Jump to content
CodyGustafson

Best alt for security

Recommended Posts

The alt is to reject the affirmatives securitized mindset. 

 

With this alt you should read a "securitization bad epistemology, ontology, methodology, etc." card. If you could make an impact for securitization like "securitization leads to tyranny and genocide" that could also work. It's all up to you to choose the impact because it depends what kind of K debater you are. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt is to reject the affirmatives securitized mindset. 

 

 

I've never really been big into security, so excuse my ignorance, but is reject the only alt that there is to security? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really been big into security, so excuse my ignorance, but is reject the only alt that there is to security? 

Practically speaking, yes.  You can also read alts that talk about interrogating enemy creation or deconstructing securitized logic, but, for the most part, they still amount to rejection alts.  In the case of security, though, the alt doesn't matter much because every link is both a case turn and a reason not to vote on the impact you're getting links to, so the aff still is bad (or at least not good) even if the alt doesn't solve.  Also, the alt gets subsumed by the framework debate; most of the time the neg's interpretation will be something along the lines of endorsing the superior social construction, so it becomes a question of competing views of the world rather than competing ways of interacting with it.  I ran security most of last year and didn't even bother extending the alt into the block without any problems.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best two alt cards are Neocleous 8 and Bruce 96 (both of which can be found on open ev).  I prefer Bruce since it isn't as radical and has some serial policy failure warrants.  Neocleous is advantageous because it has a built-in answer to the perm and pre-empts some alt solvency arguments.

 

And yes, 98% of the time security alts are reject or something that amounts to reject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really been big into security, so excuse my ignorance, but is reject the only alt that there is to security? 

 

I read an alternative about socialist fundamentalism from Beasley-Murray's 2012 book Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America. It's a combination of Hardt & Negri's concept of the multitude with the common reject alt. This worked well because our version of the security K was about how impact scenarios dispersed fears that collectively constitute a low-lying anxiety that transcendental power structures (like the state in tandem with capital) could 'spike' to justify intervention to protect their interests, as well as a value-to-life argument about the desirability of a securitized/sanitized life. A lot of security K links and arguments were used but it wasn't exactly what you're (probably) looking to read.

 

Alt is under the fold: 

 

To vote for the negative is to disrupt the habit – your ballot should attune to socialist fundamentalism, a wager on the side of life, not that of death. Our objective is not simply the destruction of a state and the liquidation of class domination but also and above all the construction of new social relations that should and can be developing in the present. Reclaiming the affective undercurrents of civil society can inculcate a good multitude in tactical insurgency against transcendent forces of hierarchal violence.

Beasley-Murray 10

Jon Beasley-Murray. Professor of French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies at the University of British Columbia. 2010. Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America. Pages 117-121.

 

