Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest silvermdc1

DADT strategy

Recommended Posts

First, you have already demonstrated your misunderstanding of Foucault when you said "biopower is always bad":

 

- hospitals

- welfare taking away kids whose drug addict parents beat the shit out of them to give them homes

- social security

 

Almost every European state in the early 1900s exercised biopower. The reason that the Nazi regime became violent wasn't because it exerted biopower, but because its particular political circumstances (including extreme nationalism because of getting shafted in the Treaty of Versailles, a downspiraling economy because of huge war debt, etc) enabled a violent regime.

 

Not even Foucault makes a blanket statement that "biopower is always bad"--he says that because systems of power are inevitable, you have to find ways of resisting them. The idea that "giving them the choice" is increasing biopower is true in that it demonstrates the power of the state system, but it is also a good form of biopower like welfare or social security. Yeah, lifting DADT gives the state power over gay people's lives (which they already have now, creating the apartheid of the closet), but at least they are using that power for good and not for a mass genocide of queers. Your alternative still leaves those structures intact, and is therefore a less effective strategy of addressing biopower than the plan. Yeah, it really helps the gay people getting sexually harassed in the military when you tell them, "Hey dude, just dont identify as gay anymore, embrace yourself dude."

 

 

 

LOL. Making a bunch of bad arguments isn't a time skew, it just means the aff will win because they are actually debating.

 

 

Okay. I admit that not all biopower is bad. Yes, I have read a lot of the cards that talk about that including two books by Foucault. But you can probably agree with me that biopower is bad if it leads to discrimination and the same heterosexism impacts that the status quo even tries to solve for. Yes biopower is the only way that a government can function and it is proven that practically, nothing can be achieved micropolitically (usless you use the government but then you are forcing people to change their mindsets which is exerting more biopower). Through generology, history has shown that the only way to solve for biopower in the case of DADT is simply by working from the ground up to reject the identity altogether. You can say that this can be very difficult but it can happen after a long time because people will gradulaly (and are already) changing their mindsets. So biopower is only neccessary to maintain order and stablity, but in order to preserve people's rights to freedom from discrimination, biopower cannot be exerted. I don't really know as much about strategy because we were only at one national cicuit tournement this year but hopefully NFL nationals will have some pretty good teams too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, you have already demonstrated your misunderstanding of Foucault when you said "biopower is always bad":

 

- hospitals

- welfare taking away kids whose drug addict parents beat the shit out of them to give them homes

- social security

 

Almost every European state in the early 1900s exercised biopower. The reason that the Nazi regime became violent wasn't because it exerted biopower, but because its particular political circumstances (including extreme nationalism because of getting shafted in the Treaty of Versailles, a downspiraling economy because of huge war debt, etc) enabled a violent regime.

 

Not even Foucault makes a blanket statement that "biopower is always bad"--he says that because systems of power are inevitable, you have to find ways of resisting them. The idea that "giving them the choice" is increasing biopower is true in that it demonstrates the power of the state system, but it is also a good form of biopower like welfare or social security. Yeah, lifting DADT gives the state power over gay people's lives (which they already have now, creating the apartheid of the closet), but at least they are using that power for good and not for a mass genocide of queers. Your alternative still leaves those structures intact, and is therefore a less effective strategy of addressing biopower than the plan. Yeah, it really helps the gay people getting sexually harassed in the military when you tell them, "Hey dude, just dont identify as gay anymore, embrace yourself dude."

 

dickinson 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, you have already demonstrated your misunderstanding of Foucault when you said "biopower is always bad":

 

- hospitals

- welfare taking away kids whose drug addict parents beat the shit out of them to give them homes

- social security

 

Almost every European state in the early 1900s exercised biopower. The reason that the Nazi regime became violent wasn't because it exerted biopower, but because its particular political circumstances (including extreme nationalism because of getting shafted in the Treaty of Versailles, a downspiraling economy because of huge war debt, etc) enabled a violent regime.

 

Not even Foucault makes a blanket statement that "biopower is always bad"--he says that because systems of power are inevitable, you have to find ways of resisting them. The idea that "giving them the choice" is increasing biopower is true in that it demonstrates the power of the state system, but it is also a good form of biopower like welfare or social security. Yeah, lifting DADT gives the state power over gay people's lives (which they already have now, creating the apartheid of the closet), but at least they are using that power for good and not for a mass genocide of queers. Your alternative still leaves those structures intact, and is therefore a less effective strategy of addressing biopower than the plan. Yeah, it really helps the gay people getting sexually harassed in the military when you tell them, "Hey dude, just dont identify as gay anymore, embrace yourself dude."

