fact it is the work that the community does not do and that
it is not that forms community. In the work, the properly “common” character of community disappears, giving way to
a unicity and a substantiality. (The work itself, in fact, should not be understood primarily as the exteriority of a product, but as the
interiority of the subject’s operation.) The
community that becomes a single thing (body, mind, fatherland,
Leader…)necessarily loses the in of being-in-common. Or, it loses the with or the together
that defines it. It yields its being-together to a being of togetherness. The truth of
community, on the contrary, resides in the retreat of such a being. Community is made of
what retreats from it: the hypostasis of the “common,” and its work. The retreat opens,
and continues to keep open, this strange being-the-one-with-the-other to which we are
exposed. (Nothing indicates more clearly what the logic of this being of togetherness can imply than the role of Gemeinschaft, of
community, in Nazi ideology.) If I had to attempt to state the principle guiding the analyses in these texts, I might do so by saying this:
community does not consist in the transcendence (nor in the transcendental) of a being supposedly immanent to community. It
consists on the contrary in the immanence of a “transcendence”- that of finite existence as such, which is to say, of its “exposition.”
Exposition, precisely, is not a “being” that one can “sup-pose” (like a sub-stance) to be in community. Community is
presuppositionless: this is why it is haunted by such ambiguous ideas as foundation and
sovereignty, which are at once ideas of what would be completely suppositionless and
ideas of what would always be presupposed. But community cannot be presupposed. It is
only exposed. This is undoubtedly not easy to think. But such thinking, which is perhaps
inaccessible (inaccessible without the being-in-common of thinking, without the sharing of reading, without the politics within
which all writing and reading are inscribed), forms a point of convergence and solidarity among the
studies here dedicated to community properly speaking, to myth, to love, and to the
retreat of the divine. By inverting the “principle” stated a moment ago, we get
totalitarianism. By ignoring it, we condemn the political to management and to power (and
to the management of power, and to the power of management). By taking it as a rule of analysis and thought, we raise the question:
how can the community without essence (the community that is neither “people” nor “nation,” neither “destiny” nor “generic
humanity,” etc.) be presented as such? That is, what might a politics be that does not stem from the will to realize an essence? I shall
not venture into the possible forms of such a politics, of this politics that one might call the politics of the political, if the political can
be taken as the moment, the point, or the event of being-in-common. This would be beyond my competence. But I do enter into
the bond (not only the “social bond,” as one says today, all too readily, but the properly political bond) that binds the
political, or in which the political is bound up. When I speak, in the studies that follow, of
“literature,” of a “voice of interruption,” of “shattered” love, of “coming,” of “joy,” and
finally of “places” of “dislocation,” it is always of the same bond that I shall be speaking:
of a bond that forms ties without attachment, or even less fusion, of a bond that unbinds
by binding, that reunites through the infinite exposition of an irreducible finitude. How can
we be receptive to the meaning of our multiple,

3
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

CRIT CON 1NC SHELL 3/5

(card continues no text omitted)
dispersed, mortally fragmented existences, which nonetheless only makes sense by existing in common? In other words, perhaps:
how do we communicate? But this question can be asked seriously only if we dismiss all
“theories of communication,” which begin by positing the necessity or the desire for a
consensus, a continuity and a transfer of messages. It is not a question of establishing
rules for communication, it is a question of understanding before all else that in
“communication” what takes place is an exposition: finite existence exposed to finite
existence, co-appearing before it and with it. To think this point, or rather this limit that exposition “is,” is
necessarily to think the point or the limit at which the moment of revolution presents itself. The idea of revolution has perhaps still not
been understood, inasmuch as it is the idea of a new foundation or that of a reversal

of sovereignty. Of course, we need gestures of foundation and reversal. But their reason lies elsewhere: it is in the incessantly present
moment at which existence-in-common resists every transcendence that tries to absorb it, be it in an All or in and Individual (in a
Subject in general). This moment cannot be “founded,” and no foundation, therefore, can be “reversed” in it. This
moment-
when the in of the “in-common” erupts, resists, and disrupts the relations of need and
force- annuls collective and communal hypostases; this violent and troubling moment
resists murderous violence and the turmoil of fascination and identification: the intensity
of the word “revolution” names it well, a word that, undoubtedly, has been bequeathed or
delegated to us by an ambiguous history, but whose meaning has perhaps still to be
revolutionized. One thing at least is clear: if we do not face up to such questions, the
political will soon desert us completely, if it has not already done so. It will abandon us to
political and technological economies, if it has not already done so. And this will be the
end of our communities, if this has not yet come about. Being-in-common will nonetheless never cease to
resist, but its resistance will belong decidedly to another world entirely. Our world, as far as politics is concerned,
will be a desert, and we will wither away without a tomb- which is to say, without
community, deprived of our finite existence.

