Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is an okay card:

 

Turn: Deleuzian Politics lead to Genocide

Barbrook 98 [Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at U of Westminster, The Holy Fools]

While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari’s dream of destroying the city. Led by a vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime installed by the Americans. Rejecting the ‘grand narrative’ of economic progress, Pol Pot and his organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and genocide. The ‘line of flight’ from Stalin had led to Pol Pot. [22]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone had any authors, cites, whatever regarding answers to this forum's favorite philosopher.  The specific answers I'm looking for are

-AT Nomadology Mann

-AT Deleuzian criticisms of the state Anyone who writes about the state being good will probably attack Deleuze's theories as to why the state is bad. 

 

This isn't a request for evidence, just a request for authors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can PM me for more cards if interested.

 

The state military apparatus utilizes nomadic tactics to annihilate indigenous populations. Sedentary institutions and international laws actually constrain state power and prevent brutality.

 

Watson 2005 (Janell, Prof. @ Virginia Tech & Editor of Minnesota Review. “Oil Wars, or the Extrastate Conflict ‘Beyond the Line’: Schmitt’s Nomos, Deleuze’s War Machine, and the New Order of the Earth.†South Atlantic Quarterly 104:2.)

As Manuel Delanda points out, certain historical moments favor the state military over the nomadic war machine, especially when technological changes also affect the ability of weak states to resist their more powerful rivals. There are great military machines that only states can afford, such as the stealth bombers and tanks currently in use in the Middle East. Furthermore, the divide between the state military and the nomadic war machine is not always cut and dried. Modern armies have adopted many nomadic tactics, such as the use of small independent commando units conducting raids, even though it is only with difficulty that state armies consistently relinquish enough control that soldiers may use the decentralized tactics of the nomads.11 Also nomadic is the U.S. Pentagon’s marked preference for the desert as a theater of war, as opposed to forested mountains. It is easy to imagine Donald Rumsfeld as he dreams of waging a nomadic war in the smooth space of the Iraqi desert. Damn that state that will not allow his soldiers to act as warriors. Damn the international community that will not grant Iraq the full status of nonstate soil—the space in which international law does not hold. The humanizing, rationalizing, and legalizing side of the state, whose positive accomplishments Deleuze and Guattari fail to acknowledge, does in fact constrain my imaginary Rumsfeld with international laws and policies such as the Geneva Convention, in effect bracketing war, even when a powerful state is fighting ‘‘beyond the line’’ on nonstate soil, such as that of the overthrown Iraq. The international community and its institutions for maintaining rules of military engagement pose the greatest impediment to today’s most powerful state armies, which might wish to employ the brutal tactics of the nomads or to annihilate indigenous peoples—modern-day nomads.

 

The concept of the nomad produces sterile politics and cedes the political.  Because it’s too purist it leaves too many questions, like feasibility, unanswered.

 

Newman 10 [saul, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory & Event Volume 13, Issue 2]

