Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest silvermdc1

DADT strategy

Recommended Posts

I think it's like what you do when no one is looking, ie you are regulated not to cross on a red light even if there are no other cars around. You also become an docile enforcer of state authority, letting the state define who the enemies are, etc

 

What I am cofused about it how you got that the intent of repealing DADT is to increase persons in the military. No, it is to have a policy of nondiscrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's like what you do when no one is looking, ie you are regulated not to cross on a red light even if there are no other cars around. You also become an docile enforcer of state authority, letting the state define who the enemies are, etc

 

What I am cofused about it how you got that the intent of repealing DADT is to increase persons in the military. No, it is to have a policy of nondiscrimination.

Which means it's extra topical, but hey, let's keep on track.

 

What about the shpeal about docile bodies - and the relation they have to hospitals? I'm not seeing the connection, Micah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhmm advantages can be extra topical

 

who is micah to arbitrarily decide what the ACTUAL intent of my aff is... seriously

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.

 

Alright, I'll elaborate:

 

The intent of the power:

 

Foucault begins with this idea here, read it all but I bolded important points.

FOUCAULT 76[bAMF, 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.

 

 

Now Analysis:

The point of any biopolitical state is to protect the lives of the population, foster lives. But the underside of the power to protect life is the power to destroy that same life. States construct threats, for which to mobilize the population against, in the name of life's necessity. It's the idea that we need to go to war to save the population from the "evil enemy". We see this exhibited in the War on Terror. The state (US) construct an enemy(terrorists), and declares we need to be at war against terror, in a constantly offensive war to prevent terrorists from attacking us(that's the in the name of life's necessity). You see, the underside of the power to protect, is what insures a populations destruction. (i'll prove normalization leads to this in a bit)

Now that we've established the overall goal of a biopolitical state is, let's get back to the hospitals. Your point of view is that of the internal. Yours idea that hospitals simply help people ignores the intention of the sovereign in relation to hospitals. Because we know the sovereigns intention is always ending in mobilization, we can then start with the bottom up effects creating docile bodies.

First, the state needs people to mobilize. If people are dead, then who does the sovereign have to mobilize? Thus, the state uses "the power to foster life", to foster life. This life is excluded from the higher aims of the state, but it fostered to have a proverbial pool of docile bodies. I mean, does it really matter to the state whether an old man or woman in a retirement home live? Or the man on the street? No. But, by fostering that life, the state has persons for which to be a means to its ends.

Secondly, the ideas constructed by hospitals of good, bad, crazy, sick, poor etc. construct lines for which normalization can occur. If there's no lines, there's no way of telling what's normal and what isn't. Now don't get me wrong, people are sick, and that isn't a construction, but it's the way the state constructs these that are bad.

Third, there's normalizing medicines, used to prevent people from being a certain way. Ex: ridilin, stratera etc.

 

Now on the alternative:

The alternative changes this for a few reasons. Demands on the state cause change. If we reject a concept, a good government will always reflect and act. This means we completely alter the intent of the state.

Secondly, if the state has few, or no people to mobilize, what can it do but change?

Third, it's empirical. Before slavery was abolished, people used to mock blacks, beat blacks, and treat them terribly. (that's self normalization by the way, but, I'll explain it better in a bit) Now jump forward in time. Lincoln abolishes slavery. People slowly begin to treat blacks better. Now jump forward more, it's right after MLK. People are demanding black equality. You can see the shift from the lines of normalization, to where the lines have been erased, rejected, discarded.

Fourth, a genealogy solves. If we know what situations cause normalization, what situations of biopolitics equate in war, disaster etc. We can know what to reject, and what to prevent.

In biopolitics, truth feeds knowledge, and knowledge feeds truth. Truth feeds knowledge by X stating something is truth, and it becomes knowledge (ideas commonly held to be true by the population), and this knowledge feeds truth by spreading person to person(through self normalization.

A genealogy is the insurrection of knowledge. We analyze what is and isn't true, what are the right steps to take. Thus we circumvent the fluidity of power, in relation to biopolitics.

