Case O/V:

The affirmative is a performative reclamation of our agency. Taking over the hell that has been hung
over our heads, rejecting the binaries that Americans use to teach their kids superstition,
and harnessing our nature as viruses to destroy Homonationalism. We use a flamboyant
deployment of the “gay bomb” – utilizing the weapons that queers were made. Deployment is necessary
to continue queer affect – which repositions queer mindsets through the affect of complaning

1. Commodifciation

Commodifcation

A. Their link is all wrong – it’s about a different queer perspective and only isolates
specific instances of commodification of the hetero.
B. Its terminally non-uq the us vs them narrative has weaponized homonormativity
against queer radicalism that’s puar
C. Only we can resolve it through weaponizing life itself to use the terrorist- a
politically untouchable topic which avoids commodficiation through avoiding binaries
which are key to the process
D. Ballroom DA- Blaming queers based on how their oppressors react to it that
justifies black queers never coping mechanisms like ballroom because there was some
risk white people would commodify it
E. Our performance is the only way to rupture this archive, we use affect to disrupt
commodification and enact change
Zembylas ‘19 (Michalinos Zembylas; professor of educational theory and curriculum studies at Open
University of Cyprus, “The affective dimension of everyday resistance: implications for critical pedagogy
in engaging with neoliberalism’s educational impact”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17508487.2019.1617180?journalCode=rcse20 14 May
2019)