At the same time, however, we should be cautious here of too easy an identification of Badiou’s thought with anarchism; to do so would be to elide the important ways in which it makes problematic certain aspects of the revolutionary narrative of classical anarchism.9 What would be opposed in Badiou’s account is the idea of the pure social revolution that destroys state power in one giant upheaval. The spontaneous movement of social forces against the state is premised on the Manichean division – central to classical anarchism – between the natural social principle, and the artificial political principle, between, in other words, society and the state. What this opposition neglects, according to Badiou, is the deeper dialectical relationship between these two forces. In a critique of what he saw as the libertarianism of Deleuze and Guattari’s work Anti-Oedipus, with its polar opposites of Flux and the System, the Nomad and the Despot, the Schizo and the Paranoiac – in other words of the spontaneous, revolutionary movement of desire against fixed, authoritarian structures and identities – Badiou argues that this simply leads to a sterile politics of resistance and opposition which leaves existing power structures intact.10 The critique referred to here was written in the 1970s, during Badiou’s more explicitly Maoist and also Marxist-Leninist phase; and, indeed, it is interesting to note the major contrast between his earlier insistence on the iron discipline of the vanguard party and its project of seizing state power - in opposition to ‘anarcho-desirers’ like Deleuze and Guattari - and his more recent attempts to conceive of a politics beyond the state and the party. For all his criticism of the anarchist tradition, Badiou, it would seem, has moved further in this direction in recent years and I can only add that, when compared to his earlier fetishization of the vanguard party, this is a good thing.  However, is there anything in this critique of left libertarianism - what he denounced at the time, using the sectarian jargon of the day, as ultra-leftism11 – that is worthy of more serious consideration? What I think can be taken from this is a certain problematization of the absolute moral division between society and power that was central to classical anarchism. What Badiou’s critique forces us to consider is the extent to which this sort of Manicheanism obscures a more complex relationship between the two forces; the way that – in a Foucauldian sense – there might be a more intimate interaction between the society and power, a realisation which would unsettle to some extent the revolutionary narrative of the great, spontaneous upheaval against state power. More specifically, anarchists would be forced to grapple with the realities of power: what does it mean to destroy state power?; how can this be concretely achieved?; can the overthrow of the state be realised without an engagement with other power relations?; to what extent is the idea of a totalising revolution against state power a comfortable illusion which condemns anarchism to a kind of purist position, which in reality is a position of impotence? In other words, such considerations would make it difficult for anarchism to sustain a position of pure anti-politics. It is questions such as these which necessitate a rethinking of certain aspects of classical anarchism, and it is here that we could speak of a ‘postanarchism’.12 However, we must not concede too much to Badiou here.

Edited by CharlieH
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no answer to my philosophy. Just give up. 

 

Here's something for nomadology-

 

Your criticism changes nothing – nomadic politics as a basis for criticism is already incorporated within the logic of territorialization and state-capitalism.

Bülent Diken, lecturer in Sociology at Lancaster University, and Carsten Bagge Laustsen, Ph.D. student at the University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Sciences, September 2001, online: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Diken-Laustsen-Enjoy-Your-Fight.pdf, accessed August 24, 2004

The development of the contemporary society confirms that critique is not a peripheral activity; rather, it contributes to capitalist innovations that assimilate critique, which is constantly confronted with the danger of becoming dysfunctional. Capitalism had received mainly two forms of critique until the 1970s: the social critique from the Marxist camp (exploitation) and the aesthetic critique from the new French philosophy (nomadism). Since the 1970s capitalism has found new forms of legitimation in the artist critique, which resulted in a “transfer of competencies from leftist radicalism toward management†(Boltanski & Chiapello; quoted in Guilhot 2000: 360). Consequently, the aesthetic critique has dissolved into a post-Fordist normative regime of justification, the notion of creativity is re-coded in terms of flexibility, and difference is commercialized. This is perhaps nowhere more visible than in the production process of the movie Fight Club itself as an aesthetic commodity: “David [Fincher] said to me, ‘You know, Chuck, we’re not just selling the movie Fight Club. We’re selling the idea of fight clubs.’†(Palahniuk quoted in Sult 1999). Thus Fight Club is hardly an “anti-institutional†response to contemporary capitalism, just as creativity, perversion or transgression are not necessarily emancipatory today. Power has already evacuated the bastion Fight Club is attacking and it can effortlessly support Fight Club’s assault on sedentariness. Palahniuk says: “We really have no freedom about creating our identities, because we are trained to want what we want. What is it going to take to break out and establish some modicum of freedom, despite all the cultural training that’s been our entire existence? It’s about doing the things that are completely forbidden, that we are trained not to want to do†(quoted in Jenkins 1999). What Palahniuk enjoys the luxury of overseeing here is precisely that such strategies are emancipatory only in so far as power poses hierarchy exclusively through essentialism and stable binary divisions. But many of the concepts romanticised by Palahniuk’s Fight Club find a correspondence in the network capitalism and its aesthetic Mecca, Hollywood, today. As Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly emphasized, smooth space and nomadism do not have an irresistable revolutionary calling but change meaning drastically depending on the context (see 1987: 387). Neither mobility nor immobility are liberatory in themselves. Subversion or liberation can only be related to taking control of the production of mobility and statis (Hardt & Negri 2000: 156). In this respect, Fight Club’s aesthetic critique sounds, if not cynical, naïve. Asked by CNN if he is amused by the irony that Hollywood decided to make a violent movie about anti-consumerism by spending millions of dollars, Palahniuk answers that “it seems like the ultimate absurd joke. In a way it’s funnier than the movie itself†(CNN 1999). Yes, indeed, but as we tried to show there are reasons why it is so.