 

 

 

Biopower and massacres:

BERNAUER IN ’90 [James, philosophy professor, Boston College, “Michael Foucault's Force of Flight: Toward An Ethics Of Thought”, pgs. 141-142]

this period's politics created a landscape dominated by history's bloodiest wars. What comparison is possible between a sovereign's authority to take a life and a power that, in the interest of protecting a society's quality of life, can plan, as well as develop the means for its implementation, a policy of mutually assured destruction? Such a policy is neither an aberration of the fundamental principles of modern politics nor an abandonment of our age's humanism in favor of a more primitive right to kill; it is but the other side of a power that is "situated and exercised at the level of life, the species the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population. The bio-political project of administering and optimizing life closes its circle with the production of the Bomb.

 

First, they necessitate massacres because protecting a population from threats, both internal and external is a necessary component of power that protects a populations life. My war on terror analysis clears this up.

And don't think that the state is key to protect people's lives, kinda ya know, empirically denied.

Secondly, it's a part of the same system of power that protects lives. They're inseperable. "the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of a power to guarantee and individuals continued existence."

Third, the intent of modern wars prove it. Foucault describes: FOUCAULT IN '78 [Michel, kinky sexpot, “The History of Sexuality, Volume I”, pgs. 136-137]

Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction

 

Countries no longer go to war for the sake of crushing an enemy in the name of a king. They're waged against "threats". All of the technologies of power have tended towards destruction.

 

 

 

Now, Self Normalization:

First, normalization is where people try to fit into a norm to avoid disciplinary tactics. The norm is constructed by the state. And this norm is a productive, docile body. Docile bodies are person that don't resist power, and can be molded into the means to the state's ends.

Second, now self normalization. This is where people police themselves, and others. For instance, take a first grader tattling on his classmate for coloring while she was supposed to be reading. The norm is, do what the teacher says, and at the time, that was reading. The discipline the forces persons to become normalized is the punishment that follows. The self normalization is the tattling.

 

 

 

 

I think it's like what you do when no one is looking, ie you are regulated not to cross on a red light even if there are no other cars around. You also become an docile enforcer of state authority, letting the state define who the enemies are, etc

 

What I am cofused about it how you got that the intent of repealing DADT is to increase persons in the military. No, it is to have a policy of nondiscrimination.

It could be, but under the topic the intent is to increase persons serving. However, if you'd like me to elaborate on how I personally feel about its relation to biopolitics I can.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why would the state "save" a hippie, or an insurgent, or a protestor? These are the opposite of docile bodies, yet the state assists them as well. If they can't provide anything for the Sovereign, why does it help them? To be nice?

 

Also, who's to say the government is "good"? Why would they reconsider at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why would the state "save" a hippie, or an insurgent, or a protestor? These are the opposite of docile bodies, yet the state assists them as well. If they can't provide anything for the Sovereign, why does it help them? To be nice?

 

Also, who's to say the government is "good"? Why would they reconsider at all?

The majority of those hippies can be normalized through disciplinary tactics. Those First, military insurgents, if treated poorly will piss off others which may lead to more conflict. Also, the decent treatment of insurgents seems to encourage the enemy to treat our own well. Saving our soldiers life through decent treatment of theirs, and saving others lives through avoiding more conflict.

Now, insurgents in general, can still be normalized. And, because rights. Rights are tools of biopolitics, in which the population can be molded around. If the state went and abused these people's rights, wouldn't that create less docile bodies, by people being angered by the rights abuse.

 

Governments that aren't good are overthrown, and more likely to overthrown. I'm certain the state doesn't want that now do they? Thus they reflect and act to demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically you keep throwing the same tautological ball around..

 

"bad state bad,

good state good"

 

you still haven't proven why a policy of nondiscrimination is something a bad state would do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see this is why people run agamben not foucault nowadays. he would say sovereignty is always bad, "good biopower" just makeS the sovereign look good

 

agamben is statism with an alternative of debatable validity

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...