Jump to content
Carissa

No Impact To Biopower Kritik?

Recommended Posts

Please explain how this card says "There is no impact to the Biowpoer Kritik"- I don't understand the connection

 

 

Liberal government solves—biopower must be combined with a concept of racial sovereignty to cause their impacts

Dean, 04 – professor of sociology at the University of Newcastle (Mitchell, “Four Theses on the Powers of Life and Death,†Contretemps 5, December 2004, http://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/5december2004/dean.pdf)//HK

 

Second Thesis: It is not merely the succession or addition of the modern powers over life to the ancient right of death but their very combination within modern states that is of significance. How these powers are combined accounts for whether they are malign or benign. According to this view, it is not the moment that life became a political object in the eighteenth century that defined the disturbing features of modern states. Rather, the different ways in which bio-politics is combined with sovereign power decide their character. Certain passages from Foucaultʼs lectures and from the History of Sexuality can be interpreted in this way. In a passage from the latter, Foucault shows that the genocidal character of National Socialism did not simply arise from its extension of bio-power.16 Nazism was concerned with the total administration of the life, of the family, of marriage, procreation, education and with the intensification of disciplinary micro-powers. But it articulated this with another set of features concerned with “the oneiric exaltation of a superior blood,†of fatherland, and of the triumph of the race. In other words, if we are to understand how the most dramatic forces of life and death were unleashed in the twentieth century, we have to understand how bio-power was articulated with elements of sovereignty and its symbolics. Pace Bauman, it is not simply the development of instrumental rationality in the form of modern bio-power, or a bureaucratic power applied to life that makes the Holocaust possible. It is the system of linkages, re-codings and re-inscriptions of sovereign notions of fatherland, territory, and blood within the new bio-political discourses of eugenics and racial hygiene that makes the unthinkable thinkable. The fact that all modern states must articulate elements of sovereignty with bio-politics Contretemps 5, December 2004 21 also allows for a virtuous combination. The virtue of liberal and democratic forms of government is that they deploy two instruments to check the unfettered imperatives of bio-power, one drawn from political economy and the other from sovereignty itself.17 Liberalism seeks to review the imperative to govern too much by pointing to the quasinatural processes of the market or of the exchanges of commercial society that are external to government. To govern economically means to govern through economic and other social processes external to government and also to govern in an efficient, cost-effective way. Liberalism also invokes the freedom and rights of a new subject—the sovereign individual. By ʻgoverning through freedomʼ and in relation to freedom, advanced liberal democracies are able to differentiate their bio-politics from that of modern totalitarian states and older police states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it says that "Liberalism", which in this context means individual sovereignty or autonomy, solves for abuses like genocides because those abuses were not based on just Bio-power. It discusses some alt causes for it, and then towards the end of the card talks about how Liberalism can be a thing that keeps the government from going overboard and becoming totalitarian. 

 

For more literature on Liberalism (which has nothing to do with conservative/liberal, it means maximizing individual freedom, usually via capitalism) and Liberal Government theory, look into the book "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can get away with just reading the 2nd half.  In fact you can probably get away with only reading 5 to 6 sentences.

 

Optimally though, you need to make the argument that abuses occur in the absense of structures (ie without government or without hegemony/leadership)  For instance, we need traffic signals and that results in net-more freedom. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's essentially a 'Democracy checks the impact' card, like biopower may be problematic but it isn't an impact unless it's combined with an unrestrained government

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest way of thinking about this is that control of populations is only bad when a government has bad intentions. A European social democracy has a ish-ton of control of marginilized groups but they generally just try to make them economically secure, their system isn't genocidal but rather benevolent. you could probably make that arg without any sort of evidence.

 

But Generic biopower K's are terrible arguments neway. you rly don't need this impact defense card, it's probably more strategic to go for a biopower good turn or biopower inevitable solvency take out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitability isn't the best response if you're going against a good kritik team. It's an easy argument to turn. Stick with other solvency arguments, biopower good, and that the perm solves best. Those arguments are probably true anyway, depending on your affirmative and how the K is ran.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitability isn't the best response if you're going against a good kritik team. It's an easy argument to turn. Stick with other solvency arguments, biopower good, and that the perm solves best. Those arguments are probably true anyway, depending on your affirmative and how the K is ran.

wait, good kritik teams read generic biopower?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really say that; biopower can be good and non-generic. A good kritik team would talk about how your aff (especially if it's super rightist, like all-out hegemony) is biopolitical, they'd reference specific lines in the 1AC, they'd talk about the discursive effects of debating in the round and how a bad disciplinary form (such as the 1AC) is a link in itself, and they'd hopefully spend a ton of time on how the K specifically interacts with the plan and the affirmative.