 

 

 

LOL. Making a bunch of bad arguments isn't a time skew, it just means the aff will win because they are actually debating.

Hospitals, welfare, and social security, all play a very interesting role in biopolitics. Agamben does a better job characterizing this. These establish bare life. They foster life, that is excluded from the higher aims of the state, but is fostered so the state has a pool of docile bodies for a means to its ends. You're right in the fact that the practices done in a doctors office etc. aren't bad, but it's the intention. In Power/Knowledge Foucault tell us not to look at the power itself, but look to what is the intent of this power?

Power/Knowledge, Two Lectures, Pg. 97]

A second methodological precaution urged that the analysis should not concern itself with power at the level of conscious intention or decision; that it should not attempt to consider power from its internal point of view and that it should refrain from posing the labyrinthine and unanswerable question: ‘Who then has power and what has he in mind? What is the aim of someone who possesses power?’ Instead, it is a case of studying power at the point where its intention, if it has one, is completely invested in its real and effective practices. What is needed is a study of power in its external visage, at the point where it is in direct and immediate relationship with that which we can provisionally call its object, its target, its field of application, there – that is to say – where it installs itself and produces its real effects.

 

Furthermore, these hospitals, create normalization in a lot of ways. First, they establish an idea of a norm, then they guide life towards that norm. Moreover, an alternative world, (given a successful alternative) we can keep the benefits of hospital, but simply change the intent of power. The intent shouldn't be to foster life, or keep people within a certain norm. This may mean less state regulations, or less state involvement, a hospital on a more person to person basis, as opposed to organization to person etc.

The problem with you analysis is that it takes a top down perspective. The top down approach fails because it ignores the infinite mechanisms/ technologies of power.

"One must rather conduct an ascending analysis of power, starting, that is from its infinitesimal mechanisms, which each have their own history, their own trajectory, their own techniques and tactics, and then see how these mechanisms of power have been – and continue to be – invested, colonised utilised, involuted, transformed, discplaced, extended, etc., " - Foucault, Power/Knowledge pg. 99

 

 

On the bit about Europe... and normalization, caused by the practices you listed, allowed the population to be molded into docile bodies for a means to Nazi Germany's ends. Furthermore, biopolitics necessitates racism. We see that with the idea of a Jew. I have trouble explaining this well, so here's a few authors that do it well.

 

KELLY 2003 [Mark, Racism, Nationalism and Biopolitics: Foucaultʼs Society Must Be Defended, 200, pg. 58]

Foucault takes his genealogy of the discourse of state racism as far as Nazism, which

is fairly obviously the apogee of the discourse of biological racism: the German people

are united by common blood, ethnicity, and have a inherent racial superiority compared to other peoples. But there is another turn taken by the discourse of state racism at

around the same time as the emergence of Nazism—socialist state racism. There was

plenty of ‘ordinary racismʼin the Soviet Union. There was anti-semitism, and the policy

of ‘Russificationʼ of the minority nations of the union. But the kind of state racism that

Foucault is referring to is racism in the broader sense—the way in which the Soviet

population was perceived as a pure biological entity, threatened from within by sabotage and deviationism and by remnants of the class enemy, and from without by a world that was full of threats, the conquest of which served to make the Soviet Union stronger.

A state with biopolitical aims—the aim of improving the material well-being of the

population—but which also in the name of this project eliminates vast numbers of its

own people, needs a “social-racism.”

 

Now on the bit specific to DADT...

Admitting homosexuals to serve openly is NEVER a good form of biopolitics

1. The military is.. ya know... biopolitics

2. This isn't a shift away from heteronormativity, it's a shift to allow all sexual categories to be a means to the state's ends.

3. They aren't using the power for good. The point of the armed forces is to destroy. The armed forces is the culmination of biopolitics. It's where the population is mobilized in the name of life's necessity, ensuring destruction, chaos, and war.