In this section, I briefly illustrate how resistance is an affective movement of becoming, rather than an
individual act, with consequences for students’ and educators’ bodies, theory, research and practice in
education. While others have acknowledged the role of emotions and affect in making sense of how
neoliberal changes in education are experienced by students and educators (e.g. see Bialostok &
Aronson, 2016; Hanley, 2015; Moffatt et al., 2018), my illustrations – which come from my own research
over the years (e.g. Zembylas, 2010, 2015, 2018b, 2018c; Bozalek & Zembylas, 2018) – intend to
demonstrate not only how neoliberal policies in education use affects (e.g. fear, anxiety) to produce
certain subjectivities (e.g. see Finn, 2016; McKenzie, 2017; Sellar, 2015; Staunæs, 2011), but also how
educators and students engage in micro-political movements of affective resistance. To do so, I am using the
idea of policy prolepsis introduced by Webb and Gulson (2012) as a methodological tool to identify the particular ways neoliberal policies in
education induce and prompt particular behaviors and desires in educators and students.2 Policy prolepses, according to Webb and Gulson, are
a category of becoming-policy that shape policy interpretations and practices within the spaces of desired, yet incomplete, policy initiatives and
interpretations. ‘Policy prolepses operate through affective tones’ (ibid., p. 91) and ‘are coded affectively’ (ibid., p. 92), positioning policy
interpretations as well as subjects themselves. What follows, then, are two brief illustrations of policy prolepsis that show the complexities of
affective resistance produced in neoliberal education and its implications. The first example is concerned with how the becoming-policy of
standardized professional standards in schools operates affectively in paradoxical and unexpected ways; the second example is concerned with
identifying the ambivalent affective assemblages of educators’ and students’ resistance against neoliberal policies at the university level. In the
first example, it is shown how the politics of standardized professional standards in schools instill fear, anxiety, stress and anger in teachers,
who generate micro-political ways of resisting the affective atmospheres invoking normalization of teachers’ pedagogies (see Zembylas, 2010,
2018b). For example, teachers engage in false compliance, agreeing at a rhetorical level with some aspects of professional standards, while
resisting them in practice or denouncing standards in small circles of trusted colleagues. Importantly, teachers acknowledge the emotional
ambivalence of engaging in false compliance: the assemblages of fear and anxiety on the one hand, and the affective atmospheres of solidarity
Clearly, resistance is not always progressive or emancipatory, as teachers
with colleagues, on the other.
themselves often recognize that their subjectivities are caught up in the affective conditions created by
such policy interventions, producing tensions, paradoxes and ambivalences in their lives. One may, in fact,
explore the numerous (anticipated and unanticipated) micro-political ways of resistance by teachers that might change the rhythms of
schooling, producing alternative affective spaces that sometimes enable new embodied encounters and relations (e.g. between teachers and
students or between teachers and their colleagues), while other times simply reinforce the negative atmosphere of fear or anger. Illuminating
the counter-conductive elements of teachers’ resistances can reveal more specifically how counter-conduct is always prone to the
entanglement of governing and surveillance practices (Odysseos & Pal, 2018). Hence, teachers’ affective resistance towards standardizing
processes in schools finds itself caught between a negative affective atmosphere (e.g. fear or anger) that could be reproduced and, at the same
time, the production of new and unexpected ways of resistance against the material and affective forces that impinge on teachers’ bodies. In all
of these different possibilities, an analysis of the affective dimension of resistance requires that we focus upon the micro-politics of the
(intended and unintended) affective assemblages in which teachers are a part of. My second example pertains to university students’ protests
in 2015 and 2016 against neoliberal and colonial education policies in South Africa, calling for decolonizing higher education and greater access
to education, which has resulted in disruptions of examinations and academic programs (Zembylas, 2018c; Luescher & Klemenčič, 2016;
Nyamnjoh, 2016; Pillay, 2016).3 I want to draw attention to students’ collective affects (e.g. anger) which circulated through affective
Collective affects were invigorated
economies that operated across universities in the Western Cape (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2018).
by a growing protest against neoliberal and colonial policies in higher education. The anger instilled in students by
such policies was transmitted onto local university communities by circulating images of protests through the media. In particular, protests
The process of students’ occupation of
have become a prominent feature of public and university life in South Africa.