While an embracement of their knowledge is diffidently a good thing the our

issue is with the production of the knowledge and attempts of framing the
debate round solely around a single worldview marginalizes the diversity of
knowledge that comes from the otherized positions in the world.

KINCHELOE 2005(,Joe,professor of education at CUNY graduate center urban education program and at Brooklyn
college from the book critical constructivism) Pg. 9: In constructivist theory, different individuals coming from
diverse backgrounds will see the world in different ways. Imagine, for example, how
a German bank teller, an Igbo tribesperson, a Texas rancher and women from a
small village in China close to the Mongolian border might describe a major league baseball
game. It is safe to assume that the descriptions would be quite different and even
humorous to individuals who have understood the intricacies of the game since they
were very young. There is no question that the backgrounds and expectations of the
observer shape perception. Consider how a classroom is perceived by a class clown,
a traditionally good student, a burnt-out teacher, a standardized test maker, an anti-
standards activist, a bureaucratic supervisor, a disgruntled parent, a nostalgic alumnus or a student with feelings
similar to the shooters, Eric and Dylan from Columbine High School. The way our psychosocial dispositions
shape how the world is perceived holds important implications for teaching and
critical thinking. Each of our students brings a unique disputation into the classroom. Indeed
earth teacher carries a unique disposition with her or him.

4
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

CRIT CON 1NC SHELL 4/5

This is a criticism of prevailing methods for knowledge production, yes the

affirmative might criticize the way in which western Eurocentric knowledge
production has placed itself over society and controlled our interactions in the
world, they take the process too far by replacing the harms and dominant
epistemology of the status quo with the prevailing method of the 1ac.

Joe L. Kincheloe 2008 (the Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at McGill University.
(contact the author at jkincheloe@aol.com )) “Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction” (our copy was printed on acid free
paper) P37-38

Critical epistemology understands that knowing in a complex and ethical sense always understands knowledge is more opaque than
Western science originally believed. Language
is much too ambiguous to provide some clear
reflection of the nature of the reality that surrounds us. Indeed, it is with these understandings and the
additional recognition that it is the human who knows and produces knowledge that we move away from the blinders of FIDUROD.
Knowledge in this critical epistemological context does not come directly from things in the world.
The notion that knowledge comes to us without the filter of our socially constructed
consciousness is one of the great fallacies of traditional Western science and FIDUROD. All
knowledge runs through the subjectivity of human perception—without this step in the
process what we understand as knowledge simply doesn’t exist. When we read a poet’s rendition of
fog along the coastline of British Columbia, we are not reading a simple reflection of what the fog is. Instead, we are reading how the
fog is interpreted by the consciousness of the poet. Move this notion into your own consciousness. How would you describe fog?
What images of it come in to your mind as you consider it? Do you think those impressions are the same as peoples from other
places and times? Is it possible that you have a lot to learn about fog from these diverse perspectives? Could it be that you might
never think of fog in the same way after encountering some of these perspectives? What is your rela- tionship to fog? At the
moment we recognize the socially constructed and interpretive dimension of a phenomenon such as fog, the cosmos gives birth
to epistemology. Epistemology rushes through the conceptual birth canal at the exact
instant we realize that humans don’t possess some immediate and straightforward
access to knowledge. It’s far more complicated, and as we change the diaper of the
epistemological infant we embark on a new journey to appreciate the mystery, grandeur,
complexity, and ambiguity of this conundrum we call existence. If you have all the
answers to questions about this mystifying dimension of being, then burn this book
immediately— you don’t need it. The prevailing epistemology of the day—or as Michel
Foucault labeled it, the episteme—insidiously fashions what we believe to be real and how we
might come to know it (Foucault, 1990; May, 1993; Inayatullah, 1995). For example, is a metaphor real? Is an
interpretation of history real? Is a relationship between being a hip hop artist and being a
great teacher real? The answer, of course, rests in which epistemological baby we
claimed as our own. In Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction I’m trying to feed that restless, needy, and
earsplitting epistebaby. One of the reasons that caring for the epistebaby is so important in
twenty-first century society involves the politics of epistemology and pedagogy. Central to
every page of Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction is the political understanding that
contemporary dominant power uses FIDUROD’s scientific capital to do bad things—thank you for
smoking, if you will. “Our experts have concluded after conducting rigorous scientific research that Exxon is doing no harm to the
environment. The data just do not support the accusation of these radical environ- mental groups.” “After examining the
contaminated area, the scientists employed at Monsanto Chemicals—excuse me, we changed our name to Solutia Inc.—have
determined Solutia is not responsible for the cancer cluster in the county. Have a good day.” “How
do we fight the
scientific experts?” victims of corporate social irresponsibility ask. Scientific experts are
expensive, poor and even middle/upper- middle class citizens can’t just go out and hire
their own. We can begin to see why knowledge is power..

