2AC Security K [CPS GY

Try or die for the aff—collapse of leadership and influx of migrants trigger multiple scenarios for extinction We outweigh on timeframe and specificity—prefer our particular scenarios over their abstract genocide claims Alt is counterproductive– ignores oppression, lacks political strategy, and no one cares Terry O'Callaghan, lecturer in the school of International Relations at the University of South Australia, International Relations and the third debate, ed: Jarvis, 2002, p. 80-81
There are also a host of technological and logistical questions that plague George's scheme and make problematic his recommendations. For example, through what medium are those on the fringes of the international system going to speak to the world? Although it may be true that the third world has now been integrated into the global polity via the advent of technological innovations in communications, allowing for remote access to information sources and the Internet, it also remains true that the majority of those on the fringes continue to be disenfranchised from such mediums, whether as a result of a lack of economic resources, the prevalence of illiteracy, or social, cultural and political circumstances that systemically exclude, women (among others) from economic resources and certain political and social freedoms. Need we remind George that social, political, and individual autonomy is at a minimum in these parts of the world, and an intellectual approach as controversial as postmodernism is not likely to achieve the sorts of goals that George optimistically foreshadows. Indeed, on practical questions such as these, matters otherwise central to the success of postmodern visions, George prefers to be vague, suggesting instead that the intricacies of such details will somehow work themselves out in a manner satisfactory to all. Such a position reveals George's latent idealism and underscores how George's schema is an intellectual one: a theory of international politics written for other theorists of international politics. George's audience is thus a very limited and elite audience and begs the question of whether a senior, middle-class scholar in the intellectual heartland of Australia can do anything of real substance to aid the truly marginalized and oppressed. How is it possible to put oneself in the shoes of the "other," to advocate on his or her behalf, when such is done from a position of affluence, unrelated to and far removed from the experiences of those whom George otherwise champions? Ideals are all good and well, but it is hard to imagine that the computer keyboard is mightier than the sword, and hard to see how a small, elite, affluent assortment of intellectuals is going to generate the type of political momentum necessary to allow those on the fringes to speak and be heard! 1 . Moreover, why should we assume that states and individuals want to listen and will listen to what the marginalized and the oppressed have to say? There is precious little evidence to suggest that "listening" is something the advanced capitalist countries do very well at all. Indeed, one of the allegations so forcefully
alleged by Muslim fundamentalists as justification for the terrorist attacks of September I I is precisely that the West, and America in particular, are deaf to the disenfranchised and impoverished in the world. Certainly, there are agencies and individuals who are sensitive to the needs of the "marginalized" and who champion institutional forums where indigenous voices can be heard. But on even the most optimistic reckoning, such forums and institutions represent the exception, not the rule, and remain in the minority if not dwarfed by those institutions that represent Western, first world interests. To be sure, this is a realist power-political image of the current configuration of the global polity, but one apparently, and ironically, endorsed by George if only because it speaks to the realities of the marginalized, the imposed silences, and the multitude of oppressions on which George founds his call for a postmodern ethic. Recognizing such realities, however, does not

explain George's penchant for ignoring them entirely, especially in terms of the structural rigidities they pose for meaningful reform. Indeed, George's desire to move to a new "space beyond International Relations" smacks of wishful idealism, ignoring the current configuration of global political relations and power distribution; of the incessant ideological power of hyperindividualism, consumerism, advertising, Hollywood images, and fashion icons; and of the innate power bestowed on the (institutional) barons of global finance, trade, and transnational production. George seems to have little appreciation of the structural impediments such institutions pose for radical change of the type he so fiercely advocates. Revolutionary change of the kind desired by George ignores that fact that many individuals are not disposed to concerns