university premises, in some cases, and the visibility it gave, especially through violence and the
damages caused to university property, made it a transfiguring moment in the lives of the participants
and the local community. Hence, there were voices who acknowledged their concomitant responsibility as a result of performing
damage to public property that cost considerable amounts of money at a time of scarcity of resources. In our research, for example, there were
students and educators who noted how, and in which ways, their subjectivities were produced within assemblages that included ambivalent
affective economies – on the one hand, an assemblage of anger against neoliberal policies; on the other hand, an assemblage of
disappointment and skepticism for the use of violence as a form of protest, thus questioning the moral legitimacy of (violent) resistance.
Counter-conduct offers a compelling concept to understand the form of students’ protests as refusals of
subjectivities and as acts of disobedience against being conducted as ‘consumer-students’ (Odysseos &
Pal, 2018). However, the framework of counter-conduct, also allows us to grasp counter-conducts as affective mechanisms that may either
forge new ways of resisting neoliberal policies or could become co-opted by the politics of violence. Through this tension, it is shown that there
are ambivalent affective atmospheres circulating in counter-conductive practices of students and educators that could neither be ‘simply
oppositional nor always fully articulated as part of a clear and long-term strategy of resistance’ (Odysseos & Pal, 2018, p. 17). These
observations illuminate the affective ambivalence and paradoxicality of resistance against neoliberal policies; in other words, there are
limitations in resistance efforts that signal clearly that such attempts may end in failure, possibly reproducing the risks that neoliberalism preys
upon. This brief illustration also shows that any such analysis needs to remain attuned to exploring neoliberal policies in education as complex
affective sites of producing and contesting subjectivities of students and educators – sites that are open to evading, resisting and redirecting
neoliberal and colonial imperatives (Odysseos & Pal, 2018). Implications for critical pedagogy My analysis has shown that whatever form
neoliberalism is taken to be in schools and universities, the neoliberal present has important affective implications. The affective economies of
neoliberalism that are produced in schools and universities create particular ‘capacities to affect and be affected’ for teachers and students
alike. It is thus extremely important to develop methodological and theoretical tools that critically trace the capacities of teachers and students
for affecting and being affected in their engagements and negotiations with neoliberal education, and specifically how these capacities are
normalized, embodied or enable alternative counter-practices (Zembylas, 2018b). Hence, what is required is a continued critical engagement
with neoliberalism’s educational impact in ways that take into consideration the affective potentialities of resistance. Considering
the
affective potentialities of resistance in critical pedagogy can be the starting point for alternatives visions
of educational policies and practices that challenge forms of neoliberal education. I would argue, then,
that what is needed in the study of resistance in critical pedagogy is what Thrift (2008) calls a micro-
biopolitical approach (Thrift, 2008) which understands the complexities and ambivalences of neoliberal
affects and norms that operate at the mundane, ordinary, and everyday level in schools and universities
and the consequences that are produced (Zembylas, 2018b). This micro-biopolitical approach on conceptualizing
resistance in critical pedagogy is valuable not only because it pays attention to the affective consequences of mechanisms and techniques of
neoliberal education in schools and universities, but also because it invokes what Braidotti (2013) terms ‘affirmative critique’ (see also Staunæs,
An affirmative critique in critical pedagogy, for example, is the sort of critical engagement with
2016).
ideas and things that creates affective spaces for alternative counter-conduct practices against
neoliberal education. In other words, recognizing the affective dimension of resistance in critical
pedagogy creates openings for an affirmative critique that has the potential to transform teachers’ and
students’ capacities to affect and be affected. In considering the approach I am suggesting here to affect and resistance in
critical pedagogy, one can indeed raise several questions and concerns such as: How may critical pedagogy itself function as an ‘apparatus of
power’ (Anderson, 2014) which uses affect to mobilize resistance towards certain ideologies or structures such as neoliberalism? How are these
mobilizations of resistance connected to broader collective conditions and processes of resisting certain ideologies or structures at the macro-
political level? How do teachers’ and students’ practices and bodily capacities reproduce or enrich certain mobilizations of resistance through