5
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

CRIT CON 1NC SHELL 5/5

Our alternative will be two fold

First is the rejection of a prevailing brand of knowledge production, which
fuels the banking concepts that standardize our education and actions.

And second – is the embracing of critical constructivism, which is the refusal

to create action, debate, communication and community, based around a
singular normative ideology.

THIS IS CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

Kincheloe in 2005 (Joe, from the book Critical constructivism pg. 15 Uncovering elitist assumptions in the construction of
knowledge)
With this reconstructive imperative in mind one of the central tasks of a critical
constructivist teacher-scholar is to formulate questions that expose the conditions that
promote social and educational advantage and disadvantage (Brosio, 1994, 200). For example it
is obvious to many that when the methods of evaluation of advocates of the
competitive top down standards of curriculum are employed, some non white and working
class students do not generally do well. Their performance is interrupted as
manifestation of slowness, of inferior ability. Researchers devise tests to evaluate school,
student and teacher performance, forgetting throughout the process that evaluation
is based on uncritically grounded constructions of intelligence and performance.
Critical constructivists know that the advantage of subjugated perspectives, the
view from below, involves what has been termed the “double consciousness” of the
oppressed. If they are to survive, subjugated groups need to develop an
understanding of who control them (e.g., slaves’ insight into the manners, eccentricities
and fears of their masters). At the same time they are cognizant of the everyday
mechanisms of oppression and the way such technologies shape their
consciousness, their lived realities. Because of their privileged class, race and gender
positions, many educators are insulated from the benefits of double consciousness
of the subjugated and are estranged from a visceral appreciation of suffering
(Zappulla,1997). Contemporary social organization, thus, is viewed from a lens that
portrays (constructs) it as acceptable

So finally - Instead of answering the worlds problems with the standardized

fill in the blank answer the affirmative provides you for your ballot, you can
vote neg in order to embrace the reconstructive imperative that instead
formulates questions about the world without a limited amount of
standardized set answers.

6
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

REJECT THE BANKING METHOD

IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN LIBERATION FROM OUR SOCIAL LOCATIONS

AS DEBATERS,WE SHOULD REJECT BANKING NOTIONS OF EDUCATION
Freire 1968 (Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Pg 79)

Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of liberation are themselves

surrounded and influenced by the climate which generates the banking concept,
and often do not perceive its true significance or its dehumanizing power.
Paradoxically, then, they utilize this same instrument of alienation in what they consider an effort to liberate. Indeed,
some “revolutionaries” brand as “innocents,” “dreamers,” or even “reactionaries” those who would challenge this
educational practice. But one does not liberate people by alienating them. Authentic liberation – the process of
humanization – is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and
women upon their world in order to transform it. Those truly committed to the cause of liberation can accept neither the
mechanistic concept of consciousness as an empty vessel to be filled, nor use of banking methods of domination
Those truly committed to liberation must
(propaganda, slogans – deposits) in the name of liberation.
reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women
and men as conscious beings, and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the
world. They must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and replace it
with the posing of the problems of human beings in relations with the world.
“Problem-posing” education, responding to the essence of consciousness – intentionality – rejects communiqué s and
embodies communication. It epitomizes the special characteristic of consciousness: being conscious of, not only as intent
on objects but as turned in upon itself in a Jasperian “split” – consciousness as consciousness of consciousness.