Sendero combines affect and reason with peculiar intensity. From the outside it always appeared bloodthirsty, mysterious, and irrational. Sendero militants seemed to be motivated perhaps by archaic prejudice, perhaps by sheer hatred and ressentiment. Everything about the movement was excessive and disturbing. But political scientist David Apter comments that “just as there are reasons of state, so there are reasons of the anti-state,†however much the latter appear to be antireasons.132 Indeed, as Degregori explains, Sendero is better understood as what, taking the phrase from nineteenth-century poet Manuel González Prada, he calls a “divine cult to reason.â€133 Its ecstatic rationality slides easily into rational ecstasy and back again. Hence Degregori argues that to understand Sendero, we should “invert Pascal’s phrase, ‘the heart has reasons of which reason is unaware,’ †and say of Sendero’s leading group that “reason has passions of which the heart is unaware.†Sendero is a “hyperrationalist movement†that “develops and draws out†extraordinary passions.134 It amplified the passions of its adherents, but it also drew out unsuspected passions from society at large. At the peak of the insurgency, nobody could be sure of the line between reason and affect, rationality and madness. Sendero encouraged its followers to embark on a paranoid search for order, but at the same time it revealed the paranoid structure of civil society as a whole.  The modern, developmentalist state inadvertently spawned and nurtured the passions that drove those who would become its most tireless enemies. Sendero’s cradle was Ayacucho’s University of Huamanga, reopened in the late 1950s. In particular, the movement was always strongest in the university’s Faculty of Education. The state held out education as the vehicle of progress and raised enormous expectations about the transformations that lay ahead. The university would bring modernity to this rural backwater in the Andes. Education offered a form of salvation, a means to escape; if there was any millenarianism or messianism in Sendero, this was its source. As Degregori puts it, “Andean peasants...flung themselves into the conquest of ‘progress.’ †They searched for the knowledge and truth that would set them free; and “those who made it to university would  have to go further and search out, by dint of great effort, something beyond truth: coherence.†For Degregori, Sendero militants, especially its leadership in the early stages, were driven by this state sanctioned love of truth and coherence: “And when they think they have found them, they are capable of the greatest violence in order to defend and impose them.â€135 Their violence provoked consternation and horror in Peruvian civil society; but it merely reflected the structural (and often enough also actual) violence that had long patrolled the boundary between center and periphery, civilization and presumed barbarism. Again, Sendero held up a mirror to civil society, revealing its translations between affect and reason, and unveiling the terror that secures its simulacrum of a social pact. Sendero “affected†civil society, reintroducing affect into its rationalizations. It provides the limit of civil society theory, the unaccountable distortion at its horizon. And precisely because its hyperrationality is illegible to the state, Sendero is also a brick wall, a screen, an empty signiï¬er upon which others project fearful and shadowy images (not least, of Peru’s  indigenous majority) in an inverted reflection of Sendero’s rational purity, its all-consuming joy. Sendero tipped reason over into madness. Like the paranoid whose obsession with interpretation and connection soon constructs a hyperreal edifice that no longer bears much relation to the real itself, Sendero passed through rationality to delirium but also demonstrated the delirium that underlies rationality. With Sendero, ideological reason was cultivated and transformed such that it no longer had a communicative function. In its abstract rigor and autonomy, an ideology that lays claim to the scientiï¬c tradition came close to a surreal poetry that is both horrifying and sublime: “[The people’s] blood will rise like pulsing wings, and that bruised flesh will turn into the powerful whips of vengeance, and muscles and action will turn into a steel battering ram to destroy the oppressors, who will be irretrievably smashed.â€136 Language becomes pure affect. Sendero’s language is the expression and sign of purity, foretelling the joy of those who share in that spotless clarity and instilling fear into those it deï¬nes as radically other. It never attempted to convince or persuade. The passions of reason mimic the reasons of the heart in a reciprocal reinforcement that requires no justiï¬cation. This is barbarous indeed, but Sendero equally shows up the barbarity of the constituted, ofï¬cial state and its mechanisms of subalternization. Sendero seeks no negotiation because it poses only one question: Are you loyal to this vision of revolution? Or as its militants put it to María Elena Moyano: step aside or be eliminated. While the neoliberal state has a panoply of polls and calls for managerial support, Sendero, which managed only the revolution, reduced this discourse to the single question: yes or no? Increasingly, however, the same is true also of the contemporary state, affected by a war against terror that is now global. It, too, asks little more than that we be either for it or against it. Though Sendero’s discourse becomes sublime and sublimely horrifying, we should avoid describing Latin American reality as abject difference. This is neither the “noche obscura†of novelist Joan Didion’s Salvador, nor the revolution from the Incan South of journalist Simon Strong’s Shining Path.137 Sendero incarnates the apotheosis of reason, plucked straight from the ï¬nest Western philosophical tradition of Kant (subject of Guzmán’s thesis) and Marx. More generally, all civil societies are “affected.