their encounters? How can those practices and bodily capacities be reproductive, adaptive or resistant, whether intentionally or not? (e.g. see
McKenzie, 2017). There are no definitive answers to these questions, but they must be posed to show the complexities and ambivalences
emerging from attempts to link affect and resistance in critical pedagogy. Hence,
I would argue that any viable theorization
of resistance in critical pedagogy must not be limited to ‘conventional’ understandings of resistance but
must emphasize how affects condition the ways neoliberalism emerges, circulate and are transformed
by forms of resistance waged by teachers and students. Greater acknowledgment of the ways in which schools and
universities play a fundamental role in the affective conduct of individuals, encouraging and directing the self-perceptions, economic behavior
and socio-political actions of students, citizens, and workers (Odysseos & Pal, 2018) will renew theorization of resistance in critical pedagogy in
two ways. First, by gesturing toward the particular ways in which affects come to have force and socio-political significance, critical pedagogy
disconnects resistance from a psychologized perspective or a perspective that defines resistance in dualistic terms as a matter of either human
agency or social structure. This would mean, for instance, recognizing that resistance is not a set of individualized actions but rather it is very
much embedded in the affective infrastructures of neoliberal education. To create renewed affective relations and assemblages as counter-
conduct in schools and universities, then, would essentially mean to invent new affective practices that instigate empowerment and resistance
against the various manifestations of neoliberal education. As Alldred and Fox (2017) conclude: It is therefore more accurate to see power and
resistance as dual fluxes that permeate all assemblages, a shifting balance that is never finally settled. Defining a certain affect as an assertion of
For example, it is
power or an effort at resistance is less important than assessing the capacities that these affects produce. (p. 1171)
argued that ‘affective solidarity’ is necessary for a sustainable politics of transformation (Hemmings,
2012). Hemmings proposes an approach that moves away from rooting transformation in politics of
identity and towards modes of engagement that start from the affective dissonance experience can
produce. Although affective dissonance with the experience of neoliberalism’s educational impact, for instance, cannot guarantee a
resistant mode, ‘that sense of dissonance might become a sense of injustice and then a desire to rectify that’ (Hemmings, 2012, p. 157). The
recognition of affective dissonance as the point of departure for a possible affective solidarity among
teachers and student highlights that affective dissonance with neoliberalism’s educational impact may
be a productive basis from which to seek solidarity with others – not based on a shared identity or
ideology, but on feeling the desire for transforming the injustices inflicted by neoliberal policies and
practices. Second, the recognition of the affective dimension of resistance in critical pedagogy helps us understand the affective present in
and beyond schools and universities as a series of processes and practices in ‘the everyday’ in which the focus is on the actions that are
mobilized to produce something rather than on their representations or what they supposedly mean. By examining the consequences of affects
at the micropolitical level, resistance can be understood in terms of the ways actions produce capacities to affect and be affected, that is, ‘in
terms of the forces circulating in assemblage and the consequent capacities that are produced in assembled relations, including human bodies
and subjectivities’ (Alldred & Fox, 2017, p. 1171). Calling upon theoretical insights in critical pedagogy that recognize and examine the affective
dimension of everyday resistance is likely to challenge the ‘invisible’ infrastructures of neoliberal education in schools and universities. All in all,
the call for a critical pedagogy to acknowledge the affective dimension of resistance marks an important and necessary moment that allows
critical pedagogy to be further enriched in attempts to address the challenges faced by teachers and students in neoliberal education. Schools
and universities are at a critical juncture whether and how they will be able to develop pedagogies and ideas that neither return to an idealized,
pre-neoliberal past, nor expect a sudden revolution but instead resist against the self-formations involved by neoliberalism (Odysseos & Pal,
2018). What I have offered here is an attempt to illuminate the affective dimension of resistance and its implications for critical pedagogy
through theoretical insights that enhance individual and collective capacity for counter-conduct in neoliberal contexts. Being attentive to the
complexities and potential ambivalences in teachers’ and students’ forms of resistance enhances our analysis of how critical pedagogy more
broadly, and schools and universities more specifically, are themselves implicated in transformations of neoliberal education (Odysseos & Pal,
2018).

2. State good:

A. At best all of their evidence assumes the lgbtq+ community which is distinct from
queers that’s coates
B. LGBTQ+ and the state are mutually exclusive – riots, tasering, pepperspray, and
police violence all historically prove.
Mary Nardini Gang, MNG 2014, "Toward the queerest insurrection," Anarchist Library,
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mary-nardini-gang-toward-the-queerest-insurrection //SW
Queer is a position from which to attack the normative more, a position from which to understand and
attack the ways in which normal is reproduced and reiterated. In destabilizing and problematizing
normalcy, we can destabilize and become a problem for the Totality. The history of organized queers was borne out
of this position. The most marginalized transfolk, people of color, sex workers — have always been the catalysts for riotous explosions of queer
resistance. These explosions have been coupled with a radical analysis wholeheartedly asserting that the
liberation for queer people
is intrinsically tied to the annihilation of capitalism and the state. It is no wonder, then, that the first people to publicly
speak of sexual liberation in this country were anarchists, or that those in the last century who struggled for queer liberation also
simultaneously struggled against capitalism, racism and patriarchy and empire. This is our history. VIII If history proves anything, it is that
capitalism has a treacherous recuperative tendency to pacify radical social movements. It works rather simply,
actually. A group gains privilege and power within a movement, and shortly thereafter sell their comrades
out. Within a couple years of stonewall, affluent gay white males had thoroughly marginalized everyone
that had made their movement possible and abandoned their revolution with them. It was once that to be
queer was to be in direct conflict with the forces of control and domination. Now, we are faced with a condition of utter stagnation and sterility.
As always, Capital recuperated brick-throwing street queens into suited politicians and activists. There are logcabin Republicans and
“stonewall” refers to gay Democrats. There are gay energy drinks and a “queer” television station that wages war on the minds, bodies and
esteem of impressionable youth. The
“LGBT” political establishment has become a force of assimilation,
gentrification, capital and statepower. Gay identity has become both a marketable commodity and a
device of withdrawal from struggle against domination. Now they don’t critique marriage, military or the
state. Rather we have campaigns for queer assimilation into each. Their politics is advocacy for such
grievous institutions, rather than the annihilation of them all. “Gays can kill poor people around the
world as well as straight people!” “Gays can hold the reigns of the state and capital as well straight people!” “We are just like you”.
Assimilationists want nothing less than to construct the homosexual as normal — white, monogamous, wealthy, 2.5 children, SUVs with a white
picket fence. This construction, of course, reproduces the stability of heterosexuality, whiteness, patriarchy, the gender binary, and capitalism
itself. One weekend in August of 1966 — Compton’s, a twenty four hour cafeteria in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood was buzzing with
its usual late-night crowd of drag queens, hustlers, slummers, cruisers, runaway teens and neighborhood regulars. The restaurant’s
management became annoyed by a noisy young crowd of queens at one table who seemed to be spending a lot of time without spending a lot
of money, and it called the police to roust them. A surly police officer, accustomed to manhandling Compton’s clientele with impunity, grabbed
the arm of one of the queens and tried to drag her away. She unexpected threw her coffee in his face, however, and a melee erupted: Plates,
trays, cups and silverware flew through the air at the startled police who ran outside and called for backup. The customer’s turned over the
tables, smashed the plate-glass windows and poured onto the streets. When the police reinforcements arrived, street fighting broke out all
throughout the Compton’s vicinity. Drag queens beat the police with their heavy purses and kicked them with their high-heeled shoes. A police
car was vandalized, a newspaper box was burnt to the ground and general havoc was raised all throughout the Tenderloin. If we genuinely want
to make ruins of this totality, we need to make a break. We don’t need inclusion into marriage, the military and the
state. We need to end them. No more gay politicians, CEOs and cops. We need to swiftly and
immediately articulate a wide gulf between the politics of assimilation and the struggle for liberation.
We need to rediscover our riotous inheritance as queer anarchists. We need to destroy constructions of
normalcy, and create instead a position based in our alienation from this normalcy, and one capable of
dismantling it. We must use these positions to instigate breaks, not just from the assimilationist mainstream, but from capitalism itself.
These positions can become tools of a social force ready to create a complete rupture with this world. Our bodies have been born
into conflict with this social order. We need to deepen that conflict and make it spread. What began as an early
morning raid on June 28th 1969 at New York’s Stonewall Inn, escalated to four days of rioting throughout Greenwich Village. Police conducted
the raid as usual; targeting people of color, transpeople and gender variants for harassment and violence. It all changed, though, when a bull-
dyke resisted her arrest and several street queens began throwing bottles and rocks at the police. The police began beating folks, but soon
people from all over the neighborhood rushed to the scene, swelling the rioters numbers to over 2,000. The vastly outnumbered police
barricaded themselves inside the bar, while an uprooted parking meter was used as a battering ram by the crowd. Molotov cocktails were
thrown at the bar. Riot police arrived on scene, but were unable to regain control of the situation. Drag queens danced a conga line and sang
songs amidst the street fighting to mock the inability of the police to re-establish order. The rioting continued until dawn, only to be picked up
again at nightfall of the subsequent days. IX Susan Stryker writes that the
state acts to “regulate bodies, in ways both great
and small, by enmeshing them within norms and expectations that determine what kinds of lives are
deemed livable or useful and by shutting down the space of possibility and imaginative transformation
where peoples’ lives begin to exceed and escape the state’s use for them.” We must create space
wherein it is possible for desire to flourish. This space, of course, requires conflict with this social order. To
desire, in a world structured to confine desire, is a tension we live daily. We must understand this tension so that we can become powerful
through it — we must understand it so that it can tear our confinement apart. On the night of May 21st 1979, in what has come to be known as
the White Night Riots, the queer community of San Francisco was outraged and wanted justice for the murder of Harvey Milk. The outraged
queers went to city hall where they smashed the windows and glass door of the building. The riotous crowd took to the streets, disrupting
traffic, smashing storefronts and car windows, disabling buses and setting twelve San Francisco Police cruisers on fire. The rioting spread
throughout the city as others joined in on the fun! This terrain, born in rupture, must challenge oppression in its entirety. This of course,
means total negation of this world. We must become bodies in revolt. We need to delve into and
indulge in power. We can learn the strength of our bodies in struggle for space for our desires. In desire
we’ll find the power to destroy not only what destroys us, but also those who aspire to turn us into a gay mimicry of that which destroys us.
We must be in conflict with regimes of the normal. This means to be at war with everything. If we desire
a world without restraint, we must tear this one to the ground.

C. Turns commodification the state commodifies queers and uses it to justify

militarism that’s puar
D. Case is a DA
Silencing DA – the debate space is unique to giving voices to queer debaters. Their
interpretation silences queers which leads to marginalisation and treating queers like
pawns of the state.

3. Cede the ptx

A. queer bodies are always already depoliticized only we can reclaim agency and resist non-existence
which is a prior question that’s coates and blas

B. Right wing fill in is terminally non uq they already filled in the supreme court only we can free
ourselves from the shackles of right wing conservative politics through complaining which enables
affective resistance which solves political violence better like stonewall that’s stanley

And you can extend some Puar offense here from the 1AC…

A. Puar 7’s analysis is great it doesn’t depoliticize queer bodies because they are
already facing nonexistence, advocacy can only be wrestled back from the state that’s
It also specifically goes over how queer bodies are used in IR to extend military control
B. Puar critique’s identity politics directly because they are used for biopolitical
surveillance and deradicalization that’s coates
C. Military alliances fail without our analysis that’s puar

4. Queer music can’t solve

A. Lots of examples prove this isn’t true the film silenced being used to advocate for
students rights in korea or Ballroom culture using beauty and glamour as an
underground culture to resist state based queerphobia

B. We use art to combat nonexistence and political demobilization only the aff can
solve that’s blas it’s an example of how people in their spaces deploy the gay bomb to
create existence

5. Monolithic queerness is literally their case offense, turns on them

 FW

The role of the ballot is to vote for which team performative demonstrates their
arguments better, in this case, creating the best assemblages of complaining that allow
for queer existence – it allows for all neg ground like disads and PIKS.

and –
Homonationalism DA: The aff fights Homonationalism which deradicalizes queer assemblages and forces
constant surveillance by the state through creating an identifiable and easily consumable category which
ultimately results in the silence and nonexistence of queers. It then uses these “tamed queers” to justify
military intervention elsewhere that’s puar and blas.
 T

1. We meet – we directly increase emerging tech

2. Counter interpretation – We only need to use the res as a starting point
3. the Role of Debate is discuss essential issues in politics it’s the only
reasonable interp in the debate or it overshadows the revolution. You put first
what we can do now and how we feel to disrupt violent spaces.
4. Silencing DA – the debate space is unique to giving voices to queer debaters. Their
interpretation silences queers which leads to marginalisation and treating queers like
pawns of the state.
5. All DAs are net benefits to our counter-interpretation – Their interpretation
minus transparency. You can still get all your policy education, and we just have
to win that trying to anticipate and eliminate arguments is bad.
6. Adaptable Prep: You should have aff prep for puar already she’s super common on
ir topics. We force you to get away from the blocks and apply the cards you have from
other sides of the debate which solves 2 things:
First is larger schools dumping endless generic blocks on smaller schools which makes
it impossible to debate and leads to structural unfairness.
Second is self-reflexivity forcing you to get away from the blocks makes you think
more deeply about the other side of the library which allows for better clash and
changing opinions
7. Structural fairness outweighs procedural fairness – Debate is one of the few spaces
for queer activism left that’s the da’s and its key for small schools otherwise they can’t
compete or get scholarships
8. Framework’s censorship is mode of production in which masculinity within the
military can continue to function, allowing the state’s to have perpetual control of
subjectivity based on the domain of speakability within debate.
Butler 97 (Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech : A Politics of the Performative, Routledge, 1997. ProQuest
Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umichigan/detail.action?
docID=1486992.)

A case in point was discussed in the previous chapter: the congressional statute passed in October of
1994 put into law the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexual self-declaration in the military. The
statute did not constrain reference to homosexuality in the military, but proliferated such references in
its own supporting documentation and in the public debates fostered on the issue. The point of the
statute was not only to limit the “coming out” of military personnel, but to establish that such self-
ascriptive speech constitutes either a form of homosexual conduct or a sign that a propensity to engage
in homosexual conduct is likely. The military thus engaged in a rather protracted discussion on the
matter of what is to be considered “homosexual” and how speech and conduct is to be distinguished,
and whether it can or should be. The regulation of the term “homosexual” is thus no simple act of
censorship or silencing. The regulation redoubles the term it seeks to constrain, and can only effect this
constraint through this paradoxical redoubling. The term is not itself unspeakable, but only becomes
unspeakable in those contexts in which one uses it to describe one self, and fails to make an adequate or
convincing distinction between that ascription of a status and the intention to engage in homosexual
conduct. Thus, the effort to constrain the term culminates in its very proliferation— an unintended
rhetorical effect of legal discourse. The term not only appears in the regulation as that discourse to be
regulated, but reappears in the public debate over its fairness and value specifically as the conjured or
imagined act of self-ascription that is explicitly prohibited by the regulation. The prohibition thus
conjures the speech act that it seeks to constrain, and becomes caught up in a circular, imaginary
production of its own making. This uttering of the utterance that the military seeks to censor also enacts
the fulfillment of the desire to establish itself as the author-origin of all the utterances that take place
within its domain. The regulation, as it were, will speak the part of the one censored as well as the
censoring voice itself, drama as one way to establish control over the utterance. I elaborate upon this
example because it illustrates assimilating the way in which the mechanism of censorship is engaged in
the production of a figure of homosexuality, a figure that is, as it were, backed by the state. The
regulations that determine whether homosexuals will be allowed to enter or remain in the military does
not simply constrain the speech of those it regulates; it appears to be about certain kinds of speech, but
it is also concerned to establish a norm by which military subjectification proceeds. In relationship to the
masculine military subject, this means that the norms governing masculinity will be those that require
the denial of homosexuality. For women, the self-denial requires either a return to an apparent
heterosexuality or to an asexuality (sometimes linked together within dominant conceptions of female
heterosexuality) that suits the military’s notion of unit cohesion. Thus, the mechanism of censorship is
not only actively engaged in the production of subjects, but also in circumscribing the social para meters
of speakable discourse, of what will and will not be admissible in public discourse.7 The failure of
censorship to effect a complete censoring of the speech under question has everything to do with (a)
the failure to institute a complete of all kinds of censorship. or total subjectification through legal means
and (b) the failure to circumscribe effectively the social domain of speakable discourse. Clearly, the
military’s effort to regulate speech is not paradigmatic It does, however, introduce at least two
“productive” modalities of power that contrast with the conventional view of censorship as juridical
power. By “productive” I do not mean positive or beneficial, but rather, a view of power as formative
and constitutive, that is, not conceived exclusively as an external exertion of control or as the
deprivation of liberties.8 According to this view, censorship is not merely restrictive and privative, that
is, active in depriving subjects of the freedom to express themselves in certain ways, but also formative
of subjects and the legitimate boundaries of speech. This notion of a productive or formative power is
not reducible to the tutelary function of the state, that is, the moral instruction of its citizens, but
operates to make certain kinds of citizens possible and others impossible. Some who take this point of
view make clear that censorship is not primarily about speech, that it is exercised in the service of other
kinds of social aims, and that the restriction of speech is instrumental to the achievements of other,
often unstated, social and state goals. One example of this includes a conception of censorship as a
necessary part of the process of nation-building, where censorship can be exercised by marginalized
groups who seek to achieve cultural control over their own representation and narrativization . A similar,
but distinct kind of argument, however, is also made typically on behalf of a dominant power that seeks
to control any challenges posed to its own legitimacy. ixxxxxxxxn the Another related example is the use
of censorship in codification of memory, as in state control an effort to build (or rebuild) consensus
within an institution, such as the military, or within a nation; another example is the use of censorship
historical events only be narrated one way. over monument preservation and building, or in the
insistence that certain kinds of his The view of censorship as “productive,” however, is not always
coextensive with views that hold that censorship is always instrumental to the achievement of other
social aims. Consider that in the examples I have just suggested, censorship is not primarily concerned
with speech, and that the control or regulation of speech is incidental to the achievement of other kinds
of social aims (strengthening particular views of legitimacy, consensus, cultural autonomy, national
memory). In the most extreme version of this kind of instrumentalism, speech is cast as wholly
incidental to the aims of censorship or, rather, speech works as a cover for the real political aims of
censorship, ones that have nothing or little to do with speech. Censorship is a productive form of power:
it is not merely privative, but formative as well. I propose that censorship seeks to produce subjects
according to explicit and implicit norms, and that the production of the subject has everything to do
with the regulation of speech. The subjects production takes place not only through the regulation of
that subjects speech, but through the regulation of the social domain of speakable discourse. The
question is not what it is I will be able to say, but what will constitute the domain of the sayable within
which I begin to speak at all. To become a subject means to be subjected to a set of implicit and explicit
norms that govern the kind of speech that will be legible as the speech of a subject .9 Here the question
is not whether certain kinds of speech uttered by a subject are censored, but how a certain operation of
censorship determines who will be a subject depending on whether the speech of such a candidate for
subjecthood obeys certain norms governing what is speakable and what is not. To move outside of the
domain of speakability is to risk one's status as a subject. To embody the norms that govern speakability
in one's speech is to consummate one's status as a subject of speech. “Impossible speech” would be
precisely the ramblings of the asocial, the rantings of the “psychotic” that the rules that govern the
domain of speakability produce, and by which they are continually haunted.

9. SSD doesn’t solve

A) we must be performatively queer – that’s the aff.
B) the 1AC is unique in that it’s 8 minutes which allows the aff to reform the space
sufficiently.
10. They said limits, but those aren’t real. Its virtue signalling to an era before that
never existed since k affs aren’t at all new in debate and help minority access prefer
viral becomings that’s puar
Speed Elitism DA— the negative’s model of debate as educational gaming is part of a
decades long project by the military-industrial complex and emergent speed elite to
extend the boundaries of the university into all venues of cultural production and
entertainment
Potentiality DA – the negative’s academic discourse reinforces the Ivory Tower
through the individualization of identity. Prefer the affirmative’s dialogical approach
that opens academic spaces to new radical potentials.
Ruffolo 9
(David V. Ruffolo, University of Toronto, “Schizo-Academia,” Post-Queer Politics, Ashgate Publishing,
2009) / jTingle

The dialogical-becomings of the aforementioned examples speak to the critical connection between
Bakhtin and Deleuze that moves us away from the limitations of subjugated subjectivities. The
intersection between Deleuze and education is certainly not new. Although I can not account for this
extensive literature here, I want to highlight two contributions that are specifically relevant to the post-
queer dialogical-becomings of this project. Erin Manning’s work on the politics of touch accounts for the
dialogical-becomings of life by considering the movements of bodies rather than how bodies become
subjects of discourse.13 According to Manning, a politics of touch: position[s] the senses relationally as
expressions of moving bodies. This presupposes a vastly altered concept of time and space. Whereas in
the activepassive commonsense model, time and space are located as stable signifiers into which the
body enters, within a relational model, space and time are qualitatively transformed by the
movements of the body. The body does not move into space and time, it creates space and time:
there is no space and time before movement. (2007, xiii) We similarly see in the work of Inna Semetsky
how learning can be considered an immanent rather than subjective process: Learning cannot take place
in the relation between a representation and an action—which would be the reproduction of the same,
denounced by Deleuze…For learning to occur, the meaningful relation between a sign and a response
must be established, leading—through encounter with the Other —to the repetition of the different.
(2006, 75) The movements and immanence of education as accounted for by Manning and Semetsky
offer creative ways to think about education as a process of becoming rather than a subjective process.
When linked with Bakhtin, these theorizations create the necessary spaces to account for the popular
negotiations of academic life rather than the limiting individualized subjectivities of academic
discourse. The grotesque academic body embedded in carnivalesque atmospheres considers academic
life through ongoing regenerations that are intricately connected to social heteroglossia. This has the
potential to move academic bodies away from the individualizations of the ivory tower into the
creative potentialities of dialogical-becomings that are open to, rather than closed off from, life itself.
Because academic bodies are always something given and something created, they have the potential
to continuously renew and regenerate themselves through the creative politics of dialogical-
becomings.
11. Group Topic edu/discussion good
A. Every other round we have is about NATO and emerging tech we can step out of
the box sometimes.
B. Homonationalism DA- Tying queer advocacies with the state and militirization only
leads to deradicalization and destruction of an affective politics which is key to stop
queer violence that’s Stanley.
C. Inaccessibility- Even if we learn about NATO many of us occupy positions that are
structurally kept out of policy and the military.