4. The alternative does not leave the structures intact... The armed forces is biopolitics, thus removing the structure.

5. You gravely misunderstand the alternative to Foucault. It would not be "embrace yourself", it would completely erase the lines of alterity, because those are caused by normalization. Queer identity is constructed, and determined by who is "normal and abnormal". These lines of difference are what creates self normalization, or people policing themselves. When you hear someone making fun of a queer, that's self normalization. The alternative rejects the idea of "normal" and "abnormal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
getting rid of the Armed Forces is a terrible idea

 

I think UTNIF put out a "ban the military" CP. No judge would actually suppot it though. I would prefer to just go critical on that one so that nobody makes any bad assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dickinson 4

 

O'Kane 97 is good too.

 

Furthermore, these hospitals, create normalization in a lot of ways. First, they establish an idea of a norm, then they guide life towards that norm. Moreover, an alternative world, (given a successful alternative) we can keep the benefits of hospital, but simply change the intent of power. The intent shouldn't be to foster life, or keep people within a certain norm. This may mean less state regulations, or less state involvement, a hospital on a more person to person basis, as opposed to organization to person etc.

The problem with you analysis is that it takes a top down perspective. The top down approach fails because it ignores the infinite mechanisms/ technologies of power.

"One must rather conduct an ascending analysis of power, starting, that is from its infinitesimal mechanisms, which each have their own history, their own trajectory, their own techniques and tactics, and then see how these mechanisms of power have been – and continue to be – invested, colonised utilised, involuted, transformed, discplaced, extended, etc., " - Foucault, Power/Knowledge pg. 99

 

Seriously. Think about what you are saying from a non-debate point of view. You just said that hospitals are bad.

 

1) If the "norm" created by hospitals is that people should be alive, well then, I consider that a pretty good norm.

 

2) Please explain your alternative to hopsitals. Door to door private volunteering doctors? There is a reason that healthcare in the 20th and 21st century is a lot better than it was in the 1600s dude.

 

3) What the hell do you mean by me taking a top down perspective? All im saying is that when my mom has a heart attack its probably a good thing that I can call up 911 and get her emergency medical care.

 

On the bit about Europe... and normalization, caused by the practices you listed, allowed the population to be molded into docile bodies for a means to Nazi Germany's ends. Furthermore, biopolitics necessitates racism. We see that with the idea of a Jew. I have trouble explaining this well, so here's a few authors that do it well.

 

Yeah, but fucking Switzerland also had a Progressive Democratic Welfare state that had hospitals. Biopolitics doesn't necessitate racism--biopolitics when combined with racism enables violence. That's a reason to attack racism, not biopolitics. For example, if the person who runs a hospital is a flaming racist, he might like not give good healthcare to black folks. Thats not a reason to get rid of the hospital--its a reason to replace the racist head of medecine.

 

 

Now on the bit specific to DADT...

Admitting homosexuals to serve openly is NEVER a good form of biopolitics

1. The military is.. ya know... biopolitics

 

Thanks for the FYI dude. The military exists now. Its probably better for the military to not be oppressive towards gays than for it to force their identities in the closet. What does "rejecting the idea of the normal and the abnormal" do for the people getting sexually harassed? Think about it for a second. Nothing.

 

2. This isn't a shift away from heteronormativity, it's a shift to allow all sexual categories to be a means to the state's ends.

 

A shift implies that we weren't there in the first place.

 

3. They aren't using the power for good. The point of the armed forces is to destroy. The armed forces is the culmination of biopolitics. It's where the population is mobilized in the name of life's necessity, ensuring destruction, chaos, and war.

 

Thanks for the heg bad DA. If you want to ban the military, thats probably bad for any number of reasons. The point is, that regardless of if the military should exist, while it does, it should be inclusive as oppossed to explicitly homophobic.

 

4. The alternative does not leave the structures intact... The armed forces is biopolitics, thus removing the structure.

5. You gravely misunderstand the alternative to Foucault. It would not be "embrace yourself", it would completely erase the lines of alterity, because those are caused by normalization. Queer identity is constructed, and determined by who is "normal and abnormal". These lines of difference are what creates self normalization, or people policing themselves. When you hear someone making fun of a queer, that's self normalization. The alternative rejects the idea of "normal" and "abnormal".