beyond their family, friends, and daily work lives. And institutional, structural transformation requires organized effort, mass popular support, and dogged single-mindedness if societal norms are to be challenged, institutional reform enacted, consumer tastes altered, and political sensibilities reformed. Convincing Nike that there is something intrinsically wrong with paying Indonesian workers a few dollars a week to manufacture shoes for the global market requires considerably more effort than postmodern platitudes and/or moral indignation. The cycle of wealth creation and distribution that sees Michael Jordan receive multimillion dollar contracts to inspire demand for Nike products, while the foot soldiers in the factory eke out a meager existence producing these same products is not easily, or realistically, challenged by pronouncements of moving beyond International Relations to a new, nicer, gentler nirvana. More generally, of course, what George fails to consider is the problem

as we socialize students into the profession‟ (Biersteker. and moral structures that define the parameters of existence for the many millions of ordinary citizens in the first world. his discourse indicts the "backward discipline" for complicity in crimes against humanity. are ultimately separable. lectures. we do not often engage in serious reflection on the philosophical bases or implications of our activity. Indeed. political. Even some scholars who profess regret at the philosophically self-regarding nature of contemporary of IR theory. and Stephen Krasner who have otherwise defined the parameters of the discipline. There is also a general conviction (5) that careful use of research design may help researchers avoid logical pitfalls in their work. Writing in 1989. though related. supporters of the contemporary or „neo-‟ version of positivism perform a similar disservice when they fail to articulate their epistemological assumptions clearly or at all. But can George really be surprised by this? After all. although both constitute valid and interesting forms of enquiry . neo-positivists have allowed postmodernists to fashion a series of straw men who burn rapidly at the slightest touch. Can George really expect discipline-wide capitulation to an intellectual diaspora that would see theorists repudiate their beliefs and works in order to take up the creed of postmodernism. or writing. But to the extent that there exists an „orthodoxy‟ in the field of IR today. some underlying regularities that clearly give shape to IR (such as the proposition that democracies do not fight one another). since by failing to state what they stand for. there are some who would not wish to use the term „positivism‟ as an umbrella term for these five assumptions. The consequent decline in the policy relevance of what we do. wed to a view of inexorable scientific progress and supposedly practiced by wide-eyed scholars during the 1960s. has long been a thing of the past. (2) That — subjective though our perceptions of the world may be — many features of the political world are at least potentially explainable. there is little to indicate that George has thought much about this. . calling for a repudiation of realism and with it a repudiation of the lifelong beliefs and writings of eminent theorists like Kenneth Waltz. creativity. as vague. Equally. This does not portend well for postmodern visionaries and the future of postmodern discourse. where. if change was to ensue. and research agendas. What remains is a conviction that there are at least some empirical propositions. In fact. Rather. the first error is greatly encouraged by the second. Too often. This observation — while accurate at the time — would surely be deemed incorrect were it to be made today. which can be demonstrably shown to be ‗true‘ or ‗false‘. The recent emphasis on epistemology has helped to push IR as a discipline further and further away from the concerns of those who actually practice IR. and openness. and apathy about the plight of others is a structural impediment as strong any idea . Unfortunately. The popularity of the ‗naı¨ve‘ form of positivism. and how we get others to listen. but contemporary neopositivists are. none of which are especially radical or hard to defend: (1) That explaining the social and political world ought to be our central objective . consideration of these core issues is reserved for (and largely forgotten after) the introductory weeks of required concepts and methods courses. in the academy the postmodern light is already beginning to dim in certain quarters. What I am suggesting is not that IR scholars should ignore philosophical questions. and indeterminate as it is? Without a clear and credible plan of how to get from "incarceration and closure" to intellectual freedom. having registered scarcely a glimmer in the broader polity. Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach effectively laid the influence of the dogmatic behaviouralism of the 1960s to rest in their book The Elusive Quest. (4) That positive and normative questions. committed to the following five assumptions. Robert Gilpin. In professional meetings. Doubtless. this is surely it. What George's treatise thus fails to consider is how we overcome this. signaling the profound disillusionment of mainstream IR with the idea that a cumulative science of IR would ever be possible (Ferguson and Mansbach. who. nevertheless feel compelled to devote huge chunks of their work to epistemological issues before getting to more substantive matters (see for instance Wendt. fail to consider the homeless and destitute in their own countries. in which case we probably require a new term to cover them. theory. is ironic given the roots of the field in very practical political concerns (most notably. and the unemployed. for questions of epistemology surely undergird every vision of IR that ever existed. accountants. 