BANKING EDUCATION DOMESTICATES AND DEHUMANIZES

Freire 1968 (Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Pg 83-84)

Once again, the two educational concepts and practices under analysis come into conflict. Banking education (for
obvious reasons) attempts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which excitation sets itself the task of
Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education
demythologizing.
regards dialogue as indispensible to the act of cognition which unveils reality.
Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem-posing
education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education inhibits creativity
and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of
consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world, thereby denying people
their ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human . Problem-
posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thereby responding to
the vocation of persons as beings who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation. In sum:
banking theory and practice, as immobilizing and fixating forces, fail to
acknowledge men and women as historical beings; problem-posing theory and
practice take the people’s historicity as their starting point.

7
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

EXTRA LINK EVIDENCE/ALT SOLVES

Their notion of the ballot sets up the situation of a single reality, which is never open
to interrogate itself and it’s own ways. Our alternative is key to breaking down the
single worldview of the 1ac.

Kincheloe, 2005 (Joe L. professor at Stanford University, School of Education and director of the Public Knowledge Project:
March Critical Constructivism Primer Pg 53)
Of course, as we have already maintained, this notion of cognition and even learning as acts of
reflecting or representing reality is a key dimension of the history of Western
cognitive psychology. In this Cartesian cognitive, sensory inputs are reconstituted by the brain in a manner that
renders them as internal representations of the world “out there.” Such a view of cognition produces
fixed perspectives and particular viewpoints as reality itself. Conversation
retreats as canons are created, and, contrary to Allen Bloom’s (1987) arguments, minds are
closed by not moving to the margins. Critical thinkers in this cognitive
theoretical domain can announce that they have deduced the truth, that they
have represented reality correctly. The curriculum can thus be constructed
around such truth, and everyone else can go home and “just learn it.”
Enactivism throws a monkey wrench into such cognitive arrogance, forcing us
in the process to account for the profoundly different constructions of reality
that emerge when the world is encountered in different times and places.
Teaching, learning and knowledge production that do not take such cognitive
complexity into account are shortchanged.

8
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

AT: PERMUTATIONS

The permutation sets up the same idea that we are not responsible enough to control
our own methods and fails when they refuse to re-examine their own method of
thought through denying their position within this debate round, not only does this
create a dis ad to the permutation but it is also an independent case turn to the 1ac
itself.
Paulo Freire explains it best when he said:
Freire 1968 (Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed CH.1”.)
Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves
constantly. This conversion is so radical as not to allow of ambiguous behavior. To affirm this commitment but
to consider oneself the proprietor of revolutionary wisdom — which must then be given to (or imposed
on) the people — is to retain the old ways. The man or woman who proclaims devotion to the
cause of liberation yet is unable to enter into communion with the people, whom he or she
continues to regard as totally ignorant, is grievously self-deceived. The convert who
approaches the people but feels alarm at each step they take, each doubt they express, and
each suggestion they offer; and attempts to impose his “status”, remains nostalgic towards
his origins.

In order to authentically engage in an open methodology it requires a profound

rebirth, it involves giving up the current modes of thought present in the 1ac and
engaging in that of our method. Because of this the permutation remains tied to the
same actions of the 1ac, which prevents authentic engagement in our movement
leading to a reflection of the same domination.

Freire goes on to say:

(Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed CH.1”.)
Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth. Those who undergo it must take on
a new form of existence; they can no longer remain as they were. Only through
comradeship with the oppressed can the converts understand their characteristic ways of
living and behaving, which in diverse moments reflect the structure of domination. One
of these characteristics is the previously mentioned existential duality of the oppressed,
who are at the same time themselves and the oppressor whose image they have
internalized. Accordingly, until they concretely “discover” their oppressor and in turn their
own consciousness, they nearly always express fatalistic attitudes towards their situation.

