Jump to content
highlandmike

Impact turn to rhetoric K's

Recommended Posts

this is not a fully formulated idea yet, but something that occured to me while flipping through a copy of Orwell's 1984 I just want to see the reaction to the general idea.

 

1. LINK: their kritik of our rhetoric seeks to eliminate the existence of "bad" words.

 

2. I/L: when we eliminate words, we eliminate their meaning and our understanding of their meaning. The thought process relies on taking the essence of something and defining it. This makes thought about whatever the bad word represented impossible. This is where 1984 provoked my train of thought, on Newspeak and how by eliminating words Ingsoc sought to make thought outside of its approved ideology not possible.

 

(I was planning on cutting this I/L direct from the book, but can you recommend any secondary authors)

 

3. Impact: this is where my unfamiliarity with kritiks is limiting me. is their good lit for limiting freedom of thought bad? continuing with the 1984 theme I could just read totalitarianism bad, but then I have to win that any destruction of words is a tool of the state.

 

an issue I see is neg can just argue implications of the K outweigh, limiting thought good as long as it has bad effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give an example....say poverty or terror talk????

 

There might be some political correctness bad arguments that make a related argument. At the very least you should be able to use political correctness as a metaphor for what they are doing or the model of communication they are utilizing--either way you should be able to garner a link.

 

I know people read 2 cards from Excitable Speech by Judith Butler--when I cut this book I seem to remember more cards being in the chapter these two cards come from (I may be wrong).

 

Its possible this book by Diane Ravich has some relevant evidence.

 

is their good lit for limiting freedom of thought bad?
Free speech good. I know the LSC files (aka Legal Services Aff) from this topic should have evidence on this. I would just do a search on your hard drive (about 1/3 of the time this works with my Mac finder). Other folks may have other suggestions on how to impact or where to find free speech good impacts.

 

Free speech seems the prerequisite for a) debate B) their alternative. Realize, however, if they win otherization that they can possibly win inroads here. For instance, in the case of a fem K they can argue their impact (ie patriarchy) results in silencing of womyn and men. I still think this argument makes decent sense.

 

I'm sure if you search "PC and 1984" as well as "political correctness and 1984" would work. I might also search for Orwell or Orwellian.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are looking for answer to K's of language, here are some citations to help get the ball rolling:

 

foucault studies Their reductions of oppression to passive utterances obfuscates the material of people’s lives-trades off with real politics.

Brown, political science professor UC Berkeley, 2001

(Wendy, “Politics Out of History” pg 30, ldg)

 

But moralistic reproaches to certain kinds AND and names. Don’t mourn, moralize.

 

Attempts to control speech betrays political for moralism-precludes informed discussions about terms.

Brown, political science professor UC Berkeley, 2001

(Wendy, “Politics Out of History” pg 35, ldg)

 

“Speech codes kill critique,” Henry Louis AND historically specific social powers.

 

Linguistic change strategies fail-offending terms will be replaced by ones that seem benign but used the same way.

Zizek, senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology, 1999

(Slavoj, “The Ticklish Subject” pg 253-254, ldg)

 

Take politically correct probing AND this very act of inflicting wounds on himself.

 

Suppressing language does not suppress concepts – other words will develop that mirror these abuses

Bewes, Associate Professor of English at Brown, 1997

(Timothy, “Cynicism and postmodernity”, pg 48, ldg)

 

In this light, to begin to AND the same catachrestic abuses.

 

 

Turn-the refusal to turn dominant language against itself is politically paralyzing-precludes critical interrogation

Butler, rhetoric professor UC Berkeley, 1997

(Judith, “Excitable Speech”, pg 162, ldg)

 

Such dogmatism appears as well AND we keep in question.

 

Turn—quibbling over undecidable language choices diverts use from real issues and blocks social change.

Churchill, former professor ethnic studies University of Colorado, 1996

(Ward, “Semantic Masturbation on the Left,” From A Native Son, p 460, ldg)

 

There can be little doubt that matters AND of effecting positive social change.