1988). (3) That careful use of appropriate methodological techniques can establish what patterns exist in the political world. it needed to burn brightly. suggesting that his commitment to postmodern theory is not likely to make much difference. I would suggest that the existing debate is sterile and unproductive in the sense that the various schools of thought have much more in common than they suppose. What do we with the CEOs of multinational corporations. Epistemic critique replicates fascistic knowledge production—only substantive debate breaks down dogma without collapsing into irrelevance Houghton ‗8 David Patrick Houghton. Even among those versed in the nomenclature of scholarly debate.of apathy and of how we get people to care about the plight of others. and our retreat into philosophical self-doubt. or that such ‗navel gazing‘ is always unproductive. George's postmodern musings have understandably attracted few disciples. Articulating a full list of these assumptions lies beyond the scope of this article. seminars and the design of curricula. which must somehow be overthrown. theorists of international politics remain skeptical of the value of postmodern discourse. Postmodernists hence do the discipline a disservice when they continue to attack the overly optimistic and dogmatic form of positivism as if it still represented a dominant orthodoxy . 45 As long ago as 1981. 1989). He needs to explain how the social. by and large. its projects. open-ended. Thomas Biersteker noted that „the vast majority of scholarship in international relations (and the social sciences for that matter) proceeds without conscious reflection on its philosophical bases or premises. psychological. “Positivism „vs‟ Postmodernism: Does Epistemology Make a Difference?” International Politics (2008). let alone in places they have never isited and are never likely to visit? Moral indignation rarely translates into action. by and large rejecting it. stockbrokers. 1999). how to avoid war). and that deflects attention from the marginalized and the oppressed can be broken down. factory workers. I would suggest.

torture and gruesome forms of execution. European countries saw a 10. and zero-sum plunder gave way to positive-sum trade. social theorists like Hobbes and Rousseau speculated from their armchairs about what life was like in a "state of nature. soldiers and slaves.wsj. is that the empirical claims of scholars like Der Derian and Campbell will not often stand up to such harsh scrutiny given the inattention to careful evidence gathering betrayed by both . The cliché that the 20th century was "the most violent in history" . so people's impressions of violence will be disconnected from its actual likelihood. It's not that the first kings had a benevolent interest in the welfare of their citizens. The third transition. incredulity. And ethnographers can tally the causes of death in tribal peoples that have recently lived outside of state control. This claim. Violence has been in decline for thousands of years. sometimes called the Humanitarian Revolution. “Violence Vanquished. Evidence of our bloody history is not hard to find. on average. Constitution. has not been smooth. to be sure. Today we take it for granted that Italy and Austria will not come to blows. but this is a side issue here. Rather than focusing on epistemology.S. took off with the Enlightenment. Islamica. At the same time. Historians sometimes refer to it as the Long Peace. decapitations or arrowheads embedded in bones. it has no real impact on what we do as scholars when we look at the world „out there‟.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180. These investigations show that. experimental psychologist. sodomy. Case is a net benefit—any risk that security can be productive outweighs the solvency deficit because the impact is extinction We control uniqueness—violence at unprecedented low now Pinker ‘11 Steven Pinker. impalement and sawing in half. religious persecution. cognitive scientist. as the reader may have gathered already. and popular science author. Today the decline in these brutal practices can be quantified. from the waging of wars to the spanking of children. The first was a process of pacification: the transition from the anarchy of the hunting. to the extent that there is a meaningful dialogue going on with regard to epistemological questions. visible on scales from millennia to years. the point is that substantive theoretical and empirical claims. disembowelment. Western European countries tended to initiate two or three new wars every year. Perm: do both. breaking.to 50-fold decline in their rates of homicide. Just as a farmer tries to prevent his livestock from killing one another. about 15% of people in prestate eras died violently. We tend to estimate the probability of an event from the ease with which we can recall examples. A look at the numbers shows that over the course of our history. starting about 5. witchhunts.” Wall Street Journal. and sometimes anger. postpositivists have much more in common than they would like to think with the positivists they seek to condemn. Governments and churches had long maintained order by punishing nonconformists with mutilation. Consider the genocides in the Old Testament and the crucifixions in the New. such as burning. People increasingly controlled their impulses and sought to cooperate with their neighbors. For centuries. many nations began to whittle down their list of capital crimes from the hundreds (including poaching. gathering and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations. 