 

This begs an important question: who is the agent of your alternative. Who rejcts the idea of "normal and abnormal." Do you like "fiat" that the state no longer categorizes people? Do you personally "challenge" those structures? (Like the state gives a shit what you think) What effect does a bunch of pot smoking hippies who reject alterity have on the structure of the military? None. I'm sorry, but as noble as your goal is, you can't just obliterate the distinction between normal and abnormal. Welcome to dystopia 101.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, lifting DADT gives the state power over gay people's lives (which they already have now, creating the apartheid of the closet), but at least they are using that power for good and not for a mass genocide of queers.

 

 

YAYZ TEH FOOKO <3'S TEH MILITAWY!!!11!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously. Think about what you are saying from a non-debate point of view. You just said that hospitals are bad.

 

How reductionist of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously. Think about what you are saying from a non-debate point of view. You just said that hospitals are bad.

1) If the "norm" created by hospitals is that people should be alive, well then, I consider that a pretty good norm.

2) Please explain your alternative to hopsitals. Door to door private volunteering doctors? There is a reason that healthcare in the 20th and 21st century is a lot better than it was in the 1600s dude.

3) What the hell do you mean by me taking a top down perspective? All im saying is that when my mom has a heart attack its probably a good thing that I can call up 911 and get her emergency medical care.

No, if you refer to the Foucault card I posted that says we must analyze the intent of the power, I never said hospitals were bad, just that the modern intent of the power (from the eyes of the state) is bad.

1. That isn't the norm. The norm enforces ideas of what is a good state of mind to have, and what isn't. For instance, a "crazy" person isn't a productive body. This is what the state wants normalized, and prevented.

Furthermore, hospitals draw lines between invalid and valid life forms, which then causes self normalization. We've all seen someone with a condition that's been made fun of. Take a fat kid in a class that's been made fun of. While, this isn't in the field of hospitals, we see self normalization with this kid being picked on.

2. Well, I think a clearer understanding of the intent of the power ideas can clear this up. The intent of modern healthcare is to foster docile bodies. (again all of this is from the eyes of the state). We should privatize hospitals more. We should reject the idea that patients who do not want treatment, aren't forced into asylums, or forced to take certain medicines etc. I'm not saying keep the state and hospitals separate, but simply reject areas in which we see that the intent of the power is wrong.

3. A top down perspective is looking at a hospital and thinking they save people. A bottom up perspective would be more like, a patient interacts with a doctor, and the doctor prescribes a solution, which saves people. In the top down appraoch, we don't see the normalization, we don't see the intent of the power.

 

Yeah, but fucking Switzerland also had a Progressive Democratic Welfare state that had hospitals. Biopolitics doesn't necessitate racism--biopolitics when combined with racism enables violence. That's a reason to attack racism, not biopolitics. For example, if the person who runs a hospital is a flaming racist, he might like not give good healthcare to black folks. Thats not a reason to get rid of the hospital--its a reason to replace the racist head of medecine.

I think you're failing to see the link between biopolitics and the ability for violence. Biopolitics fosters docile bodies. Docile bodies are persons that are mold able, adjustable, and can be controlled by the state for a means to its ends.

Biopolitics necessitates racism for a few reasons. First, lines are automatically drawn when people are pushed towards a norm, and this norm is a productive docile body. Secondly, the war on terror exhibits this perfectly. We categorize an threat to the population, (terrorists) and mobilize docile bodies in a means to the state's ends. Third, racism allows the death function in the economy of biopolitics.

 

Thanks for the FYI dude. The military exists now. Its probably better for the military to not be oppressive towards gays than for it to force their identities in the closet. What does "rejecting the idea of the normal and the abnormal" do for the people getting sexually harassed? Think about it for a second. Nothing.

Post alternative gays wouldn't force their identities into the closet. Rejection, and speaking out against the idea of normal and abnormal erases the lines of normalization. It refuses to be defined within them. This means if there are no lines for which to define the norm, and abnormal, there is no sexual harassment, there is no self normalization.

 

 

A shift implies that we weren't there in the first place.

Perf con much? We are here by the idea of "sexual harrasment", it's a rejection of the homosexual identity within the Armed forces.

 

Thanks for the heg bad DA. If you want to ban the military, thats probably bad for any number of reasons. The point is, that regardless of if the military should exist, while it does, it should be inclusive as oppossed to explicitly homophobic.