9
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

If the aff legitimately believes in the ability of our struggles (which is key to our
solvency and the perm’s success) then the permutation means you vote negative. In
order for them to authentically join with us they must actually be willing to give the
1ac up, instead of putting us on the back burner.
Freire describes it this way. (Paulo Freire. Educational Revolutionary. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed
CH.1”.)Given the preceding context, another issue of indubitable importance arises: the fact that certain members of the
oppressor class join the oppressed in their struggle for liberation, thus moving from one pole of the contradiction to
the other. Theirs is a fundamental role, and has been so throughout the history of this struggle. It
happens, however, that as they cease to be exploiters or indifferent spectators or simply the heirs of
exploitation and move to the side of the exploited, they almost always bring with them the marks of their
origin: their prejudices and their deformations, which include a lack of confidence in the
people’s ability to think, to want, and to know. Accordingly these adherents to the
people’s cause constantly run the risk of falling into a type of generosity as malefic as
that of the oppressors. The generosity of the oppressors is nourished by an unjust order,
which must be maintained in order to justify that generosity. Our converts, on the other hand, truly
desire to transform the unjust order; but because of their background they believe that they must be the
executors of the transformation. They talk about the people, but they do not trust them;
and trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change.

Finally- We also take the role of questioning the idea of the aff being the only ones
that can take on our project and utilize our methodology in a way that attempts to
make it work for them, instead if they truly wish to adopt what it is that we have to
bring to the table the idea of joining with our project should be grounded in a literal
adoption into our movement from our movement within this round, to resolve this
struggle we present the counter permutation as the preferable option showing that
instead of them co- opting our method to theirs we should be the one to accept them
to us as a means of authentic solidarity. A main aspect of authentic solidarity is the
trust between the affirmative and us, we are asking them to trust that we can lead
our own movement instead of them taking over our advocacy creating more
oppression.
Friere further goes on to say:(same card)
A real humanist can be identified more by their trust in the people, which engages them
in their struggle, rather than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust

10
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

AT: PICS BAD

1. We’re not a PIC – we don’t get rid of any words of the 1AC and then defend
the same action. They still get the ability to weigh the 1ac against us, and at
the end of this debate you vote on which method is preferable to combating
the harms of the affirmative.

2. We don’t claim to solve the aff’s specific impacts, but rather we kritik the way
in which they attempt to solve them.

3. Net Benefit Checks Abuse – we kritik the method used in the 1AC and use a
different one to approach the issues of normative ideologies which means
there is no unique abuse to the aff.

4. Lit Checks Abuse – there is a ton of evidence that deals with discourse and
representations, from our specific alt to any other kind, which means that a
comparison is necessary in order to come up with an actual action that could
solve for anything.

Finally - Extend our Friere evidence indicates that current politics are just misusing
the poor by bringing them a message of salvation for the oppressed, like the aff does,
instead of attempting to engage in a dialogue created with them in order to
encourage a social experience.

11
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

AFF FAILS
The aff can never fully recognize the voice of the Other in their own political
agenda. They argue that we steal the voice of the Other in order to further our
project, but we argue that they steal the space of the Other with their use of a
single conscious methodology. The impact to this is becoming. The aff
forecloses the ability of the individual to be able to change from the prevailing
method in their 1AC. Our kritik is one that seeks to allow this method of
becoming in order to create better social change.
Bleiker, 2000. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge, Popular Dissent,
Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2000. p. 216)
Language is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life. It is omnipresent. It
penetrates every aspect of transversal politics, from the local to the global. We speak,
Heidegger stresses, when we are awake and when we are asleep, even when we do not utter a single word. We speak when we
listen, read or silently pursue an occupation. We are always speaking because we cannot think without language, because
2 But languages are never neutral. They
'language is the house of Being', the home within which we dwell.
embody particular values and ideas . They are an integral part of transversal power relations and
of global politics in general. Languages impose sets of assumptions on us, frame our thoughts
so subtly that we are mostly unaware of the systems of exclusion that are being
entrenched through this process. And yet, a language is not just a form of domination that engulfs the
speaker in a web of discursive constraints, it is also a terrain of dissent, one that is not bound by
the political logic of national boundaries. Language is itself a form of action — the
place where possibilities for social change emerge, where values are slowly
transformed, where individuals carve out thinking space and engage in everyday
forms of resistance. In short, language epitomizes the potential and limits of
discursive forms of transversal dissent.