 

Turn – The kritik fails and drives discourse underground – censorship does not change attitudes, causing a shift to the private sphere where linguistic and physical violence become inevitable

Gay, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston College, 1998

(William, “The Practice of Linguistic Nonviolence.” Peace Review 10, n4 (1998): 545-547., ldg)

 

The pacific discourse that is analogous to AND violence and physical violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're looking to expand this K, but if you want to debate Orwellian scenarios, I know I've read several articles and essays on how Orwellian government such as Ingsoc in 1984 is expanded through practices such as elimination of opponents or language it deems "bad".

 

This could help answer lots of offense on otherization, because this counter K(i think it would be?) would argue that deeming words as "bad" is expansion of this Orwellian government logic, and leads to otherization through deeming people who use "bad" words bad on that pretense, and eliminating opposition. Another angle would be saying that their impacts are just like the endless war Ingsoc uses to ensure support, meaning something along the lines of terror talk, and that their view on language as "bad" is terrible for terror talk and Orwellian government so they generate impacts of K, aff solves it back(whatever you put on that flow), and the counter K.

 

I can put together a reading list of stuff I remember if you want, unless you think my post was stupid, in which case forget it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can put together a reading list of stuff I remember if you want, unless you think my post was stupid, in which case forget it

 

I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can put together a reading list of stuff I remember if you want,

 

 

please do.

 

nathandebate: your post was helpful too. continuing with the 1984 analogy, lets use an example from Newspeak. In particular I believe the word "democracy" is discussed in the book. How can someone know what democracy is, if they've never experienced and don't have a definition (a word) to describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroys Truth and Decision making:

I think without a word to replace it either becomes overinclusive (ie democracy goes with capitalism or apple pie) or underinclusive (democracy is just voting)--which destroys truth and leads to bad decisions.

 

I think I would ask in cross-ex if they had an alternative word....this seems incredibly crucial. And it provides them with the minimum wiggle room and is a dramatic way to trigger the judges memory with respect to this key argument.

 

You may be in a little bit of a double bind because it seems the impact to this is that precision is key to truth (which has tension if they run spec arguments).

 

Subjectivity and Context/Meaning Turn: Overdeterminism:

I've also thought a little about how language critiques (dirty word Ks) have the tendency to take the control away from the speaker--destroying their subjectivity (ie their intended meaning--it incidently entirely ignores and destroys context which is critical to meaning making and understanding). Destroying subjectivity does seem to be a decent impact turn to Ks--it seems to recreate essentialism and stereotypes (and possibly even circles of accusations and counter accusations). I don't know a good analogy or example (all seem to use objectionable words.) The problem is that predictions do the same thing (Bleiker makes this later argument).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I think you're misinterpreting what Orwell was getting at. I don't think the point of Newspeak was to phase out words so that we can't think them in our heads. Just because we don't have a word for something doesn't mean we can't conceptualize it.

 

I think the better argument is that words, if phased out, will just be replaced with new words. Here's a Zizek card that accurately describes that. I think that's also more of what Orwell was saying which is why Newspeak had to be constantly updated. To prevent connotation from cementing and taking cultural effects.

 

Zizek 97

(Slavoj, Moving away from the darkness, The Plague of Fantasies, New York: Verso, 1997, 111-112) In his formidable...dismissing the aggressive sting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I actually believe that you are the one misinterpreting Orwell. Newspeak is not "updated", as you call it, but rather shrunken. The number of diverse words used to embody concepts in the vocabulary were either being condensed into one uber-word or flat out destroyed. My interpretation was of Ingsoc trying to make thought outside of its dominating ideology impossible. Your process of "updating" was a way of trying to further narrow the range of thought possible through this deletion of vocabulary. Granted it was not perfect, but in the book only the 10th addition was in common use with an 11th on the way. Given enough time newspeak could have become the ideal forum for (to use another Orwellian term) "duckspeak", where all thought was either for Big Brother or against his enemies.

 

I like the Zizek card, but to say that it is compatible and comparable with the systemic destruction of language laid out by Orwell in 1984 is just not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the above is true. Orwell conceptualized Newspeak as a way of limiting the vocabulary, and thus the communication, of ideas outside party ideology. Even if one could conceptualize a dissenting thought, he could not communicate it to others.