 

You're the one that specified generic biopower, not me, nor OP. But check out (I think!) the 3NR for a good card to cut on why inevitability is a link, not a turn. That's the title of the article at any rate; "Inevitability is a link, not a turn." Something like that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't really say that; biopower can be good and non-generic. A good kritik team would talk about how your aff (especially if it's super rightist, like all-out hegemony) is biopolitical, they'd reference specific lines in the 1AC, they'd talk about the discursive effects of debating in the round and how a bad disciplinary form (such as the 1AC) is a link in itself, and they'd hopefully spend a ton of time on how the K specifically interacts with the plan and the affirmative.

 

You're the one that specified generic biopower, not me, nor OP. But check out (I think!) the 3NR for a good card to cut on why inevitability is a link, not a turn. That's the title of the article at any rate; "Inevitability is a link, not a turn." Something like that.

yeah i just said 'biopower inevitable solvency take-out' i didn't say it was a turn, but defense that takes out their solvency.

 

anyway, i really didn't mean to say that everyone who runs biopower is bad @ k's, but its so played out at this point i rarely see ne1 run it on the West Coast K hack circuit. Kids go one off with more specific, strange critical theories. do good k teams run it in your circuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biopower is probably the best K on this topic if you ask me.

 

I think the idea that there is a 'generic' biopower K is a bad understanding of the argument itself. While the links might be generic (The State, Roleplaying, etc.), the argument is that recognizing the way avenues of control and appear manifest is a good epistemological practice and in turn a productive pedagogical activity. But this is why reading specific links is good, the point of the K is geneologize the knowledge/power structures of the affirmative, or in debate turns, read specific links to the 1AC.

 

Kritiks depend largely in part of who is running them. There are still people who phrase the alts to biopower as like 'reject biopower' as if that will change anything. Some people might consider Heidegger a bad K but put in the hands of someone who has comprehensively read Heidegger or McWhorter than it is a very difficult argument to answer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biopower is probably the best K on this topic if you ask me.

 

I think the idea that there is a 'generic' biopower K is a bad understanding of the argument itself. While the links might be generic (The State, Roleplaying, etc.), the argument is that recognizing the way avenues of control and appear manifest is a good epistemological practice and in turn a productive pedagogical activity. But this is why reading specific links is good, the point of the K is geneologize the knowledge/power structures of the affirmative, or in debate turns, read specific links to the 1AC.

 

Kritiks depend largely in part of who is running them. There are still people who phrase the alts to biopower as like 'reject biopower' as if that will change anything. Some people might consider Heidegger a bad K but put in the hands of someone who has comprehensively read Heidegger or McWhorter than it is a very difficult argument to answer.

 

well specific biopower k's are great on the infrastructure topic like ableism or blah blah blah whatever.

but the three foucault cards and vote neg alt is terrible, i've seen it in round and it's fucking terrible. it seems like the op was asking about a generic answer to a generic  biopower k and i responded as such. 'racial impacts' were the tip off to me.

 

i don't think i misunderstand the argument, i just fucking hate it cause it's non applicable to debate as theres no real alt solvency especially with alts with discursive implications. 

 

but i'd love to be proved wrong. i like foucault, but not when it encourages en masse intellectual masturbation about  'good epistemological practice and in turn a productive pedagogical activity' without clear-cut implications for debate rounds.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

geneologize the knowledge/power structures of the affirmative, or in debate turns, read specific links to the 1AC.

It's been a while since I've judge debates, but I've almost never seen this. (I have seen a video online where this was done....a cap. K versus a racism affirmative)

 

And certainly everyone has their definition of "genealogy" or what it means--or their own spin.

 

And the negative only has something like 26 minutes of speech time.

 

My guess is Foucault would have a certain difficulty calling reading a bunch of link cards and an alternative geneological.

 

In a world of offense/defense it probably doesn't matter (for instance: we're more geneological than you).

 

Its not a criticism as much as a commentary.