First, countries without armies empirically aren't threatened: Andora, Costa Rica, Dominica, Haiti, Iceland, Kiribati, Nauru, Panama, Samao, to name a few. The state construct threats (the racism mentioned earlier) to force normalization, and construct the idea that we need an armed forces. Furthermore, Foucault outlines this idea PERFECTLY. The state has a monopoly on war, a monopoly on the production, and end of war, and things to do with war. Because of normalization, this legitimates politics as war by other means, because a docile body supports such concepts.

 

 

This begs an important question: who is the agent of your alternative. Who rejcts the idea of "normal and abnormal." Do you like "fiat" that the state no longer categorizes people? Do you personally "challenge" those structures? (Like the state gives a shit what you think) What effect does a bunch of pot smoking hippies who reject alterity have on the structure of the military? None. I'm sorry, but as noble as your goal is, you can't just obliterate the distinction between normal and abnormal. Welcome to dystopia 101.

Yes, and pot smoking hippies can't solve a thing. Clearly, every revolution must have been started by a pot smoking hippy. Fuck you George Washington, you damned pot smoking hippy. Granted, the alternative isn't even a revolution. To claim that a radical change is automatically a derivative of a drug is asinine, and self normalization. A good government will reflect, and act to the demands of its people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good government will reflect, and act to the demands of its people.

 

That's Foucault in '84.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather sure he was busy dying at the time. What's the full cite?

 

(By the way, it amuses me when teams read cards from "Foucault in 92" or such. Ah, reprintings.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post alternative gays wouldn't force their identities into the closet. Rejection, and speaking out against the idea of normal and abnormal erases the lines of normalization.

Homosexuals do not force their identities in the closet. DADT does. DADT forces homosexuals to conform to a norm of the macho soldier and "military readiness". And I'm pretty sure dadt affs reject/speak out against heteronormativity. According to you this solves the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homosexuals do not force their identities in the closet. DADT does. DADT forces homosexuals to conform to a norm of the macho soldier and "military readiness". And I'm pretty sure dadt affs reject/speak out against heteronormativity. According to you this solves the link.

Not really. The difference is the intent of the power. The intent of repealing DADT, from the perspective of national service, is to increase persons. This means the intent of the power is to mask a shift away from heteronormativity to allow more individuals become a means to the state's ends. Furthermore, this reaffirms the control in the first place, by first, turning back to the right of sovereignty, and relying on the macropolitical, which co-opts the micropolitical resistance, never causing any real change in the system because of the way power retreats and responds, that's why Foucault rejects the idea of solutions, because there is always something to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. The difference is the intent of the power. The intent of repealing DADT, from the perspective of national service, is to increase persons.
no. The intent of repealing DADT is to establish a policy of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

go for your links of omission...

 

This means the intent of the power is to mask a shift away from heteronormativity to allow more individuals become a means to the state's ends.

this turn is n-u and has nothing to do with turning our heteronorm advantage

 

Furthermore, this reaffirms the control in the first place, by first, turning back to the right of sovereignty, and relying on the macropolitical, which co-opts the micropolitical resistance, never causing any real change in the system because of the way power retreats and responds, that's why Foucault rejects the idea of solutions, because there is always something to do.

what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, if you refer to the Foucault card I posted that says we must analyze the intent of the power, I never said hospitals were bad, just that the modern intent of the power (from the eyes of the state) is bad.

1. That isn't the norm. The norm enforces ideas of what is a good state of mind to have, and what isn't. For instance, a "crazy" person isn't a productive body. This is what the state wants normalized, and prevented.

 

So the state thinks its sweet for people to not be bipolar or have cancer. Failing to see a problem here...

 

Furthermore, hospitals draw lines between invalid and valid life forms, which then causes self normalization. We've all seen someone with a condition that's been made fun of. Take a fat kid in a class that's been made fun of. While, this isn't in the field of hospitals, we see self normalization with this kid being picked on.

 

I bolded the important part because you just demonstrated this has nothing to do with the "intentions" of the state but just with some douchebag kid who is making fun of fat people.

 

2. Well, I think a clearer understanding of the intent of the power ideas can clear this up. The intent of modern healthcare is to foster docile bodies. (again all of this is from the eyes of the state).

 

I guess maybe if we were all mindreaders like you we could just magically determine what the intent of the state is. Maybe instead of getting so focused on intent, you should look at the outcome. Hospitals save millions of lives.

 

We should privatize hospitals more.