 

 

Nomadic politics cause genocide.

 

Barbrook 98 [Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at U of Westminster, The Holy Fools]

While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari’s dream of destroying the city. Led by a vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime installed by the Americans. Rejecting the ‘grand narrative’ of economic progress, Pol Pot and his organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and genocide. The ‘line of flight’ from Stalin had led to Pol Pot. [22]

 

 

Nomadism is only possible for those in a position of privilege. Nomadology is a bourgeoise masculine subjectivity masquerading as cosmopolitanism.

 

Hannam et al. 2006 (Kevin, School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland, Mimi Sheller, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Swarthmore College, John Urry, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings,†Mobilities Vol. 1, No. 1, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450100500489189.)

Mobilities also are caught up in power geometries of everyday life (Massey, 1994). There are new places and technologies that enhance the mobility of some peoples and places even as they also heighten the immobility of others, especially as people try to cross borders (Timothy, 2001; Verstraete, 2004; Wood & Graham, 2006). ‘Differential mobility empowerments reflect structures and hierarchies of power and position by race, gender, age and class, ranging from the local to the global’ (Tesfahuney, 1998, p.501). Rights to travel, for example, are highly uneven and skewed even between a pair of countries (Timothy, 2001; Gogia, 2006). Many feminist theorists have argued that nomadic theory rests on a ‘romantic reading of mobility’, and that ‘certain ways of seeing [arise] as a result of this privileging of cosmopolitan mobility’ (Kaplan, 2006; see also Pritchard, 2000; Tsing, 2002). Ahmed, for example, critiques mobile forms of subjectivity and argues that the ‘idealisation of movement, or transformation of movement into a fetish, depends upon the exclusion of others who are already positioned as not free in the same way’ (Ahmed, 2004, p.152). Skeggs further argues that the mobility paradigm can be linked to a ‘bourgeois masculine subjectivity’ that describes itself as ‘cosmopolitan’; she points out that ‘[m]obility and control over mobility both reflect and reinforce power. Mobility is a resource to which not everyone has an equal relationship’ (Skeggs, 2004, p.49; see also Morley, 2002; Sheller & Urry, 2006b). It is not a question of privileging a ‘mobile subjectivity’, therefore, but rather of tracking the power and politics of discourses and practices of mobility in creating both movement and stasis (Cresswell, 1999; Maurer, 2002; Franklin et al., 2000).

Edited by Deleuze
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no answer to my philosophy. Just give up. 

 

Here's something for nomadology-

 

Your criticism changes nothing – nomadic politics as a basis for criticism is already incorporated within the logic of territorialization and state-capitalism.