12
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

LINK OF OMISSION

1. This argument is lie. The aff is whining about how they can’t predict all the
representations their plan might have, but they aren’t recognizing the biggest
one. If the 1ac is about breaking normative control then they shouldn’t create
a project, which creates the same notion of control. There is literally no
world in which the aff couldn’t predict that someone is going to challenge the
representations present in the 1AC. That’s absurd.

2. This provides another link to our kritik. The aff is so set in their ways that
they are willing to step over the poor and oppressed in order to enact their
project. Because of this they can’t recognize their own approach to such
dominant discourse. This is literally one of the most important questions
which has failed to be addressed by the affirmative in any way, which means
that they need to be challenged on this in order to come up with a policy that
is actually functional toward their goals of solvency.

3. Any of their claims about why they shouldn’t have to answer this are just
whines. This is a way to test if the aff is actually worth doing and if they can’t
defend their case and the reasons for it, it shouldn’t win the round. We kritik
their discourse and method, in a predictable way, and are calling them to
actually debate us. In no way does this make our criticism uniquely bad.

13
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

O/V FOR K’ISH AFFS

Extend our first piece of Paulo Friere evidence it indicates that the oppressive
ideology of the banking concept lies within the notion of imposing a single
worldview in which everyone must follow. On the context of the affirmative we find
the link from the point in the 1ac where they tell you ___________________. This is one of
the first signs of the oppressive mentality because they attempt to form and shape
relations in the world according to their view instead of the diverse views of the
people. The impact to this becomes the oppression that even the 1ac wishes to
discontinue. Our evidence indicates that it is a liberation with the oppressed instead
of for the oppressed that is necessary… this liberation can never come from a
standardized way of framing our relations and actions in the world.

Next extend our Nancy evidence; this claims that a notion of community based upon
sameness is a community that fails. Nancy indicates that community comes not from
being in common but rather that which subtracts or retreats from it… the
differences of the individuals which lye within. Nancy acts as a dis ad to the
normalizing mentality of the 1ac’s notion of the ballot because the 1ac inhibits
within its own method the ability for other methods to separate and create new
ways of viewing the world… the impact to this would be the death of a community
which cannot grow because it becomes so caught up in its own view and it’s willing
to suppress that of others.

If we win that the affirmatives framing arguments inhibits diverse standpoints from
creating actions then this debate is game over our first piece of Kincheloe in 2005
evidence shows us that there are always different viewpoints and multiple
perspectives when it comes to a given situation he gives the example of the way
different people would describe and view a baseball game. He explains that all social
locations provide different ways in which we approach and solve problems; the
affirmative however wishes you to believe that there is only one way to solve such
problems.

The reason we often fail to solve for these problems is because methods become
compartmentalized from the other methods of evaluation and they become so
caught up in solving these issues only in their own way even if that means
suppressing other people’s way.

14
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

THE SEPERATION OF KNOWLEDGE INTO DISCIPLINARY COMPARTMENTS

INDIVIDUALIZES THOSE PERCIEVED AS ABNORMAL OR THREATENING IN
ORDER TO NORMALIZE OR STIFLE POTENTIAL CHALLENGES. FRACTURING
POTENTIALLY REVOLUTIONARY CHALLENGES.
SPANOS 2003 [William V, Professor at Binghamton, The End of Education: Toward Posthumanism, U of Minn Press
2003, 43-44]

