Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    Total Members
    Most Online
    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Recent Posts

    • You should look into "critical pedagogy." Here's an example from "Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: 
      Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy" by Henry Giroux. Education cannot be neutral. It is always directive in its attempt to teach students to inhabit a 
      particular mode of agency, enable them to understand the larger world and one’s role in it in a 
      specific way, define their relationship, if not responsibility, to diverse others, and experience in the 
      classroom some sort of understanding of a more just, imaginative, and democratic life. Pedagogy is 
      by definition directive, but that does not mean it is merely a form of indoctrination. On the 
      contrary, as Freire argued, education as a practice for freedom must expand the capacities 
      necessary for human agency, and hence the possibilities for how academic labor should be 
      configured to ensure such a project that is integral to democracy itself. Surely, this suggests that 
      even within the privileged precincts of higher education, educators should nourish those 
      pedagogical practices that promote 
      a concern with keeping the forever unexhausted and unfulfilled human potential open, 
      fighting back all attempts to foreclose and pre-empt the further unravelling of human 
      possibilities, prodding human society to go on questioning itself and preventing that 
      questioning from ever stalling or being declared finished. (Bauman & Tester, 2001, p. 4) 
      In other words, critical pedagogy forges an expanded notion of politics and agency through a 
      language of skepticism and possibility, and a culture of openness, debate, and engagement – all 
      those elements now at risk because of the current and most dangerous attacks on higher education. 
      This was Paulo’s legacy, one that invokes dangerous memories and is increasingly absent from any 
      conservative discourse about current educational problems. Unfortunately, it is also absent from 
      much of the discussion on the current status of academic labor.
    • I'm writing a K about Cultural Hegemony, and I want to have a ROTJ that says something along the lines of "The role of the judge is to vote for the debater who best encourages critical thinking." Does anybody have cards that they could give me? Or can you at least point me to a place where I could find cards for such a ROTJ?
    • I'm personally of the opinion that semiocap isn't the best argument this year. This made some more sense in context to education and certainly China, but immigration reform is a bit trickier. Baudrillard already has a tenuous connection to the topic and I'm not sure Bifo has any. I'm also not sure in general that semiocap is the best argument to invest time getting to know everything about. The only team I've seen pull it off was SVDP for a couple years after Adam Martin, but I suspect that was just his individual skill. Bifo argues for this weird mix of Baudrillard, Guattari, and Heidegger that I'm not sure is the most theoretically defensible. It also rarely has a non-contrived link or impact, and there are usually better strategies. The basic gist is that capital and technology have accelerated to the point where they overwhelm the human sensory apparatus, producing a deadened and hopeless affect that has gutted political potentiality (per Baudrillard). Bifo terms this semiocapitalism, because it operates through disembodied value and empty signifiers (semiotics). He thinks the solution is poetry, in this weird quasi-Heideggerian sense that overlaps with Guatarri's lines of flight, but which slows down to try and recover the human subject. The issues: Guattari is probably most in line with Bifo's project, although much of his work with Deleuze is in tension with Bifo's defense of humanism. Neither Baudrillard nor Heidegger defend humanism either. Bifo borrows most of Baudrillard's description of contemporary society, but the Baudrillard argues for virtually the opposite solution: the acceleration of meaninglessness to the point of where the whole system implodes and becomes untenable, not slowing it down, something he views as pointless and naive. Bifo doesn't grapple with this much. Heidegger's poetry is also a response to a different problem than what Bifo poses (modernity itself, not cell phones). There's also the kind of global issue endemic to Bifo's work that he's extremely vague. He rarely nails down why or how poetry can save subjectivity, or why it is desirable to do so.  I'm inclined to think you'd get more out of researching any one of those constitutive parts, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, or Heidegger, since almost all of them are more generalized and make clearer arguments. They also lead into other arguments, like Bifo if you're really interested, but also preserve other options for specialization (cybernetics, homonationalism, Empire, fear of death, etc.). That's my take.
    • https://sites.google.com/site/umichdebate2018/home Nietzsche- Michigan K Lab 2018.docx
  • Recent Files