Jump to content
zizekmatrix

Difference Between Pan & Security K?

Recommended Posts

I've been going through various camp files that have been put out and came across my first Pan K(WSDI)

 

Last year was my first year debating under the Surveillance topic. Needless to say we ran several security Ks. I'm not seeing a major distinction between what both these Kritiks are saying?

 

Pan K seems to be saying that U.S. security mindset puts China in a threatening light, whereas Security K says crisis rhetoric normalizes threats(especially those having to do with the 'other').

 

Am I missing something in the interpretation of these cards? Pan K just seems to be in better context with China.

 

 

links to both-

 

Weber: http://www.weberdebatecamp.com/

 

Georgetown: https://gds16.wikispaces.com/Evidence

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could possibly be molded into one k as I have seen pan as the author of link cards specific to China/threat construction/SCS conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could possibly be molded into one k as I have seen pan as the author of link cards specific to China/threat construction/SCS conflict

that's probably what people are going to end up doing anyway - thanks

The Pan K is just a China-specific security K. 

thanks. i thought as much, alts seem like the same thing too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, Pan is a variant of security. Pan takes securitization logic and applies it to China, ie, attempting to "know" China is bad because the assumption that we can "know" China is a desire to know the "truth" behind China. This is an extension of Burke's writing, who's writing was an extension of Heidegger's writings. We can never know the "truth" behind China, because we aren't China. The US proceeds to construct China as a threat, and that justifies endless violence against them. This also creates "ideological hegemony" - China begins to be perceived as a threat by everyone. US citizens, debaters, other countries, everyone. It's important to win that the aff constructs their threats of China, otherwise they just answer that their threats are real. They typically aren't real, and violence is committed against China to maintain international order, when the threat doesn't exist to begin with.

 

Sorry is this was long, had my K lecture today lol. I just kinda threw out everything regarding security and Pan I remember

Edited by NickDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, Pan is a variant of security. Pan takes securitization logic and applies it to China, ie, attempting to "know" China is bad because the assumption that we can "know" China is a desire to know the "truth" behind China. This is an extension of Burke's writing, who's writing was an extension of Heidegger's writings. We can never know the "truth" behind China, because we aren't China. The US proceeds to construct China as a threat, and that justifies endless violence against them. This also creates "ideological hegemony" - China begins to be perceived as a threat by everyone. US citizens, debaters, other countries, everyone. It's important to win that the aff constructs their threats of China, otherwise they just answer that their threats are real. They typically aren't real, and violence is committed against China to maintain international order, when the threat doesn't exist to begin with.

 

Sorry is this was long, had my K lecture today lol. I just kinda threw out everything regarding security and Pan I remember

My understanding of Burke - based on my readings of some cards - isn't so much about the "knowing" aspect of something but rather about the attempt to instill control onto something that is fundamentally unstable. For instance, Burke explains how following World War II, the leading strategy for the United States was about creating a global axiom of control in their attempts to both assuage the spread of Communism and militarization; Burke explains how this policy is what lead to a lot of the more devastating parts of the latter half of the 20th century - the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War. The point is that the United States was partaking in a global strategy to create an ideal utopia where nothing "irrational" or "unstable" - like the rise of fascist dictators for example - would happen; except that in an interesting turn of events, the actions of the United States is what gave rise to a lot of the Dictators we saw in Central and South America, and the Middle East. 

 

It's more nuanced than that but I'm playing a match of League rn lel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that why Heidegger is against "knowing"? he sees it as a violent imposition of order onto a chaotic world? I'm probably misreading my Heidegger cards but it always seemed like Heidegger thought that "knowing" the world had one of 2 outcomes

 

1 you're wrong and so whatever you did with the "knowledge" either failed or made things worse

or

2 you cut the corners off of the square block to fit it into the circle hole, destroying everything wild to live as content clever animals

 

am I just way off base with Heidegger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that why Heidegger is against "knowing"? he sees it as a violent imposition of order onto a chaotic world? I'm probably misreading my Heidegger cards but it always seemed like Heidegger thought that "knowing" the world had one of 2 outcomes

 

1 you're wrong and so whatever you did with the "knowledge" either failed or made things worse

or

2 you cut the corners off of the square block to fit it into the circle hole, destroying everything wild to live as content clever animals

 

am I just way off base with Heidegger?

I may even need to create a new topic/search for the explanation of Heidegger b/c that's more extreme than what i've read

 

My understanding is that Heidegger's positioning on "knowing" was that everyone's understanding of the world was flawed, and that, in conquest of 'being,' we should all strive to better understand why we do the things we do and eventually act upon that. This is where his meditative thought alts come from.

 

That we make life unauthentic because our knowledge, it's use, and formulation is inappropriate. I'm sure it's not a stretch to argue that because of this we do 1 & 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most basic level of this partiucular problem can be traced back to heideggers discussion (and Bleikers later extension) of the nature of truth and its connection to the process of revealing and concealing. For those less experienced in heideggerian literature , he begins this analysis which an understanding of the clearing ( which for him is a metaphor that can be seen as something like a clearing inside of a forest in which a person is traveling through a forest and once they find a clearing a larger aspect of the world is revealed to them compared to their perception inside of the forest normally I.E. they literally have larger radius of view)  in a metaphysical sense. I.E. Every action or interactions with knowledge in the world inevitably reveals particular truths , lies or just aspects of existence that weren't previously understood or avaialable to us. Yet , Bleikers continues on that and says that truth , knowledge and existence are not solely a question of revealing but also based on the nature of concealing in which certain understandings of the world inevitably close off and mystify other aspects of the world. I.E. in the context of china - The China threat narrative as well as the narrative of china being totally peaceful inevitably are  unuseful heuristics for understanding a society that is neither single facited nor static and only end up creating violent structures that presume they can fully explain the every aspect of the world. Bleiker and Burke both says that the formation of conservative and hegemonic forms of thought aren't frightening just because of the material coordinates or existence of these structures but because that any social theory and praxis that ignores its own act of concealing inevitably becomes hegemonic and lashes out against anyone or theory that doesn't fit within its universal model of knowlefge 

  • Upvote 1

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

×