Jump to content
kylerbuckner

AT: Anti-Blackness RC of Biopower

Recommended Posts

They say the slave was the first power relation, and say that breaking down anti blackness breaks down biopower.

 

Okay, even assuming 'the slave' was the first power relation (which it wasn't)

 

1. Why does being 1st matter?

 

2. The first slavery wasn't interracial, afaik.  Slavery is far older than the slave trade in Africa. The Bible codifies 'acceptable' slavery as it was for Judah and Israel ~600BC or thereabouts, and it's probably far older than that. 

 

And, for that matter, anti-semitism is older than anti-blackness by quite a bit.  The early Christian church wasn't anti-black (North Africa was an important Christian area), but it did become anti-semitic between 2-300AD, and Pagan Rome was also anti-semitic (because they wouldn't worship the imperial cult).  If there is anti-blackness older than that, it has no connection to modern attitudes.

 

3. The power relations which enabled western black slavery weren't antiblack, since it was black people enslaving other black people in Africa and selling them.  (And not just to the west - they were sold to Muslims for far longer - both earlier and later - and in greater numbers than they ever were to the west).  Antiblackness was a consequence of the western slave trade, not the cause.

 

4. I don't understand how breaking down one particular power relationship breaks down all power relationships.  If that were true, Foucault would have solved.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you happen to have the card on you, I want to see what exactly it says

No, I don't even have the card. I saw it on a teams wiki and want to get answers to it. I lied, I did not remember correctly. NOT the slave. Oops 

 

Antiblackness is the historical foundation of biopolitics – the power relations established during colonialism are ever-present today and make possible the sovereign right to kill

Mbembe 3 Achille, senior researcher at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of the Witwatersrand. "Necropolitics". 2003. Pgs. 6-22. PWoods. 

That race (or for that matter racism) figures so prominently in the calculus 

AND

" peoples of Europe of the methods previously reserved for the "savages."

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That conflates all forms of racism. 

 

I don't know how that would get them a spillover argument.

 

Sometimes saying "this is going to save lives" actually does save lives.  Otherwise we have no way to warn others, including minorities of destructive forces, including racism.

 

Plus I'm sure they make arguments that link to bio-power.

 

They also make biopower worse.  Radical blackness in terms of violence results in worse forms of social control.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That conflates all forms of racism. 

 

I don't know how that would get them a spillover argument.

 

Sometimes saying "this is going to save lives"

 

Plus I'm sure they make arguments that link to bio-power.

 

They also make biopower worse.  Radical blackness in terms of violence results in worse forms of social control.

 

I dunno about that last one, but the rest is good stuff. Make sure to impact out these claims though: why's it bad to conflate forms of racism, for instance? And make the "no spillover" argument into a quantified solvency deficit, something that you can weigh independently of your other impacts in order to break the tie in some of these impact weighing debates. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That conflates all forms of racism. 

 

I don't know how that would get them a spillover argument.

 

Sometimes saying "this is going to save lives"

 

Plus I'm sure they make arguments that link to bio-power.

 

They also make biopower worse.  Radical blackness in terms of violence results in worse forms of social control.

Is there an XT impact to Biopower out there somewhere?

 

What if it's like Biopower K Aff vs. 1-off anti-blackness? Then they just said Alt is a prereq to the AFF and PIK the aff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an XT impact to Biopower out there somewhere?

 

What if it's like Biopower K Aff vs. 1-off anti-blackness? Then they just said Alt is a prereq to the AFF and PIK the aff. 

And you just say the perm solves? Even if anti-blackness is the historical foundation for biopolitics, that sounds like rejecting biopolitics is still a good thing because it fights anti-blackness. Make them prove a link to your method, because unless they can prove whatever your aff *does* is anti-black then it sounds like it would be an amazing idea to do the aff and (burn it all down, engage in paradigmatic analysis, etc)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you just say the perm solves? Even if anti-blackness is the historical foundation for biopolitics, that sounds like rejecting biopolitics is still a good thing because it fights anti-blackness. Make them prove a link to your method, because unless they can prove whatever your aff *does* is anti-black then it sounds like it would be an amazing idea to do the aff and (burn it all down, engage in paradigmatic analysis, etc)

Oh yeah, duh. My bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say the slave was the first power relation, and say that breaking down anti blackness breaks down biopower.

idk if that really is a root cause argument, as the underlying idea of the slave is (by their own admission) a power relation, therefore is governed by biopower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an XT impact to Biopower out there somewhere?

 

What if it's like Biopower K Aff vs. 1-off anti-blackness? Then they just said Alt is a prereq to the AFF and PIK the aff. 

In order to PIK they still have to be PIKing out of something. The PIK doesn't make sense if it's just functionally "do the alt first"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's full text of that section of Necropolitics if anyone is interested.