Bülent Diken, lecturer in Sociology at Lancaster University, and Carsten Bagge Laustsen, Ph.D. student at the University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Sciences, September 2001, online: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Diken-Laustsen-Enjoy-Your-Fight.pdf, accessed August 24, 2004

The development of the contemporary society confirms that critique is not a peripheral activity; rather, it contributes to capitalist innovations that assimilate critique, which is constantly confronted with the danger of becoming dysfunctional. Capitalism had received mainly two forms of critique until the 1970s: the social critique from the Marxist camp (exploitation) and the aesthetic critique from the new French philosophy (nomadism). Since the 1970s capitalism has found new forms of legitimation in the artist critique, which resulted in a “transfer of competencies from leftist radicalism toward management†(Boltanski & Chiapello; quoted in Guilhot 2000: 360). Consequently, the aesthetic critique has dissolved into a post-Fordist normative regime of justification, the notion of creativity is re-coded in terms of flexibility, and difference is commercialized. This is perhaps nowhere more visible than in the production process of the movie Fight Club itself as an aesthetic commodity: “David [Fincher] said to me, ‘You know, Chuck, we’re not just selling the movie Fight Club. We’re selling the idea of fight clubs.’†(Palahniuk quoted in Sult 1999). Thus Fight Club is hardly an “anti-institutional†response to contemporary capitalism, just as creativity, perversion or transgression are not necessarily emancipatory today. Power has already evacuated the bastion Fight Club is attacking and it can effortlessly support Fight Club’s assault on sedentariness. Palahniuk says: “We really have no freedom about creating our identities, because we are trained to want what we want. What is it going to take to break out and establish some modicum of freedom, despite all the cultural training that’s been our entire existence? It’s about doing the things that are completely forbidden, that we are trained not to want to do†(quoted in Jenkins 1999). What Palahniuk enjoys the luxury of overseeing here is precisely that such strategies are emancipatory only in so far as power poses hierarchy exclusively through essentialism and stable binary divisions. But many of the concepts romanticised by Palahniuk’s Fight Club find a correspondence in the network capitalism and its aesthetic Mecca, Hollywood, today. As Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly emphasized, smooth space and nomadism do not have an irresistable revolutionary calling but change meaning drastically depending on the context (see 1987: 387). Neither mobility nor immobility are liberatory in themselves. Subversion or liberation can only be related to taking control of the production of mobility and statis (Hardt & Negri 2000: 156). In this respect, Fight Club’s aesthetic critique sounds, if not cynical, naïve. Asked by CNN if he is amused by the irony that Hollywood decided to make a violent movie about anti-consumerism by spending millions of dollars, Palahniuk answers that “it seems like the ultimate absurd joke. In a way it’s funnier than the movie itself†(CNN 1999). Yes, indeed, but as we tried to show there are reasons why it is so.

 

 

Nomadic politics cause genocide.

 

Barbrook 98 [Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at U of Westminster, The Holy Fools]

While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari’s dream of destroying the city. Led by a vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime installed by the Americans. Rejecting the ‘grand narrative’ of economic progress, Pol Pot and his organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and genocide. The ‘line of flight’ from Stalin had led to Pol Pot. [22]

 

 

Nomadism is only possible for those in a position of privilege. Nomadology is a bourgeoise masculine subjectivity masquerading as cosmopolitanism.

 

Hannam et al. 2006 (Kevin, School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland, Mimi Sheller, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Swarthmore College, John Urry, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, “Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings,†Mobilities Vol. 1, No. 1, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17450100500489189.)

Mobilities also are caught up in power geometries of everyday life (Massey, 1994). There are new places and technologies that enhance the mobility of some peoples and places even as they also heighten the immobility of others, especially as people try to cross borders (Timothy, 2001; Verstraete, 2004; Wood & Graham, 2006). ‘Differential mobility empowerments reflect structures and hierarchies of power and position by race, gender, age and class, ranging from the local to the global’ (Tesfahuney, 1998, p.501). Rights to travel, for example, are highly uneven and skewed even between a pair of countries (Timothy, 2001; Gogia, 2006). Many feminist theorists have argued that nomadic theory rests on a ‘romantic reading of mobility’, and that ‘certain ways of seeing [arise] as a result of this privileging of cosmopolitan mobility’ (Kaplan, 2006; see also Pritchard, 2000; Tsing, 2002). Ahmed, for example, critiques mobile forms of subjectivity and argues that the ‘idealisation of movement, or transformation of movement into a fetish, depends upon the exclusion of others who are already positioned as not free in the same way’ (Ahmed, 2004, p.152). Skeggs further argues that the mobility paradigm can be linked to a ‘bourgeois masculine subjectivity’ that describes itself as ‘cosmopolitan’; she points out that ‘[m]obility and control over mobility both reflect and reinforce power. Mobility is a resource to which not everyone has an equal relationship’ (Skeggs, 2004, p.49; see also Morley, 2002; Sheller & Urry, 2006b). It is not a question of privileging a ‘mobile subjectivity’, therefore, but rather of tracking the power and politics of discourses and practices of mobility in creating both movement and stasis (Cresswell, 1999; Maurer, 2002; Franklin et al., 2000).