9/24/2011. The second decline of violence was a civilizing process that is best documented in Europe. invites skepticism. when highwaymen made travel a risk to life and limb and dinners were commonly enlivened by dagger attacks.stated more specifically. But it is a persistent historical development. leading to the various "paxes" (Romana. Historical records show that between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century. such squabbling is a dead loss—forgone opportunities to extract taxes. There will always be enough violent deaths to fill the evening news.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopS tories Believe it or not. So many people had their noses cut off that medieval medical textbooks speculated about techniques for growing them back. the gory mutilations in Shakespeare's tragedies and Grimm's fairy tales. Historians attribute this decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure of commerce. The 18th century saw the widespread abolition of judicial torture. and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species. Brittanica and so on) that are familiar to readers of history. the world of the past was much worse. The fourth major transition is the respite from major interstate war that we have seen since the end of World War II. and until quite recently. Forensic archeology—a kind of "CSI: Paleolithic"—can estimate rates of violence from the proportion of skeletons in ancient sites with bashed-in skulls.000 years ago. dueling. including the famous prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the eighth amendment of the U. And a growing wave of countries abolished blood sports. nor will Britain and Russia. linguist. My own view. ought to be what divides the international relations scene today. Tribal violence commonly subsides when a state or empire imposes control over a territory. Criminal justice was nationalized. The numbers are consistent with narrative histories of the brutality of life in the Middle Ages. The decline." Nowadays we can do better. it is inevitably going to be more fruitful to subject the substantive claims made by positivists (of all metatheoretical stripes) and postpositivists to the cold light of day. From his point of view. and it is not guaranteed to continue. rather than metatheoretical or epistemological ones. with cities and governments. I know. tributes. so a ruler will try to keep his subjects from cycles of raiding and feuding. http://online. humankind has been blessed with six major declines of violence. Consequently. the great powers were almost always at war. and scenes of carnage are more likely to be beamed into our homes and burned into our memories than footage of people dying of old age. absolute despotism and slavery. compared to about 3% of the citizens of the earliest states. But centuries ago. the British monarchs who beheaded their relatives and the American founders who dueled with their rivals. and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard. It has not brought violence down to zero. witchcraft and counterfeiting) to just murder and treason.

of course. and how the behavior of those other states is likely to affect their own strategy for survival. although even if there were no weapons. But in order to do so we first of all have to exist. In recent decades. challenged by insurgencies and armed by the cold war superpowers. terrorist attacks—have declined throughout the world. A state‟s military power is usually identified with the particular weaponry at its disposal. states seek to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order. and the women's-rights movement has helped to shrink the incidence of rape and the beating and killing of wives and girlfriends. for every neck. which gives them the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other. including developing nations.”9 States can and do pursue other goals. The bad news is that for several decades. but it is impossible to be sure of that judgment because intentions are impossible to divine with 100 percent certainty . genocide and warlord militias) in the past decade is an unprecedented few hundredths of a percentage point. Though it's tempting to attribute the Long Peace to nuclear deterrence. no state can be sure that another state will not use its offensive military capability to attack the first state. Political scientists point instead to the growth of democracy. States are potentially dangerous to each other . there are two hands to choke it. States will always act to preserve security John Mearsheimer. The fifth trend. which really do keep the peace—not always. and no state can be sure that another state is not motivated by one of them. And the best news is that. since realism depicts a world characterized by security competition and war. By itself. which ended the proxy wars in the developing world stoked by the superpowers and also discredited genocidal ideologies that had justified the sacrifice of vast numbers of eggs to make a utopian omelet. Soviet leader Josef Stalin put the point well during a war scare in 1927: “We can and must build socialism in the [Soviet Union]. but security is their most important objective. trade and international organizations—all of which. the movement for children's rights has significantly reduced rates of spanking. since the peak of the cold war in the 1970s and '80s. but far more often than when adversaries are left to fight to the bitter end. After all. the statistical evidence shows. all of the states in the system may be reliably benign. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. the decline of interstate wars was accompanied by a bulge of civil wars. which I call the New Peace. intentions can change quickly. however. in other words. inheres in states because there is no higher ruling body in the international system. The most immediate cause of this New Peace was the demise of communism. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of political science at the University of Chicago and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy. so a state‘s intentions can be benign one day and hostile the next. which means that states can never be sure that other states do not have offensive intentions to go along with their offensive capabilities. The rate of documented direct deaths from political violence (war. The third assumption is that states can never be certain about other states‘ intentions. This is not to say that states necessarily have hostile intentions. Finally. p. Specifically. once a state is conquered. the realist notion of anarchy has nothing to do with conflict. although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous. it is unlikely to be in a position to pursue other aims. as newly independent countries were led by inept governments. Another contributor was the expansion of international peacekeeping forces. In particular. organized conflicts of all kinds—civil wars. terrorism. several organizations have tracked the number of armed conflicts and their human toll world-wide. The fourth assumption is that survival is the primary goal of great powers. and physical and sexual abuse. genocides. They also credit the rising valuation of human life over national grandeur—a hard-won lesson of two world wars.”6 The second assumption is that great powers inherently possess some offensive military capability . it is an ordering principle.5 There is no “government over governments. states pay attention to the long term as well as the .7 There are many possible causes of aggression. non-nuclear developed states have stopped fighting each other as well. the postwar era has seen a cascade of "rights revolutions"—a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales. involves war in the world as a whole. It is easy to draw that conclusion. the individuals in those states could still use their feet and hands to attack the population of another state. reduce the likelihood of conflict. repression by autocratic governments. if one calculates violent deaths as a proportion of the world's population). Even if we multiplied that rate to account for unrecorded deaths and the victims of war-caused disease and famine. Since 1946. The fifth assumption is that great powers are rational actors. Survival dominates other motives because.8 Furthermore. it would not exceed 1%. bullying. The less bad news is that civil wars tend to kill far fewer people than wars between states. Specifically. R. 2001. they consider the preferences of other states and how their own behavior is likely to affect the behavior of those other states. which says that the system comprises independent states that have no central authority above them. Indeed. Uncertainty about intentions is unavoidable. paddling in schools. which does not mean that it is chaotic or riven by disorder. the civil rights movement obliterated lynchings and lethal pogroms.4 Sovereignty. They are aware of their external environment and they think strategically about how to survive in it. In the developed world. And the campaign for gay rights has forced governments in the developed world to repeal laws criminalizing homosexuality and has had some success in reducing hate crimes against gay people. 30-32 The first assumption is that the international system is anarchic. and their death tolls have declined even more precipitously.ignores the second half of the century (and may not even be true of the first half. Moreover.