In opposition to this common and disabling reading—a reading that fails to recognize the homologous continuity between
sociopolitical and ontological ideology as the last chapter will suggest —I want to claim that the apparent heterogeneity of the vocabu-
laries of the American university obscures a fundamental singularity. However invisible and unthought by
administrators, faculty, students, and historians, the polyvalent panoptic diagram thematized on the ontological level
by Heidegger and on the sociopolitical level by Foucault traverses the heterogeneous structure of the modern "pluralist" university. It
saturates the domain of higher education from the physical organization of institutional and classroom space to
the "spiritual" space of inquiry and knowledge transmission: the "author function," research, journals, learned societies, conferences,
hiring, professional advancement, and both pedagogical theory and practice. The university as we know it has its historically specific
origins in the Enlightenment and reflects and contributes to "the gradual extension" and "spread" of the mechanisms of discipline
"throughout the whole social body." I am primarily concerned about the way the panoptic diagram organizes spiritual space. Since
there is a fundamental homological relationship between the structures of spiritual and physical space, I want first to suggest how the
panoptic diagram functions as a discreet agency of disciplinary power in the latter. For the sake of economy, I will focus on two
synecdochical and continuous sites of this structure: the
compartmentalization of the field of knowledge
into departments and, even more discreetly, the separation of students in the classroom. The separation of the
indissoluble continuum of being/knowledge into more or less autonomous disciplines, or
departments, operates precisely like Bentham's Panopticon. The panoptic machinery produces subjects,
in both senses of the word: it individualizes an assumed abnormal multiplicity of young men and women, who as a whole constitute a
threat to the power of the normal (dominant and monologic) culture, in order to gain better knowledge and thus greater power over
them. Its
function is to annul the possibility of insurrection by producing sovereign
individuals who are subjected to the monologue of normalcy or consensus. Similarly, the
physical and intellectual separation of the indissoluble continuum of knowledge into
disciplines housed in separate and separated departments operates ultimately to produce
teachers and students who, assuming themselves to be free inquirers, are in fact subjected
to the monologic discourse of the "pluralist" university and the dominant late capitalist
social formation of which it is a microcosm. It is no accident, therefore, that professors and students of the
several disciplines not only know little about what goes on in departments outside their own, but actively resist the intrusion of other
bodies of knowledge in the name of the autonomy (sovereign individuality) and privileged status of their own.28 Nor should the fact
that interdisciplinary study has been insistently encouraged in higher education at least since World War II constitute an objection to
if departments do acknowledge the value of interdisciplinary study,
this charge of disciplinarity. For
it is always their discipline that constitutes the condition of the intelligibility of the
others. This explains the resistance of English departments to those "philosophical" discourses that humanist English professors
have pejoratively identified as "theory," one of the essential purposes of which is to dissolve the hierarchical partitions among the
disciplines. The constitution of the autonomous department, like the constitution of the sovereign individual by the panoptic
machinery, annuls the possibility of interrogating or contesting the dominant monoglossic discourse inherent in dialogic exchange
(Auseinandersetzung). Heteroglossia, as Bakhtin observed in tracing the genealogy of the novel to its origins in the centrifugal
discourse of the carnival of the low or repressed, is revolutionary and threatens the "completeness" (the assumed inclusive, totalized,
and matured state) of the dominant social formation.29

This is the idea of positivist standardization, which controls and decides the way we
approach problems, because of this it inhibits the revolutionary potential of both the
people and our political projects. The affirmative comes to you with the idea that
knowledge is a social construction that can be based and created off of a single
concept, our alternative calls this into question and our second piece of Kincheloe

15
Critical Constructivism k Brian D. Gonzaba

evidence indicates that knowledge instead runs through the subjectivity of the
human perspective. Without this individual realization of knowledge production our
knowledge about the world, others and ourselves would not even exist. Even if we
don’t win our alternative, if we win that if the affirmative kills individual knowledge
production you vote negative.

Our Kincheloe evidence has an embedded cooption dis ad that they can’t answer
which is the fact that dominant power structures utilizes the singular notions of
knowledge production in order to create control over the populations, this most
likely turns case.

Now go onto the alternative debate, even if they can answer one part of our
alternative they can’t provide a reason to solve the second part. The first part of our
alternative is the rejection of prevailing notions of knowledge productions which
once again brings me to quote the 1ac when they say that the only way to approach
this discussion is through _______________.

The next part of our alternative method, is an embracement of critical

constructivism, critical constructivism is the acknowledgement that there isn’t only
one way of approaching a solution and way of combating the worlds problems
without inhibiting other approaches.

So once again - Instead of answering the worlds problems with the

standardized fill in the blank answer that the affirmative provides you for
your ballot, you can vote neg in order to embrace the reconstructive
imperative that formulates questions about the world without a limited
amount of standardized set answers. Voting negative is the act of endorsing an
approach to the ballot that doesn’t normalize and is instead always open and
changing.

16