 

TRAITOR! 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State Bad: There's a lot of state good authors.  Honestly, I'd be really tempted to read Hobbes combined with some descriptions of *actual nomads*, like a good historical analysis of, say, pirates.  (Both how the lack of law created problems, and how they solved these problems by adopting strict rules of conduct with harsh penalties).

 

Nomadology: Do you really need a card?  xP

I'd probably go with Hallward's indictment of Deleuze as being uninterested in actuality to the point of inaction.  He never wants to *do*, and thus fails to solve anything.

 

Edit: Something else worth pointing out is that Deleuze, like all anti-state critics, miss the fundamental problem which the state was designed to address: That pre-state lawlessness has few constraints.  The local group, a rather small number of individuals in pre-state settings, might be safe from violence, but there will be substantial violence between groups, and the local group will systematize and codify acceptable behavior rigidly (quite like the pirate example, actually - there's a wealth of anthropology literature on cultural mores and taboos).  

 

Anarchists, left and 'right' (libertarian), imagine post-state society as still civil society - something that functions within agreed upon social norms.  That wouldn't exist in the first place without an historical state.  On the one hand, there's no guarantee those social norms would be ones the anarchists would approve of - how do you compel everyone in your anarchist utopia to behave properly?  The circumstances where the majority doesn't persecute minorities, in a situation without government, are difficult to get to without government.

 

(The evidence for anarchist communes all exists in situations where dissenters could return to the state by leaving - there was no absence of state.  (Or worse, the commune itself behaved like a state and compelled obedience).  Libertarian anarchists have decent historical evidence that their anarchy principles work in practice - because they imagine people creating rules for themselves via contractual negotiation to deal with the lack of a state, and that's what people actually do.  It's the same impulse behind making a state, just without the ability of any of the participants to compel obedience).

 

It's one thing to argue for something.  But when you have to romanticize reality to make your position compelling, you're probably wrong.  Deleuze is definitely guilty of this in his description of nomads.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The concept of the nomad produces sterile politics and cedes the political.  Because it’s too purist it leaves too many questions, like feasibility, unanswered.

 

Newman 10 [saul, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory & Event Volume 13, Issue 2]