3. that quality is a part of what makes that being what it is. but the only assumption dealing with a specific motive that is common to all states says that their principal objective is to survive. So indirectly. Desire can only come from. professor of comparative political theory at the University of Keele. Winter 2006/2007 It should follow. 8. each with their own independent bureaucracies. I must first have value in me. then saying life being valuable relative to life is the same as saying life has worth relative to life. organizing forced labour. the greater the impact of preconceptions. ambiguity allows intuition or wishfulness to drive interpretation . 7. An analysis of the history of each case plays an important part in explaining where and how genocidal governments come to power and analysis of political institutions and structures also helps towards an understanding of the factors which act as obstacles to modern genocide. The choosing of policies. and that desire is inherent in the living thing. In order to desire something. self-help. Example: For me to love my dog. in „an environment that lacks clarity. they create powerful incentives for great powers to think and act offensively with regard to each other.immediate consequences of their actions. anyway you look at it. and allows no time for rigorous assessment of sources and validity. Only living things (living beings) can give value to something else. How much one being is willing to give in order to get something he wants is a way to think of the value of that thing.and life has inherent value. In particular. then living things. then. So if only living things can give value. If desire in living things is what gives value to other things.” Economy and Society 26:1. 4. Or to say it another way: If an object gives something value. then living things must have value. 2. There is surely the possibility that some state might have hostile intentions. life is value and value is life . where analysis is silent or inadequate.THEREFORE. the Holocaust and politics. is not independent of circumstances. and power maximization. “Modernity. that desire must be inherent in the living things.‟16 The decision-making environment that Betts describes here is one of political-military crisis. living beings . But a strategist who sees uncertainty as the central fact of his environment brings upon himself some of the pathologies of crisis decision-making. whether in effecting bureaucratic secrecy. value cannot exist without life. For me to value my dog. The Problem of Uncertainty in Strategic Planning. has inherent value in it. Bauman overlooks crucial but also very 'ordinary and common' attributes of truly modern societies. As emphasized. desire is what actually sets the value of something. than one of the parts of life is value. exist in competition with state-controlled enterprises. Modern societies have not only pluralist democratic political systems but also economic pluralism where workers are free to change jobs and bargain wages and where independent firms. He invites ambiguity. 6. none of these assumptions alone dictates that great powers as a general rule should behave aggressively toward each other. variability in strategic calculation should be carefully tailored to available analytic and decision processes. implementing a system of terror. Value to life inevitable – existence key to maximize it David Pizer 2001“Argument that life has inherent value”. Why is this important? What harm can an imbalance between complexity and cognitive or analytic capacity in strategic planning bring? Stated simply. the thing doing the desiring must be alive . By ignoring competition and the capacity for people to move between organizations whether economic. If value is only relative. July 8. So value. Nevertheless.If life gives value to life. Anything that is relative to itself is an unconditional part of itself and therefore has "inherentness". 5. abounds with conflicting data. which by itself is a rather harmless goal. furthermore. however.cgi?msg=16930 Argument that life has inherent value 1.4. the personal beliefs of decision-makers fill the void. the end of desire.. three general patterns of behavior result: fear. that object must have value in it as a quality to give. Put another way. http://www. Centralized state coercion has no natural move to terror. It is these very ordinary and common attributes of modernity which stand in the way of modern genocides. (and so must be in). Rejecting predictions only produces intellectual and political conservatism that makes the impact inevitable Michael Fitzsimmons. that in planning under conditions of risk. is dependent on life. scientific or social. In modern societies this economic pluralism both promotes and is served by the open scientific method. takes conflicting . The greater the ambiguity. I must first have love in me. defense analyst. political. those chosen policies of genocidal government turned away from and not towards modernity. the first thing must first have it to give.org/cgibin/dsp. In the explanation of modern genocides it is chosen policies which play the greatest part . 1997. Modernity checks the impact Rosemary O‘Kane. In order for any first thing to give something to a second thing. Put another way. As Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR have shown. not long-term strategic planning. So when living things desire something. so value is life and life is value . The concept of value comes from what living beings will pay for something. As political scientist Richard Betts found in a study of strategic surprise. harnessing science and technology or introducing extermination policies. What a being is willing to pay for something depends on how much he desires that thing.. when the five assumptions are married together. as means and as ends. i f a living being has some quality. Survival 48.it must be a living being. pp.cryonet. 58-59 Modern bureaucracy is not 'intrinsically capable of genocidal action' (Bauman 1989: 106). or life. But it is not just political factors which stand in the way of another Holocaust in modern society.