 

Not sure if this helps anyone and I know this thread is a bit old, but I just found this while going through a framework file:

 

Policymaking is like a completed version of Orwell’s ‘newspeak’ – it displaces language which it sees as a threat in favor of the common and popular methods which fall prey to the same domination that policymakers purport to avoid.

Bleiker, 00 Ph.D. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard, Cambridge, Humboldt, Tampere, Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague,(Roland, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge University Press)

Discourse and language are forms of concealment that offer opportunities to reveal. They are transversal forms of domination that offer opportunities to resist and transform. These practices of concealing and revealing must be examined in their cyclical existence. Without paying attention to the domineering aspects of language one cannot understand its potential for resistance. This is not unproblematic. For many authors the subjugating power of language is overwhelming. According to Heidegger 'man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man'. 22 Benjamin Lee Whorf, in his path-breaking study of Hopi conceptualisations of time and space, object and subject, argues that the individual is utterly unaware of the power of language to construct his/her consciousness and 'constrained completely within its unbreakable bonds'. 23 Roland Barthes goes even further in his notorious remarks during the inaugural lecture at the Collège de France. For him, freedom can exist only outside language. But languages have no outside. A language always imposes. It is, in this sense, 'neither reactionary nor progressive, it is simply fascist, for fascism does not prevent speech, it forces speech'. 24 Barthes' claim, largely dismissed as polemics, has the merit of reminding us that there is always an aspect of subjugation in the use of languages, no matter how objective, neutral and open they may appear.

George Orwell's fictional world provides a perfect illustration for this subjugating power of languages. Consider how Oceania introduced Newspeak to accommodate its official ideology, Ingsoc. New words were invented and undesirable ones either eliminated or stripped of unorthodox meanings. The objective of this exercise was that 'when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable'. 25 By then history would be rewritten to the point that even if fragments of documents from the past were still to surface, they simply would be unintelligible and untranslatable.

Edited by FiveIron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there could be some discussion of the context--however Bleiker is often read on both sides of the critique debate. Also the beginning paints at best a grey picture of the role of language and then the end paints pretty much a totally dark (or bleak) view. (I apologize for light/dark metaphors). Also, all the reasons for rosiness at the top are claims without warrants.

 

The below should be re-tagged....

And you have to be ready for

1) the above argument

2) the Realism/state/power structure already is Newspeak and 1984. (at best this might be a wash for them). If they just replicate the 1984 tactics I'm not sure how they make things better--they whitewash at best.

 

There is no outside for the critique to escape to--the fundamental fascism of language and cooption prevent critique solvency.

Bleiker, 00 Ph.D. visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard, Cambridge, Humboldt, Tampere, Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague,(Roland, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge University Press)

Discourse and language are forms of concealment that offer opportunities to reveal. They are transversal forms of domination that offer opportunities to resist and transform. These practices of concealing and revealing must be examined in their cyclical existence. Without paying attention to the domineering aspects of language one cannot understand its potential for resistance. This is not unproblematic. For many authors the subjugating power of language is overwhelming. According to Heidegger 'man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man'. 22 Benjamin Lee Whorf, in his path-breaking study of Hopi conceptualisations of time and space, object and subject, argues that the individual is utterly unaware of the power of language to construct his/her consciousness and 'constrained completely within its unbreakable bonds'. 23 Roland Barthes goes even further in his notorious remarks during the inaugural lecture at the Collège de France. For him, freedom can exist only outside language. But languages have no outside. A language always imposes. It is, in this sense, 'neither reactionary nor progressive, it is simply fascist, for fascism does not prevent speech, it forces speech'. 24 Barthes' claim, largely dismissed as polemics, has the merit of reminding us that there is always an aspect of subjugation in the use of languages, no matter how objective, neutral and open they may appear.

George Orwell's fictional world provides a perfect illustration for this subjugating power of languages. Consider how Oceania introduced Newspeak to accommodate its official ideology, Ingsoc. New words were invented and undesirable ones either eliminated or stripped of unorthodox meanings. The objective of this exercise was that 'when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable'. 25 By then history would be rewritten to the point that even if fragments of documents from the past were still to surface, they simply would be unintelligible and untranslatable.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...