 

Oh good. Leave the poor people to the free market instead of the state. Exactly what Foucault would want.

 

We should reject the idea that patients who do not want treatment, aren't forced into asylums, or forced to take certain medicines etc.

 

Hospitals aren't mandatory.

 

I'm not saying keep the state and hospitals separate, but simply reject areas in which we see that the intent of the power is wrong.

 

And you've just dropped the ball for perm solvency. We don't need to keep the state and the military seperate--we should just criticize the areas where the intent of power is wrong. Well, the intent of DADT is to force homosexual identities into the closet. We should repeal that. Maybe the rest of the military is bad, so your alt can criticize that.

 

 

 

 

I think you're failing to see the link between biopolitics and the ability for violence. Biopolitics fosters docile bodies. Docile bodies are persons that are mold able, adjustable, and can be controlled by the state for a means to its ends.

 

I think you are failing to, you know, understand... HISTORY. Switzerland was biopolitical, they had hospitals and welfare. They didnt conduct a mass genocide. Germany is still biopolitical, but there is no more Nazi party. Violence is a product of particular political circumstances.

 

 

Post alternative gays wouldn't force their identities into the closet. Rejection, and speaking out against the idea of normal and abnormal erases the lines of normalization. It refuses to be defined within them. This means if there are no lines for which to define the norm, and abnormal, there is no sexual harassment, there is no self normalization.

 

Who rejects those ideas? Unless your alternative fiats that everyone suddenly doesn't have an idea of "normal" and "abnormal" anymore, sexual harassment and self normalization will still exist. Please. Get beyond utopia and illustrate a strategy for putting your ideas into effect.

 

 

 

Yes, and pot smoking hippies can't solve a thing. Clearly, every revolution must have been started by a pot smoking hippy. Fuck you George Washington, you damned pot smoking hippy. Granted, the alternative isn't even a revolution. To claim that a radical change is automatically a derivative of a drug is asinine, and self normalization. A good government will reflect, and act to the demands of its people.

 

Didn't you just say we have a bad government thought? So now your alternative fiats everyone in the US having a mass public demand that the state... do what exactly? Stop being mean? Change its intent? Those aren't even specific demands.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good government will reflect, and act to the demands of its people.

 

seems like this would provide no check against tyranny of the majority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you just say we have a bad government thought? So now your alternative fiats everyone in the US having a mass public demand that the state... do what exactly? Stop being mean? Change its intent? Those aren't even specific demands.

 

No, the alternative to do the plan micropolitically. The government should not tell us what to do. We have individuality and we need to use it. Let's all change our minsets and change how the military functions. We don't need the government to tell us that. And yes, we as the negative do have fiat. We're just saying it would be a very good thing if everyone acted individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the state thinks its sweet for people to not be bipolar or have cancer. Failing to see a problem here...

You're still failing to understand the intent of the power. The state could care less about whether the people live or die, the intent is that they live so the state has more docile bodies, and thus more means to its ends.

Furthermore, the idea that people can't receive help/aid post alternative is wrong. The same help can be given, just in a slightly different way, with a different intent.

 

I bolded the important part because you just demonstrated this has nothing to do with the "intentions" of the state but just with some douchebag kid who is making fun of fat people.

1. Non responsive

2. That's an example of self normalization, in a circumstance in which you've probably witnessed.

 

I guess maybe if we were all mindreaders like you we could just magically determine what the intent of the state is. Maybe instead of getting so focused on intent, you should look at the outcome. Hospitals save millions of lives.

1. We can determine the intent of the state through bottom up analysis of power relations, this is again why your top down approach fails.

2. The outcome is still achieved post alternative, no offense here.

 

Oh good. Leave the poor people to the free market instead of the state. Exactly what Foucault would want.

Not true. First, the state can still aid people, just the intent of the aid must change. Secondly, the reason why poor people can't receive this treatment is because of lack of money. But, post alternative, people wouldn't be aimed in becoming the most productive docile body (this is caused by self normalization), thus there's no reason why there can't be discounts our aid on an interpersonal level. Third, look up some of Shuffy's posts about biopolitics and capitalism.

 

Hospitals aren't mandatory.

There are people forced into asylums. There are people forced to take certain medicines. Furthermore, people take certain medicines because of self normalization. For instance, a doctor gives a person some medicine that the person can do without. Because of the fluidity of power (because knowledge feeds truth, and truth feeds knowledge) people automatically assume they MUST take the prescription.

