Jump to content
TheSnowball

Daily Card

Recommended Posts

Do you have a Baudrillard-esque card stating anti-consumerism as an alt? Something like "The alternative is to accept a pedagogy of anti-consumerism" and have this break down the hyper-real. 

 

This might be what your looking for not too sure though: (Zachary Casey, Research Assistant with the Writing Enriched Curriculum Project – University of Minnesota, "Toward a Reconceptualization of Needs in Classrooms: Baudrillard, Critical Pedagogy, and Schooling in The United States", Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 9(2))

 

Edit: forgot to quote

Edited by aprasad202

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a Baudrillard-esque card stating anti-consumerism as an alt? Something like "The alternative is to accept a pedagogy of anti-consumerism" and have this break down the hyper-real.

 

i mean if you’re lookin to read baudrillard you should cut it yourself so you know what your author is meaning(jokes)/saying, get the actual background knowledge required to convey an extremely difficult concept. Its also kinda counter-prodictive to shortcut your own research, whilst criticizing that very concept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick check in, Has anybody found smth as an Answer to Charity cannibalism?

Hey. I'm not sure this is something I'm going to find. The closest I got was a card I was asking about here but I don't think it's really what you're looking for. I think you should probably stick to standard Baudrillard answers, since they'll make some implicit arguments against that cannibalistic relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal Berkeley GJ's neg file vs Indiana DM includes a couple cards that are responsive to charity cannibalism under case in the 2nc. It's open sourced on their wiki.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal Berkeley GJ's neg file vs Indiana DM includes a couple cards that are responsive to charity cannibalism under case in the 2nc. It's open sourced on their wiki.

Nice. These what you mean?

Cards.docx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federalism/democracy brink.

 

Some friendly reminders:

-the impact to federalism is domestic democracy. If you read international modeling, you're wrong.

-Beauchamp is pronounced bee-chum. He apparently used to do debate, so there's no way he's biased.

 

Technically I cut this yesterday for someone on the dEbAtE DiScOrD but I think it's an okay card so I'm putting it here too.

1-31-18.docx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello! would i be able to get a card answering the healthcare thumper to midterms?

 

the thumper says the key issue of midterms is healthcare, i'd need a card saying that education>healthcare or just saying healthcare isn't the key issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello! would i be able to get a card answering the healthcare thumper to midterms?

 

the thumper says the key issue of midterms is healthcare, i'd need a card saying that education>healthcare or just saying healthcare isn't the key issue.

Here's some stuff. I can't find anything that directly makes the education/healthcare comparison. However, you should argue that it's not just about what the biggest issues are but about what issues change--voters in the healthcare debate are pretty polarized and locked down. You could argue that Trump/DeVos have brought changing views about education, creating the potential for a shift in votes.

2-2-18.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, 

 

I am looking for a card that is an answer to Poetry has to be reduced to semiotics for it to be exchanged.

 

 

I'll add to this by saying any cap performance links would be cool 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add to this by saying any cap performance links would be cool

 

*Sorry I don't know how to get the document form!*

 

 

Commodify your dissent- the affirmative thinks they are cool act of discursive resistance, in reality they are consumers of capitalisms newest product- dissent.

Frank, 1997 – prof of American History at Univ of Chicago [Thomas The Business of Culture in the new Gilded Age Commodify Your Dissent: Salvos from The Baffler ed. By Frank and Weiland; “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent”; Pages 31-32)