At the same time, however, we should be cautious here of too easy an identification of Badiou’s thought with anarchism; to do so would be to elide the important ways in which it makes problematic certain aspects of the revolutionary narrative of classical anarchism.9 What would be opposed in Badiou’s account is the idea of the pure social revolution that destroys state power in one giant upheaval. The spontaneous movement of social forces against the state is premised on the Manichean division – central to classical anarchism – between the natural social principle, and the artificial political principle, between, in other words, society and the state. What this opposition neglects, according to Badiou, is the deeper dialectical relationship between these two forces. In a critique of what he saw as the libertarianism of Deleuze and Guattari’s work Anti-Oedipus, with its polar opposites of Flux and the System, the Nomad and the Despot, the Schizo and the Paranoiac – in other words of the spontaneous, revolutionary movement of desire against fixed, authoritarian structures and identities – Badiou argues that this simply leads to a sterile politics of resistance and opposition which leaves existing power structures intact.10 The critique referred to here was written in the 1970s, during Badiou’s more explicitly Maoist and also Marxist-Leninist phase; and, indeed, it is interesting to note the major contrast between his earlier insistence on the iron discipline of the vanguard party and its project of seizing state power - in opposition to ‘anarcho-desirers’ like Deleuze and Guattari - and his more recent attempts to conceive of a politics beyond the state and the party. For all his criticism of the anarchist tradition, Badiou, it would seem, has moved further in this direction in recent years and I can only add that, when compared to his earlier fetishization of the vanguard party, this is a good thing.  However, is there anything in this critique of left libertarianism - what he denounced at the time, using the sectarian jargon of the day, as ultra-leftism11 – that is worthy of more serious consideration? What I think can be taken from this is a certain problematization of the absolute moral division between society and power that was central to classical anarchism. What Badiou’s critique forces us to consider is the extent to which this sort of Manicheanism obscures a more complex relationship between the two forces; the way that – in a Foucauldian sense – there might be a more intimate interaction between the society and power, a realisation which would unsettle to some extent the revolutionary narrative of the great, spontaneous upheaval against state power. More specifically, anarchists would be forced to grapple with the realities of power: what does it mean to destroy state power?; how can this be concretely achieved?; can the overthrow of the state be realised without an engagement with other power relations?; to what extent is the idea of a totalising revolution against state power a comfortable illusion which condemns anarchism to a kind of purist position, which in reality is a position of impotence? In other words, such considerations would make it difficult for anarchism to sustain a position of pure anti-politics. It is questions such as these which necessitate a rethinking of certain aspects of classical anarchism, and it is here that we could speak of a ‘postanarchism’.12 However, we must not concede too much to Badiou here.

 

this card as cut here ends mid-paragraph... right after "we must not concede too much to Badiou here", the paragraph goes on to explain why Badiou's criticism of Deleuze-inspired anarchism isn't a reason to reject that ethos generally -- newman (as is standard for him) concludes that the promise of post-state autonomy is still worth fighting for.

 

#campfiles

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not really sure mann is that useful against deleuze...bit of a jump from his arguments about postmodern artwork to deleuzian politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this card as cut here ends mid-paragraph... right after "we must not concede too much to Badiou here", the paragraph goes on to explain why Badiou's criticism of Deleuze-inspired anarchism isn't a reason to reject that ethos generally -- newman (as is standard for him) concludes that the promise of post-state autonomy is still worth fighting for.

 

#campfiles

 

People who cite authors as saying things they don't actually say really bothers me.  Ug.  

 

In this day of open evidence and massive file sharing, people cutting cards have an obligation to understand and fairly represent their author's intent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who cite authors as saying things they don't actually say really bothers me.  Ug.  

 

In this day of open evidence and massive file sharing, people cutting cards have an obligation to understand and fairly represent their author's intent.

how does one define author's intent? That's almost impossible to divine. 

 

It's clear that the author clearly intends to effectively represent argument A, and then present a criticism of it with argument B.

 

Cutting A in a way that doesn't materially alter the wording or warrants is only unethical if the standard for ethics is "does the author agree with it".

 

That standard is impossible to meet - not only are most academics unresponsive to random undergrad (or HS student) emails - it makes almost every scholar's early work un-cite-able at all, since most evolve and change their positions over time. Even Deleuze changes several of his positions over the course of his scholarship. 

 

As long as the cutting doesn't misrepresent the wording of the article, I don't have a problem with it. There's also a competitive incentive to minimizing the practice - having the other team cut a "your author votes neg" card. That check is especially powerful in a world of open evidence, as you noted. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who cite authors as saying things they don't actually say really bothers me.  Ug.  

 

In this day of open evidence and massive file sharing, people cutting cards have an obligation to understand and fairly represent their author's intent.