 

Cornfred could you explain the argument you are making here?:

Quote

well specific biopower k's are great on the infrastructure topic like ableism or blah blah blah whatever.

but the three foucault cards and vote neg alt is terrible, i've seen it in round and it's fucking terrible. it seems like the op was asking about a generic answer to a generic biopower k and i responded as such. 'racial impacts' were the tip off to me.

i don't think i misunderstand the argument, i just fucking hate it cause it's non applicable to debate as theres no real alt solvency especially with alts with discursive implications.

but i'd love to be proved wrong. i like foucault, but not when it encourages en masse intellectual masturbation about 'good epistemological practice and in turn a productive pedagogical activity' without clear-cut implications for debate rounds.

Also, the idea of a generic answer to a biopower K not being relevant. I don't understand.

 

Its a matter of being over-tagged or mis-tagged....and explaining the argument the evidence really makes. Not it being "generic" per se.

 

Techically the card is biopower can be productive. Or democratic state can check biopower----

so its a matter of if the affirmative can stake a claim to access liberalism, democracy, or democratic institutions or the values those institutions stand for (rule of law, free press, etc..which ultimately drive democracy or help it to thrive.)

 

So I guess...it is a matter of:

1. tagging it actually correctly

2. framing it in terms of what your affirmative actually does & the arguments you make there in (what you access & advocate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I've judge debates, but I've almost never seen this. (I have seen a video online where this was done....a cap. K versus a racism affirmative)

 

And certainly everyone has their definition of "genealogy" or what it means--or their own spin.

 

And the negative only has something like 26 minutes of speech time.

 

My guess is Foucault would have a certain difficulty calling reading a bunch of link cards and an alternative geneological.

 

In a world of offense/defense it probably doesn't matter (for instance: we're more geneological than you).

 

Its not a criticism as much as a commentary.

 

Cornfred could you explain the argument you are making here?:

 

Also, the idea of a generic answer to a biopower K not being relevant. I don't understand.

 

Its a matter of being over-tagged or mis-tagged....and explaining the argument the evidence really makes. Not it being "generic" per se.

 

Techically the card is biopower can be productive. Or democratic state can check biopower----

so its a matter of if the affirmative can stake a claim to access liberalism, democracy, or democratic institutions or the values those institutions stand for (rule of law, free press, etc..which ultimately drive democracy or help it to thrive.)

 

So I guess...it is a matter of:

1. tagging it actually correctly

2. framing it in terms of what your affirmative actually does & the arguments you make there in (what you access & advocate)

 

I'm saying the generic biopower k is not relevant. I'm not saying the generic answer isn't relevant, it's as relevant as kim kardashians ass.

 

the argument i'm making is that I don't believe any critique alternative can solve for biopower. It's hard to say some words in front of five other people and say 'hey bro biopowers over now' and it's even harder to have solvency with an alternative that advocates 'revolution' or 'anarchy' as these systems inevitably end in some fucked up biopolitical genocide ala stalin. I think biopower is inevitable. that's my arg. it might be stupid but that's what i believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any kritik ran ultra-stereotypically is poorly run (cap, heidegger, etc.). For Biopower, it doesn't seem sensical to read anything other than specific links because the links ARE the alternatives. With that said, 'generic' links like the state, fiat, etc., are all examples of biopolitical practices and how they emerge in local knowledge/power regimes.

 

 

And with all due respect cornfred, that is a very unproductive view of both biopower and kritik debate in general. Foucault's alternative relies on the idea that power comes from the bottom up, knowledge legitimizes institutions of power. Inversely, power can create the parameters for what knowledge is available or known. This creates a feedback loop where those in power can maintain power by presenting certain power structures as inevitable. This is where the idea of critique becomes useful, and part of the reason authors like Derrida and Foucault radically changed the assumptions behind materialists and structuralists. Critique allows us to change the questions being asked and contest ideas and concepts commonly presented as truth, problematization can disrupt authoritative practices and create an understanding of why certain things occur as a result of our actions so we can change our actions, and geneology (the act of describing a particular way a certain institution, idea, or concept came about) allows us to better understand how power comes about and point out that power structures are neither natural or neutral, and are always able to be contested. This is probably a prerequisite to any form of social change or movement that can actually go out and challenge these institutions.

 

Foucault never presents biopower as objectively bad or good, but as dangerous. There are some biopolitical practices that may be considered to be for the best, but the process of critique is still important to contextualize instances of power and understand the way power operates. Nobody reads an alternative to biopower and fiats that biopower is over, that's ridiculous. With that said, even the alternative of rejection can arguably be good. I think your understanding of the argument sort of escapes the idea that debate is solely a linguistic activity. Like nuclear war isn't avoided and NIB isn't passed because a couple of high school kids talk about it, the idea is that certain discussions are pedagogically useful, which is why we participate in debate. To say the biopower K 'encourages en masse intellectual masturbation' is kind of vacuous considering that is arguably what all debate could be understood as. This is ultimately why if someone wins their critique is a 'good epistemological practice and in turn a productive pedagogical activity' then it is a better form of debate than the aff's policymaking. Much like things like racism, if we win that a particular mode of thinking is bad, harmful or dangerous, then we probably shouldn't be complicit with it in any form. Even if it is inevitable, we should at least be critical about it. To say it is without clear-cut implications for debate rounds is probably incredible over-simplicated and one-sided. I personally think using debate as a ground to contest dominant and violent modes of knowing and changing the way we relate to politics is incredibly useful and has better educational value than having the same nuclear war debate every round. However that is only my interpretation, the beauty of debate is that there is no objective criteria for it and we can debate about which types of education are better, which ultimately is the debate itself.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with some of your arguments on principle.

 

I don't mean to get overly philosophical....but your notions of "inevitability" and "solvency" may be a bit problematic.

In fact, to seemingly even give your inevitably argument the fairest shake we can give it...we need to know

what arguments you're grounding that on.

 

To win that argument you need to win that we will securitize every instance where securitization is a possibility--not

just that some securitization will occur.  (for instance hurricanes may be inevitable....but not in my backyard or in many places around the globe.  Thats different from the claim that gravity inevitable on planet earth.)

 

The idea that you would abandon an ethic based on a supposed inevitability calls into question the nature of

your commitment to the ethical--the basis of your judgements and your aff.  (sorry, i'm not fully developing this argument--and in some ways its external and unneccesary to the overall debate.

 

But overall--I think four things are key:

1. We probably shouldn't look the other way.  We shouldn't turn a blind eye.  

2. Try or die.  (Offense/defense paradigm)

3. The ballot is uniqueness--its a forced choice between worldviews.

4. Alt beats it back some.  Our alt specificity trumps
 

I think getting through that wall of 4.....in front of they typical circuit judge who doesn't have a axe to grind with critiques....would be pretty successful (especially with just a little development).  There are still others....but I would reveal my hand so to speak.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could upvote aubtin more than once, that analysis was great.

Foucault's alternative relies on the idea that power comes from the bottom up, knowledge legitimizes institutions of power. Inversely, power can create the parameters for what knowledge is available or known. This creates a feedback loop where those in power can maintain power by presenting certain power structures as inevitable. This is where the idea of critique becomes useful, and part of the reason authors like Derrida and Foucault radically changed the assumptions behind materialists and structuralists.

...

Even if it is inevitable, we should at least be critical about it. To say it is without clear-cut implications for debate rounds is probably incredible over-simplicated and one-sided. 

This is why any "inevitability" argument against kritiks are new links, not turns. In the case of a properly ran biopower K especially, "biopower inevitable" actually gets turned. If you present something to be so insurmountable as to be unworthy of our attention or evaluation (despite its problematic implications), then you've just reinforced the hell out of this (problematic) something; in this example, biopolitical relations between knowledge production (the 1AC) and power, especially the incredible power of pedagogy - after all, that's what debate is: pedagogical power in the hands of students.

 

http://the3nr.com/2010/05/25/kritik-concepts-1-inevitability-is-a-link-not-a-turn/

That's the post I was referring to earlier by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why any "inevitability" argument against kritiks are new links, not turns.

 

Most of the teams that read this are going for an impact turn strategy in many cases.

 

Also, teams which make specific inevitability claims in the context of their aft may in fact not be quite so dubiously positioned.  They aren't making the same kind of totalizing claims the link card is talking about.  

 

This might force the team to choose to go for the impact turn strategy or otherwise hamper their permutation strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inevitability argument is defensive at best... Your answer to this card should be the same answers you are reading on the perm  debate. The author Todd May is invaluable.
Long story short: He says macropolitics can never solve anything, furthermore, it co-opts micropolitics because that is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of macropolitics. That's bad because only micropolitics can solve anything. The idea that macropolitics can cause any real change is exactly how the cycle is perpetuated. You then frame the round saying that YOU are the micropolitical movement, and you are the formation of the genealogy of power/knowledge that Foucault pictured. This means fuck their fiat, because that shit isn't even real. What is real and what really matters is the discourse in the round. 

  • Upvote 2

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...