CAPITALISM IS CHANGING, obviously and drastically. From the moneyed pages of the Wall Street journal to TV commercials for airlines and photocopiers we hear every day about the new order’s globe spanning, cyber-accumulating ways. But our notion about what’s wrong with American life and how the figures responsible are to be confronted haven't changed much in thirty years. Call it, for convenience, the “countercultural idea.” It holds that the paramount ailment of our society is conformity, a malady that has variously been described as over-organization, bureaucracy, homogeneity, hierarchy, logocentrism, technocracy, the Combine, the Apollonian. We all know what it is and what it does. It transforms humanity into “organization man,” into “the man in the gray flannel suit.” It is “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery, ”the “incomprehensible prison” that consumes “brains and imagination.” It is artifice, starched shirts, tailfins, carefully mowed lawns, and always, always, the consciousness of impending nuclear destruction. It is a stiff, militaristic order that seeks to suppress instinct, to forbid sex and pleasure, to deny basic human impulses and individuality, to enforce through a rigid uniformity a meaningless plastic consumerism. As this half of the countercultural idea originated during the 1990s, it is appropriate that the evils of conformity are most conveniently summarized with images of 1950s suburban correctness. You know, that land of sedate music, sexual repression, deference to authority, Red Scares, and smiling white people standing politely in line to go to church. Constantly appearing as a symbol of arch backwardness in advertising and movies, it is an image we find easy to evoke. The ways in which this system are to be resisted are equally Well understood and agreed-upon. The Establishment demands homogeneity; we revolt by embracing diverse, individual lifestyles. It demands self-denial and rigid adherence to convention; we revolt through immediate gratification, instinct uninhibited, and liberation of the libido and the appetites. Few have put it more bluntly than jerry Rubin did in 1970: “America says: Don’t! The hippies say: Do lt!" The countercultural idea is hostile to any law and every establishment. “Whenever we see a rule, we must break it,” Rubin continued. “Only by breaking rules do we discover who we are. ”Above all rebellion consists of a sort of Nietzschean antinomianism, an automatic questioning of rules, a rejection of whatever social prescriptions we 've happened to inherit. Just Do It is the whole of the law. But one hardly has to go to a poetry reading to see the countercultural idea acted out. Its frenzied ecstasies have long since become an official aesthetic of consumer society, a monotheme of mass as well as adversarial culture. Turn on the TV and there it is instantly: the unending drama of consumer unbound and in search of an ever-heightened good time, the inescapable rock 'n' roll soundtrack, dreadlocks and ponytails bounding into Taco Bells, a drunken, swinging-camera epiphany of tennis shoes, outlaw soda pops, and mind-bending dandruff shampoos. Corporate America, it turns out, no longer speaks in the voice of oppressive order that it did when Ginsberg moaned in 1956 that Time magazine was “always telling me about responsibility. Businessmen are serious. Movie producers are serious. Everybody 's serious but me.” Nobody wants you to think they’re serious today, least of all Time Warner. On the contrary: the Culture Trust is now our leader in the Ginsbergian search for kicks upon kicks. Corporate America is not an oppressor but a sponsor of fun, provider of lifestyle accouterments, facilitator of carnival, our slang-speaking partner in the quest for that ever-more apocalyptic orgasm. The countercultural idea has become capitalist orthodoxy, its hunger for transgression upon transgression now perfectly suited to an economic-cultural regime that runs on ever-faster cyclings of the new; its taste for self-fulfillment and its intolerance f1or the confines of tradition now permitting vast latitude in consuming practices and lifestyle experimentation. Consumerism is no longer about “conformity” but about “difference.” Advertising teaches us not in the ways of puritanical self-denial (a bizarre notion on the face of it), but in orgiastic, never-ending self'-fulfillment. It counsels not rigid adherence to the tastes of the herd but vigilant and constantly updated individualism. We consume not to fit in, but to prove, on the surface at least, that we are rock 'n' roll rebels, each one of us as rule-breaking and hierarchy-defying as our heroes of the 60s, who now pitch cars, shoes, and beer. This imperative of endless difference is today the genius at the heart of American capitalism, an eternal fleeing from “sameness” that satiates our thirst for the New with such achievements of civilization as the infinite brands of identical cola, the myriad colors and irrepressible variety of the cigarette rack at 7-Eleven. As existential rebellion has become a more or less official style of Information Age capitalism, so has the countercultural notion of a static, repressive Establishment grown hopelessly obsolete. However the basic impulses of the countercultural idea may have disturbed a nation lost in Cold War darkness, they are today in fundamental agreement with the basic tenets of Information Age business theory. So close are they, in fact, that it has become difficult to understand the countercultural idea as anything more than the self justifying ideology of the new bourgeoisie that has arisen since the 1960s, the cultural means by which this group has proven itself ever so much better skilled than its slow-moving, security-minded forebears at adapting to the accelerated, always-changing consumerism of today. The anointed cultural opponents of capitalism are now capitalism’s ideologues. The two come together in perfect synchronization in a figure like Camille Paglia, whose ravings are grounded in the absolutely noncontroversial ideas of the golden sixties. According to Paglia, American business is still exactly what it was believed to have been in that beloved decade, that is, “puritanical and desensualized.” Its great opponents are, of course, liberated figures like “the beatniks,” Bob Dylan, and the Beatles. Culture is, quite simply, a binary battle between the repressive Apollonian order of capitalism and the Dionysian impulses of the counterculture. Rebellion makes no sense without repression; we must remain forever convinced of capitalism's fundamental hostility to pleasure in order to consume capitalism’s rebel products as avidly as we do. It comes as little surprise when, after criticizing the “Apollonian capitalist machine” (in her book, Kamp.: 6' Tramps), Paglia applauds American mass culture (in Utne Reader), the preeminent product of that “capitalist machine,” as a “third great eruption” of a Dionysian “paganism.” For her, as for most other designated dissidents, there is no contradiction between replaying the standard critique of capitalist conformity and repressiveness and then endorsing its rebel products—for Paglia the car culture and Madonna—as the obvious solution: the Culture Trust offers both Establishment and Resistance in one convenient package. The only question that remains is why Paglia has not yet landed an endorsement contract from a soda pop or automobile manufacturer.