†Neither the Peruvian nor more generally the Latin American experiences are aberrant. As I will suggest in chapter 3, all social formations are structured through affect, by the reasons of the heart and the passions of reason. Sendero shows how affect is a constituent element of any social formation, that necessarily disrupts the working of any civil society. Any attempt to set limits to this constituent power is doomed to failure, not least in an era of biopolitics in which neoliberal Empire has already pulverized the carefully constructed barriers of liberal modernity. Sovereignty is more precarious than ever, and rightly so. Which is not to say that we should support all its adversaries: Sendero’s line of flight soon became suicidal as well as homicidal; it became entranced by death rather than life. As historian Alberto Flores Galindo tersely comments, in reaction to a 1988 Sendero killing: “Socialism is a wager on the side of life, not that of death. Its objective is not simply the destruction of a state and the liquidation of class domination but also and above all the construction of new social relations that should and can be developing in the present.â€138 The problem posed by Sendero, and other similar movements, is why such constituent power turns back on itself and how hope and expectation become death and conflagration. With the crisis of the state, and the dissolution of any boundary between state and civil society, affect comes to the fore. Paranoia flourishes in the face of constant surveillance, but equally the tides of policy ebb and flow with changes in popular sentiment. The extent to which social relations are structured in terms of affect rather than (or on another level from) discourse becomes clearer. Other social logics begin to emerge in eddies and whorls, and fundamentalisms thrive as the mechanism of representation passes its sell-by date. Civil society theory aims to restore order, and at the same time holds out the hope of reform by returning a sense of rationality and agency to subaltern subjects. If traditional left politics had assumed a vanguard role for intellectuals, who are to awaken and educate the masses, a focus on new social movements emphasizes rather the myriad negotiations and initiatives performed by subaltern subjects. No doubt this has been a progressive move to counter the view that peasants, the indigenous, and others are formed by premodern communities bound by atavistic tradition and superstition. An emphasis on subjectivity is a welcome corrective. Yet it is as though subalterns were presented as perfect rational choice actors, conforming to the most ideal of Western liberal paradigms of reason. Presenting them as rational actors of this type deculturates and depoliticizes such agents by presenting them “as if they were outside culture and ideology.â€139 The price subalterns pay is that their activities are recognized only so long as they accord to a notion of reason imposed upon them; only, that is, so long as efï¬ciency and modernization continue to be the ground of civil society. Such actors are to be ascribed agency, but on the terms of the social theorist. Anything outside that framework becomes invisible, and the democratic task becomes to substitute a rational civil society for affective and cultural relations seen as distorting its managerial transparency. But an insistence on transparency heralds a massive expansion of the state, a politics futilely focused on the wholesale elimination of culture and corruption. Neoliberalism takes over where civil society theory leaves off, only to founder on the terror that lurks at its margins and haunts society as a whole.  Civil society is enlivened by the fundamentalism that civil society theory subsequently seeks to curtail. But in the context of a global war on terror, fundamentalism has the upper hand: whether that be the fanaticism that is pledged to bring down the state, or the state’s own brand of now decentered sovereignty. A multitude confronts Empire and yet, as I argue in my concluding chapter, there is less than ever to choose between them. But surely there is some alternative to the fundamentalisms of a Sendero Luminoso or an al-Qaida on the one hand, or of neoliberalism’s diffuse forms of command and control on the other. There is no point returning to the deadening restrictions and careful regulations of the liberal contract. And populist hegemony is also but an illusion, a misleading sleight of hand. Could there then be a fundamentalism driven by vitality, afï¬rmation, and life, rather than the death drive of mutual immolation? Refusing the constrictions and antidemocratic democracy of civil society theory, we might reconsider the immediacy of social movements in their excessive and passionate demands. Encore un effort.  Néstor García Canclini asks how to be radical, without being fundamentalist. We might do better to look for a good fundamentalism, a good multitude. With that in mind, I turn now from critique to constitution.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alt's reconceptualization doesn't have to be inaction though - many security scholars still want states to engage IR and have policymaking implications. For example when I met Ken Booth, he seemed really interested in making policy suck less by doing policy without securitization. You could make the alt a PIK if you really want.

  • Upvote 6

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...