I am thinking for example of the incoherent but organized coalition of international capitalist forces that. Sovereign is he who effectively decides the exception. such decisions are likely to be poorly understood by the organisations charged with their implementation. . We should employ state sovereignty when the particulars of a situation demands it—the alt is ethically irresponsible Jacques Derrida.” as one used to say) according to the singularity of the contexts and the stakes. or the rule of law. the constitutional state. At their worst. such decisions may be poorly understood by the decisionmakers themselves. Deconstruction begins there . the intuition and judgement of decision-makers will always be vital to strategy. Those beliefs may be more or less well founded. He says in effect that a sovereign is defined by his capacity to decide the exception. whatever internal differentiation one may recognize in it. p. almost impossible but indispensable.” Sovereignty was then delegated to the people. It is also necessary to recognize that by requiring someone to be not unconditionally sovereignist but rather soyvereignist only under certain conditions. and Professor of Philosophy.: A moment ago you spoke of regicide as the necessity of an exception. yes. I am an antisovereignist or a sovereignist—and I vindicate the right to be antisovereignist at certain times and a sovereignist at others. For the moment. power. 91-92 J. in certain situations—the state. or to the nation. Irvine. For What Tomorrow? A Dialogue With Elisabeth Roudinesco. with the same theological attributes as those attributed to the king and to God. and attempting to subordinate those factors to some formulaic. what will be the possible bases for strategic choices? A decision-maker with no faith in prediction is left with little more than a set of worst-case scenarios and his existing beliefs about the world to confront the choices before him. rather than rational judgements. can resist certain forces that I consider the most threatening. Even at their best. or potency). There are cases in which I would support a logic of the state. Well. It is necessary to deconstruct the concept of sovereignty. between unconditionality (justice without power) and sovereignty (right. even when it seems possible. deterministic decision-making model would be both undesirable and unrealistic. Accordingly. one can refer provisionally to Carl Schmitt (whatever one may think of him. in the form of democracy. The revolutionaries decided that at that moment that it was necessary to suspend justice and—in order to establish the law [droit] and to give the Revolution its rights—to suspend the rule of law [l‟Etat de droit]. everywhere. 2004. Without careful analysis of what is relatively likely and what is relatively unlikely. in its actual form. in sum. There is no relativism in this. Once again. said to have a “divine right. No one can make me respond to this question as though it were a matter of pressing a button on some old-fashioned machine. even when it seems impossible. and scepticism of analysis is necessary. this concept has a theological origin: the true sovereign is God. The concept of this authority or of this power was transferred to the monarch. It demands a difficult dissociation. How do we deal with this? Here we return to the question of heritage with which we began. but if they are not made explicit and subject to analysis and debate regarding their application to particular strategic contexts. But it is necessary to reinvent the conditions of resistance. for its deconstruction (―theoretical and practical. Deconstruction is on the side of unconditionaliry. they remain only beliefs and premises.D. we cannot understand the concept of sovereignty. I would say that according to the situations. one is already calling into question the principle of sovereignty. Ambiguity is a fact of life. And yet—hence the enormous responsibility of the citizen and of the heir in general. this is what can still resist the most. in the name of neoliberalism or the market.31 are taking hold of the world in conditions such as the “state” form. no renunciation of the injunction to ―think‖ and to deconstruct the heritage. but I ask to examine each situation before making any statement . there is danger in the opposite extreme as well. and not sovereignty. It is important not to exaggerate the extent to which data and „rigorous assessment‟ can illuminate strategic choices. never to forget its theological filiation and to be ready to call this filiation into question wherever we discern its effects. Today. this heritage remains undeniable . I examined this question in Politics of Friendship). that of sovereignty.data for granted and substitutes a priori scepticism about the validity of prediction for time pressure as a rationale for discounting the importance of analytic rigour. Today. Omnipresent in our discourses and in our axioms. his arguments are always useful for problematizing the “political” or the “juridical”. literally or figuratively. This aporia is in truth the very condition of decision and responsibility—if there is any. the great question is indeed. Without this category of exception. French and Comparative Literature at the University of California. All the same. wherever the word ―sovereignty‖ is spoken. This supposes an inflexible critique of the logic of the state and of the nation-state. Schmitt also gives this definition of sovereignty: to have the right to suspend the law. Directeur d‟Etudes at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. under its own name or another. What I here call “responsibility” is what dictates the decision to be sometimes for the sovereign state and sometimes against it.