 

 

Self-expression will get co-opted by market forces because our inner impulses will be channeled into intentional consumer choices—that means our personal acts of rebellion are a false liberation because our identities will still be shaped and conditioned by patterns of consumption.

Davis 03, Joseph E. Davis, Research Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia. “The Commodification of Self,” The Hedge Review, 2003, pages 42-46, http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/archives/Commodification/5.2EDavis.pdf

In a characteristic article, published in 1976, the sociologist Ralph Turner found evidence that “recent decades have witnessed a shift in the locus of the self….” 1 He characterized the movement in self-anchorage—in the feelings and actions that we identify as expressions of our “real self”—as movement along a continuum from “institution” to “impulse.” At the institutional pole, one recognizes the real self in the pursuit of institutionalized goals. Self-control, volition, and exacting standards within institutional frameworks are paramount. At the impulse pole, by contrast, “institutional motivations are external, artificial constraints and superimpositions that bridle manifestations of the real self.” 2 At this end of the continuum, the real self consists of “deep, unsocialized, inner impulses” waiting to be discovered and spontaneously expressed. 3 Though few people occupy the extremes, Turner emphasized, the personal relevance of institutions seemed to be declining and personal reality increasingly indexed to impulse. Turner’s observations were not unique. Earlier, Nathan Adler had suggested that an “antinomian personality,” a character type who rejects conventional morality, was emerging for whom the expression of impulse and desire is central. 4 Similarly, Christopher Lasch, in his best-seller The Culture of Narcissism, saw the spread of a “therapeutic outlook” in American society that seeks peace of mind in the “overthrow of inhibitions and the immediate gratification of every impulse.” 5 in a more empirical vein, joseph Veroff and his colleagues, comparing the result of national surveys they conducted in 1957 and 1976, found a significant shift in the way that people structure their self-definition and sense of well-being. They characterized this change as one from a “socially integrated” paradigm to a more “personal or individualized” paradigm and identified it in three aspects: “(1) the diminution of role standards as the basis for defining adjustment; (2) increased focus on self-expressiveness and self-direction in social life, [and] (3) a shift in concern from social organizational integration to interpersonal intimacy.” 6 Along with others, including Daniel Bell, Robert Bellah, and Daniel Yankelovich, these scholars saw the sixties and seventies as giving rise to a new emphasis on the exploration of personal desires and immediate experience, on distancing oneself from institutional (i.e., external) norms and goals, on finding one’s unique inner voice, and on freely expressing one’s intimate feelings.7 None of these sentiments were new, of course; all reflect an old Romantic sensibility. Yet the evidence suggested that they resonated as an ideal and as terms of self-expression with a much wider swath of the public. On the way to the seventies, many Americans had, in effect, internalized the harsh fifties’ critique of the “organization man.” The Commodification of Real Selves Consumerism and the commodification process were among the key forces that social critics such as Lasch and Bell identified as leading to the attenuation of social identities (e.g., mother, deliveryman, member of the Elks Club) in self-definitions and the destabilizing of the older institutions of identity formation (family, school, church, and so on). These developments created a vacuum of normative expectations and bonds. The very terms of the new self-definitions did so as well. The nonconformist appeal of “individuated paradigms” and “unsocialized, inner impulses” required that they lack social definition and normative structure. The “real self,” in this view, has its own criteria. Each person works out his or her own self-definition in relative isolation from others. The need for socially-derived identity criteria and the social recognition of others is in principle denied. The very market forces that helped create the vacuum now rushed in to fill it. New “scripts,” to use Louis Zurcher’s apt term, were written to channel those inner impulses into intentional consumer choices.8 Branding, for instance, the powerful marketing strategy used by companies to sell mass-produced goods and services, was transformed in the mid-to-late 1980s. Companies, some with no manufacturing facilities of their own (e.g., Tommy Hilfiger), began to emphasize that what they produced was not primarily things but images.9 A brand became a carefully crafted image, a succinct encapsulation