I thought you believed in "death of the author" haha

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you believed in "death of the author" haha

 

Also @Snarf:

 

Yeah, but that means assessing the document for what it says without considering the author's later statements.  When the document says something other than what you 'cleverly' cut it to say, you're lying about what the document says.

 

If there's a disagreement over what the author means, based on the document, that's one thing.  When its obvious the author is summarizing opposing views so they can comment on them, that's totally different.

 

(I don't believe on contacting the author or using other sources to assess the meaning of a particular document.  The document should 'speak' for itself.  That is, the actual living author isn't relevant to interpreting the document, but the document itself is definitely relevant).

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also @Snarf:

 

Yeah, but that means assessing the document for what it says without considering the author's later statements.  When the document says something other than what you 'cleverly' cut it to say, you're lying about what the document says.

 

If there's a disagreement over what the author means, based on the document, that's one thing.  When its obvious the author is summarizing opposing views so they can comment on them, that's totally different.

 

(I don't believe on contacting the author or using other sources to assess the meaning of a particular document.  The document should 'speak' for itself.  That is, the actual living author isn't relevant to interpreting the document, but the document itself is definitely relevant).

I'm not sure how you're lying about what it says if you quote it verbatim. The author is asserting that X argument is an argument for Y thing - s/he just doesn't find it compelling for Z reason.

 

I have no idea why taking the assertion "X argument is an argument for Y thing" is lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you're lying about what it says if you quote it verbatim. The author is asserting that X argument is an argument for Y thing - s/he just doesn't find it compelling for Z reason.

 

I have no idea why taking the assertion "X argument is an argument for Y thing" is lying. 

I think its not "cheating" but its really unstrategic.  If your author is addressing other people's points so s/he can refute them, you should probably be cutting from the author whose points are being refuted/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its not "cheating" but its really unstrategic.  If your author is addressing other people's points so s/he can refute them, you should probably be cutting from the author whose points are being refuted/

wholly agreed on both counts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wholly agreed on both counts. 

I've seen some cases (such as with Greene and Hicks evidence) where for some reason, the original article can't be found- but they usually indicate in the cite that it is truly the "original author" who's ideas are being cut, only paraphrased by the new author.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen some cases (such as with Greene and Hicks evidence) where for some reason, the original article can't be found- but they usually indicate in the cite that it is truly the "original author" who's ideas are being cut, only paraphrased by the new author.

those cases often happen when the card is cut from a paper that was presented at a conference. in those cases, you should email the author - I did that with a coverstone article way back. I think the cutter of the card has a duty to keep a copy of the whole original source and be willing to email it at request, as UGA was when they read framework against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze's theories are mostly helpful for international capitalism. It wants less borders to allow for the free movement of capital and labor. It wants less organized resistance. It wants less "totalizing" resistance. So an effort to destroy capitalism and abolish class would be frowned on by deleuze. Too much telos, too much totality, too much arboreal resistance, etc. I have seen much evidence about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuze's theories are mostly helpful for international capitalism. It wants less borders to allow for the free movement of capital and labor. It wants less organized resistance. It wants less "totalizing" resistance. So an effort to destroy capitalism and abolish class would be frowned on by deleuze. Too much telos, too much totality, too much arboreal resistance, etc. I have seen much evidence about this.

This is why Cap links hard to deleuze (and vice versa, i suppose w/ a marxist aff).  Metanarratives all day screw those micropolitics

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this card as cut here ends mid-paragraph... right after "we must not concede too much to Badiou here", the paragraph goes on to explain why Badiou's criticism of Deleuze-inspired anarchism isn't a reason to reject that ethos generally -- newman (as is standard for him) concludes that the promise of post-state autonomy is still worth fighting for.

 

#campfiles

 

Could you post the rest of this card or pm it to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that Barbrook quotation is the biggest crock i've ever read: "Hitler wished to do good in the world, therefore anyone who wishes to do good in the world becomes Hitler." running that ought to lose you the round on genocide trivilization alone.

Edited by Lazzarone
  • Upvote 4

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...