Postmodern critics should find this particularly disturbing. in other words." At the very least. recognizing the social construction of "nature" does deny the self-expression of the nonhuman world. we need to be moved by our concern to make room for the "other" and hence fold a commitment to the nonhuman world into our policy discussions. There is. fish. postmodernists accept that there is a physical substratum to the phenomenal world even if they argue about the different meanings we ascribe to it. if there is one thing they vehemently scorn. associate professor and director of the Global Environmental Policy Program at American University. All attempts to listen to nature are social constructions-except one. but how would we know what such self-expression means? Indeed. For example. rather. As we wrestle with challenges of global climate change. trees. Now. ozone depletion. the postmodernists are right: we can do what we want with the nonhuman world. we need to consider the economic. loss of biological diversity. as Jean-François Lyotard has explained. But postmodernists are also right that the only ethical way to act in a world that is socially constructed is to respect the voices of the others-of those with whom we share the planet but with whom we may not share a common language or outlook. political. Such a value would present itself as a metanarrative and. Postmodernism prides itself on criticizing the urge toward mastery that characterizes modernity. respect must involve ensuring that the "other" actually continues to exist. I can't see how postmodern critics can do otherwise than accept the value of preserving the nonhuman world. Postmodernists reject the idea of a universal good. the postmodernist should rightly worry about interpreting nature's expressions. Instead. A sensitivity to ecocriticism requires that we go further and include an ethic of otherness in our deliberations. I have been using postmodern cultural criticism against itself. it stands in contradistinction to humans as a species. In fact. The nonhuman is the extreme "other". and the future of the environmental movement? Society is constantly being asked to address questions of environmental quality for which there are no easy answers.AT: Environmental Security (insert above if they read an environment link) Environmental destruction IS an important impact. Eco-critics must be supporters. I don't mean that this argument should drive all our actions or that respect for the "other" should always carry the day. cultural. Yes. As I have said. this requires us to take responsibility for protecting the actuality of the nonhuman. But we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence. what does this mean for politics and policy." Nonetheless. of environmental preservation. This acknowledgment of physical existence is crucial. There is nothing essential about the realm of rocks. postmodernism inherently advances an ethic of respecting the "other. a limit or guiding principle to our actions. debate restrictions on ocean fishing. and climate that calls for a certain type of action. And all of us should be wary of those who claim to speak on nature's behalf (including environmentalists who do that). as we all know. not because we presume a value or meaning in nature but because it is an other to which we owe responsibility Paul Wapner. we are running roughshod over the earth's diversity of plants. They rightly acknowledge the difficulty of identifying a common value given the multiple contexts of our value-producing activity. What doesn't exist can manifest no character. a social construction. in some fashion. and ecosystems. or otherwise assess the effects of a particular course of action.” Dissent Winter 2003 The third response to eco-criticism would require critics to acknowledge the ways in which they themselves silence nature and then to respect the sheer otherness of the nonhuman world. As . postmodernism is characterized fundamentally by its "incredulity toward metanarratives. animals. But it must be a central part of our reflections and calculations. as we estimate the number of people that a certain area can sustain. it is the idea that there can be a value that stands above the individual contexts of human experience. That is. Put differently. These considerations have traditionally marked the politics of environmental protection. and aesthetic values at stake. consider what to do about climate change. and so forth. In our day and age. But isn't mastery exactly what postmodernism is exerting as it captures the nonhuman world within its own conceptual domain? Doesn't postmodern cultural criticism deepen the modernist urge toward mastery by eliminating the ontological weight of the nonhuman world? What else could it mean to assert that there is no such thing as nature ? I have already suggested the postmodernist response: yes. some person always speaks on nature's behalf. We must do so not because we wish to maintain what is "natural" but because we wish to act in a morally respectable manner. yes. In understanding the constructed quality of human experience and the dangers of reification. however. we must think about the lives of other creatures on the earth-and also the continued existence of the nonliving physical world. “Leftist Criticism of "Nature" Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age. and whatever that person says is. Even the most radical postmodernist must acknowledge the distinction between physical existence and non-existence. If they don't. We can't ascribe meaning to that which doesn't appear. they deny their own intellectual insights and compromise their fundamental moral commitment. This in turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world-in all its diverse embodiments-must be seen by eco-critics as a fundamental good. nature doesn't speak.

"One can't argue for the diversity of views of "nature" without taking a stand for the diversity of nature.political theorist Leslie Thiele puts it." .

We can be for and against sovereignty – advocating one state action doesn‘t mean we reject everything else 2. Responsibility means we have to use the state sometimes—if ethics are incalculable then we have to combat suffering through the state against our own intellectual misgivings 4. Capitalism is a DA to the alt – complete rejection of sovereignty means it‘s replaced by unrestricted corporations motivated by absolute profit which makes their offense inevitable .State Good – Derrida 1AR Extend the Derrida evidence – four reasons why their state bad args are dumb: 1. Totalizing the state as violent is a formalist impasse – it presumes we‘re just robots pressing buttons and obscures the moment of aporia in decisionmaking 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful