Jump to content
Jullianv1

Security K construction

Recommended Posts

I want to construct my first Kritik 100% from my own cuts and whatnot. Does anyone know anything good authors/sources to start on the construction of a security kritk (AC portrays china as more of a threat than it realistically is in order to justify almost limitless action + need to reevaluate how we understand politics and threats to prevent actual actual escalation).

 

Do I have a proper conception of the kritik?

 

 

Also- I have heard that Zizek is a fun/interesting kritik to make- would this 1) Be easier and 2) be more competitive as a K? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the easier K's to cut IMHO:

 

On Security:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0231102712/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=

 

You get two critiques:

1) Threat Construction/Security Construction which is a critique of otherization & the concept of national security 

 

2) Environmental securitization.  Turning environmental issues into security threats

 

You would also want to cut the Alternatives magazine article that the China threat construction stuff comes from.  Although you can certainly get those from a file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would plan out your file structure ahead of time. You can look at OpenEvidence Security Ks as examples. If you get stuck, don't hesitate to hunt down the source of somebody else's good card and cut it for yourself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and a trump supporter

He's a racist when you take his absurd-sounding way of speech literally, directly, and out-of context. He supports Trump only insofar as Trump articulates a clear, unbiased political objective and believes most of Trump's rhetoric is hollow to gain publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a racist when you take his absurd-sounding way of speech literally, directly, and out-of context. He supports Trump only insofar as Trump articulates a clear, unbiased political objective and believes most of Trump's rhetoric is hollow to gain publicity.

Is he not a good author for a kritik then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he not a good author for a kritik then?

He's not really a security K author in the first place. He writes a lot on identity, ideology, and capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a racist when you take his absurd-sounding way of speech literally, directly, and out-of context. He supports Trump only insofar as Trump articulates a clear, unbiased political objective and believes most of Trump's rhetoric is hollow to gain publicity.

He supports Trump because, as he admits, he doesn't have to face the material consequences of a Trump presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He supports Trump because, as he admits, he doesn't have to face the material consequences of a Trump presidency.

Also because he thinks Trump will shatter the government so much that we'll make a better one in his wake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not really a security K author in the first place. He writes a lot on identity, ideology, and capitalism.

 

*correction*

HE'SH NOHT REALLY A SCHECURITY *SNIFF* K AUTHOR IN ZSCHEE FIRSCHT PLASCHE

All joking aside, he write's a little about Sec in terms of like the big other and stuff but yeah Zizek is more of a cap author, but he has some good stuff on psychoanalysis too. I run this Zizek "Shock treatment" k which is basically cap with psychoanalysis and Giroux critical thought alts, but I also use that classic Zizek and Daly 04 evidence we all know. It's a great K, especially for a My-First-K kind of deal, just because he has written so much and it's a pretty simple concept to get, but can be competitive nonetheless. The main downside to zizek though is that everyone knows him and has a2s out the wazoo, and it fundamentally is still cap, which is kind of a generic K. if you want a good "starter K" of sorts, for this topic I'd recommend Pan and Settler Colonialism or maybe Imperialism, I find that there's a wealth of lit on this topic for both and they're both competitive and straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HE'SH NOHT REALLY A SCHECURITY *SNIFF* K AUTHOR IN ZSCHEE FIRSCHT PLASCHE

At first I thought you were making fun of me, which I was fine with, but now I realize you're making fun of Žižek so I have to be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOHT BE OFFHENDED BY MEEH BE OFFHENDED *SCHNIFF* BY ZSCHEE DIRTY BALL DUSCHTING REFORMERS

 

and since we're making Zizek jokes 

Edited by pdfox0513
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*correction*

HE'SH NOHT REALLY A SCHECURITY *SNIFF* K AUTHOR IN ZSCHEE FIRSCHT PLASCHE

All joking aside, he write's a little about Sec in terms of like the big other and stuff but yeah Zizek is more of a cap author, but he has some good stuff on psychoanalysis too. I run this Zizek "Shock treatment" k which is basically cap with psychoanalysis and Giroux critical thought alts, but I also use that classic Zizek and Daly 04 evidence we all know. It's a great K, especially for a My-First-K kind of deal, just because he has written so much and it's a pretty simple concept to get, but can be competitive nonetheless. The main downside to zizek though is that everyone knows him and has a2s out the wazoo, and it fundamentally is still cap, which is kind of a generic K. if you want a good "starter K" of sorts, for this topic I'd recommend Pan and Settler Colonialism or maybe Imperialism, I find that there's a wealth of lit on this topic for both and they're both competitive and straightforward.

 

What is Pan? And, I will deff look into the imperialism args as ks too. What Zizek and daly 04 item are you talking about- do you have the card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pan is a combination of Orientalism and Security, he speaks specifically in regards to China.

 

 

I assume this is the Zizek and Daly card:

 

 

Resisting this reliance on economic evaluation is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale

Zizek and Daly 2k4

(Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety.  For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place.Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix. 

Edited by NickDB8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pan is a combination of Orientalism and Security, he speaks specifically in regards to China.

 

 

I assume this is the Zizek and Daly card:

 

 

Resisting this reliance on economic evaluation is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale

Zizek and Daly 2k4

(Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety.  For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place.Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix. 

wait so does that operate as an alt?

 

also for Pan- how do I argue that their threats are necessarily constructed? Doesn't that seem like solely a on the fly analytic versus their cards

Edited by Jullianv1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait so does that operate as an alt?

 

also for Pan- how do I argue that their threats are necessarily constructed? Doesn't that seem like solely a on the fly analytic versus their cards

It's more of an impact, but you could spin it into an alt saying we need to reject instances of capitalism.

 

In terms of Pan, you'd need evidence saying that the threats that they construct are, in fact, false. Probably some generic defense, idk I don't read security

  • 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

×