 

 

And you've just dropped the ball for perm solvency. We don't need to keep the state and the military seperate--we should just criticize the areas where the intent of power is wrong. Well, the intent of DADT is to force homosexual identities into the closet. We should repeal that. Maybe the rest of the military is bad, so your alt can criticize that.

Oh, since we're talking in a debate context...

1. The macropolitical co-opts the micropolitical. First, because that's exactly what its intention is. Secondly, because of self normalization. Due to the fluidity of power, it retreats and responds, thus the plan never causes any change.

2. The intent of the plan is to increase persons serving, proving that it's not a shift from heteronormativity, not net benefit to the perm, proves 1nc links turn case.

3. The plan turns back to the right of sovereignty, which utilizes the same power causing the oppression.

4. Turning back to the state reaffirms the control. The idea that the state can do whatever the hell it wants, as long as it can fix it later, allows utmost biopolitical control.

5. The perm is intrinsic

6. The perm is severance

7. In humanism, power exists on the underside of the law, societal norms, and thus self normalization prevents solvency, thus only alt solves.

8. The idea of a solution is caused by self normalizing discourse. It is the reaction to the creation of a norm. It is the idea of "Responsible behavior", that is self normalization. And because of powers fluidity there is always something to do.

9. The perm silences conflict. We should make a genealogy of problems, not a history of solutions. Struggle is inescapable, and thus always present. "If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do"

10. All knowledge and actions must be kritiked. To vote on the perm is to have an incomplete genealogy, it leaves stones unturned. This allows power to retreat to the unturned stones, and reform, never solving a thing.

11. This is till a descending analysis of power. I've explained above, multiple times, why this ALWAYS fails.

 

I think you are failing to, you know, understand... HISTORY. Switzerland was biopolitical, they had hospitals and welfare. They didnt conduct a mass genocide. Germany is still biopolitical, but there is no more Nazi party. Violence is a product of particular political circumstances.

And Switzerland has gone to war? They've established war as an institution, legitimating politics as war by other means. They established an enemy, of a certain fixed identity. This is what Foucault means by "genocide". Today, our definition of genocide is a destruction of a certain group because of their religious, racial, or political beliefs. Foucault sees that establishing an enemy as a concept of genocide as well. For instance, in world war two, the US and Japan. In the pacific front, the US killed purely Japanese, under the banner of freedom, under the banner of saving the US population. "In the name of life's necessity" ring a bell now?

 

Who rejects those ideas? Unless your alternative fiats that everyone suddenly doesn't have an idea of "normal" and "abnormal" anymore, sexual harassment and self normalization will still exist. Please. Get beyond utopia and illustrate a strategy for putting your ideas into effect.

Didn't you just say we have a bad government thought? So now your alternative fiats everyone in the US having a mass public demand that the state... do what exactly? Stop being mean? Change its intent? Those aren't even specific demands.

First, anti-disciplinary education is an idea. In schools we're consistently taught pro-state ideas. Why can't we have classes that teach this?

Secondly, your idea that change never happens because people wont accept it, is empirically denied by every revolution, uprising, and civil war in history.

Third, it's caused by self normalizing discourse. The idea that the current system is so rooted that we can't cause change is what allows the noose to continue tightening around each and every one of our own necks.

Fourth, genealogy exposes institutions and suggests openness to change.

It can chart the emerergence and disappearance of such practices, and describe the circumstances they're in. It can change contemporary practices by robbing them of their ahistorical legitimations. (Which is exemplified by your last two paragraphs which can be summed up as "amagaahh no alternativeeee") It lends them an apperance of arbitrariness, and nastiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm rather sure he was busy dying at the time. What's the full cite?

 

(By the way, it amuses me when teams read cards from "Foucault in 92" or such. Ah, reprintings.)

 

You're amused easily.

 

Some of the best work by Foucault wasn't published within his lifetime. Take, for example, Society Must Be Defended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really feel like continuing this conversation has any utility for me, given that I don't even read this aff. You've essentially repeated the same set of 4 statements over and over "you dont understand the intent of power," "thats self normalization," "the alternative magically changes all of this," and "biopower necessitates violence." I really haven't gotten any explanation from you about why any of these things are true, or what they mean in terms of envisioning a new form of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...