That race (or for that matter racism) figures so prominently in the calculus of biopower is entirely justifiable. After all, more so than class-thinking (the ideology that defines history as an economic struggle of classes), race has been the ever present shadow in Western political thought and practice, especially when it comes to imagining the inhumanity of, or rule over, foreign peoples. Referring to both this ever-presence and the phantomlike world of race in general, Arendt locates their roots in the shattering experience of otherness and suggests that the politics of race is ultimately linked to the politics of death.18 Indeed, in Foucault’s terms, racism is above all a technology aimed at permitting the exercise of biopower, “that old sovereign right of death.” In the economy of biopower, the function of racism is to regulate the distribution of death and to make possible the murderous functions of the state. It is, he says, “the condition for the acceptability of putting to death.” Foucault states clearly that the sovereign right to kill (droit de glaive) and the mechanisms of biopower are inscribed in the way all modern states function; indeed, they can be seen as constitutive elements of state power in modernity. According to Foucault, the Nazi state was the most complete example of a state exercising the right to kill. This state, he claims, made the management, protection, and cultivation of life coextensive with the sovereign right to kill. By biological extrapolation on the theme of the political enemy, in organizing the war against its adversaries and, at the same time, exposing its own citizens to war, the Nazi state is seen as having opened the way for a formidable consolidation of the right to kill, which culminated in the project of the “final solution.” In doing so, it became the archetype of a power formation that combined the characteristics of the racist state, the murderous state, and the suicidal state. Any historical account of the rise of modern terror needs to address slavery, which could be considered one of the first instances of biopolitical experimentation. In many respects, the very structure of the plantation system and its aftermath manifests the emblematic and paradoxical figure of the state of exception. This figure is paradoxical here for two reasons. First, in the context of the plantation, the humanity of the slave appears as the perfect figure of a shadow. Indeed, the slave condition results from a triple loss: loss of a “home,” loss of rights over his or her body, and loss of political status. This triple loss is identical with absolute domination, natal alienation, and social death (expulsion from humanity altogether). To be sure, as a political-juridical structure, the plantation is a space where the slave belongs to a master. It is not a community if only because by definition, a community implies the exercise of the power of speech and thought. As Paul Gilroy says, “The extreme patterns of communication defined by the institution of plantation slavery dictate that we recognize the anti-discursive and extralinguistic ramifications of power at work in shaping communicative acts. There may, after all, be no reciprocity on the plantation outside of the possibilities of rebellion and suicide, flight and silent mourning, and there is certainly no grammatical unity of speech to mediate communicative reason. In many respects, the plantation inhabitants live non-synchronously.”31 As an instrument of labor, the slave has a price. As a property, he or she has a value. His or her labor is needed and used. The slave is therefore kept alive but in a state of injury, in a phantomlike world of horrors and intense cruelty and profanity. The violent tenor of the slave’s life is manifested through the overseer’s disposition to behave in a cruel and intemperate manner and in the spectacle of pain inflicted on the slave’s body. Violence, here, becomes an element in manners, like whipping or taking of the slave’s life itself: an act of caprice and pure destruction aimed at instilling terror. Slave life, in many ways, is a form of death-in-life. As Susan Buck- Morss has suggested, the slave condition produces a contradiction between freedom of property and freedom of person. An unequal relationship is established along with the inequality of the power over life. This power over the life of another takes the form of commerce: a person’s humanity is dissolved to the point where it becomes possible to say that the slave’s life is possessed by the master. Because the slave’s life is like a “thing,” possessed by another person, the slave existence appears as a perfect figure of a shadow. If the relations between life and death, the politics of cruelty, and the symbolics of profanity are blurred in the plantation system, it is notably in the colony and under the apartheid regime that there comes into being a peculiar terror formation I will now turn to. The most original feature of this terror formation is its concatenation of biopower, the state of exception, and the state of siege. Crucial to this concatenation is, once again, race. In fact, in most instances, the selection of races, the prohibition of mixed marriages, forced sterilization, even the extermination of vanquished peoples are to find their first testing ground in the colonial world. Here we see the first syntheses between massacre and bureaucracy, that incarnation of Western rationality. Arendt develops the thesis that there is a link between national-socialism and traditional imperialism. According to her, the colonial conquest revealed a potential for violence previously unknown. What one witnesses in World War II is the extension to the “civilized” peoples of Europe of the methods previously reserved for the “savages.”

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The card is power-tagged. Mbembe is not like "Slavery is the r/c of biopower," he is just arguing that it is a very good and extreme sample of the state of exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The card is power-tagged. Mbembe is not like "Slavery is the r/c of biopower," he is just arguing that it is a very good and extreme sample of the state of exception.

How do you answer a straight up necropolitics K? 

 

the link was like lawfare = power  - Comaroff and Comaroff 7

the alt was to be the queer suicide terrorist - Puar 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you answer a straight up necropolitics K? 

 

the link was like lawfare = power  - Comaroff and Comaroff 7

the alt was to be the queer suicide terrorist - Puar 7

 

Ah, they hit you with the MKultra special.

 

The argument is that anxiety over lawlessness gets displaced to eastern countries where the traditional understanding of "western juridical law" is not conducted. 

 

You just need a coherent defense of western legal practices, or perhaps find a way that the aff isn't western legal practices. 

 

No, I don't even have the card. I saw it on a teams wiki and want to get answers to it. I lied, I did not remember correctly. NOT the slave. Oops 

 

Antiblackness is the historical foundation of biopolitics – the power relations established during colonialism are ever-present today and make possible the sovereign right to kill

Mbembe 3 Achille, senior researcher at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of the Witwatersrand. "Necropolitics". 2003. Pgs. 6-22. PWoods. 

That race (or for that matter racism) figures so prominently in the calculus 

AND

" peoples of Europe of the methods previously reserved for the "savages."

This is indeed a critique of Foucault, but it doesn't say what the tag wants it to say. The argument is that traditional accounts of biopower do not take race into consideration, citing the colony as the primary example of "necropower" where traditional biopolitical calculation of life and death are inverted. 

An interesting place to look for answers may be from Ladelle McWhorter's critique of Whiteness Studies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×