of a product’s pitch. But a successful brand is also more than that. According to branding expert Scott Bedbury, in an interview with the business magazine Fast Company, a “great brand” is “an emotional connection point that transcends the product.” Myth-like, it is an evolving “metaphorical story,” that creates “the emotional context people need to locate themselves in a larger experience.”10 Inspiring passion and dreams of gratification, the theory goes, successful brands impel people to buy. The new marketing scripts incorporate the language of self-determination and transformation, and build on the knowledge that being true to our unique inner selves is a powerful moral ideal. Indeed, authenticity has been so thoroughly appropriated and packaged in the metaphorical stories of the mass marketers that we barely notice anymore. Advertisements rail against the conventional demands of society and sell products as instruments of liberation. Brands of jeans signify rebellion and rule breaking, fruit drinks and sneakers have countercultural themes, and cars let us escape and find ourselves. In the person of the bourgeois bohemians or “Bobos,” as journalist David Brooks portrays them, we have a social type that lives on precisely this model of “selfdetermination,” merging an ethic of nonconformism and impulse with a vigorous consumerism.11 Theirs, to use Thomas Frank’s term, is a “hip consumerism.”12 Even such ostensibly intimate concerns as sexual expression, self-development, and spiritual growth are now the subject of expert advice and prepackaged programs. Self-actualization, as Louis Zurcher once wrote, has become a “product marketed by awareness-training organizations that are subsidiaries of dog food and tobacco companies. Are you only a ‘three’ on our self-actualization scale? Too bad! We can make you a ‘ten’ during one of our weekend seminars in Anaheim, minutes away from Disneyland, for only a few thousand dollars.”13 By purchasing the right workbook, following the right steps, or getting the right makeover, we can change the quality of our inner experience, enhance our psychological well-being, and finally achieve true self-fulfillment. The marketing scripts have power because they are points of personal identification. The marketers recognize that an inwardly generated self is a fiction. We are selves in dialogue, both internalized and in direct conversation, with others. People need to “locate themselves in a larger experience,” and they need social recognition for their identity projects. To the degree that social identities are attenuated as the mooring of self-identification (and this, of course, is widely variable), companies can position their goods and images (and ever more precisely with niche marketing) not simply as fulfilling desires but as meeting a felt need for connection, recognition, and values to live by. At the same time, consumers can feel liberated, seeing their consumption choices as facilitating an expressive self and the articulation of personal style without the constraints of tradition or convention. Social identities remain but as one is turned into a consumer, they are increasingly shaped and conditioned by patterns of consumption. We identify our real selves by the choices we make from the images, fashions, and lifestyles available in the market, and these in turn become the vehicles by which we perceive others and they us. In this way, as Robert Dunn has written, self-formation is in fact exteriorized, since the locus is not on an inner self but on “an outer world of objects and images valorized by commodity culture.”14 There is more than a little irony here, but the mediation of our relation to self and others by acts of consumption also has significant implications. These implications overlap with another form of self-commodification and to that I turn.

 

Poems are also a link—they lock the reader into ideology rather than allowing one to identify freely – reifies the structures they critique - turns the case

Altieri, ‘96 (Charles “Some Problems about Agency in the Theories of Radical Poetics” Contemporary Literature, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Summer, 1996), pp. 207-236 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1208873) //GY

All three cases offer important correctives to an academic culture that has been obsessed with interpretation as the fundamental model of readerly participation.  But even this struggle against the academy requires some further considerations that I think have not been sufficiently taken up by the prevailing radical theories.  Were we to grant that the fundamental problem of contemporary Western culture was a blindness inflicted by the imposition of false universals, we would still have to ask if it can suffice to base our notion of what the text offers readers on the project of resisting all hermeneutic idealization.  For fact process texts, do we not condemn them to those forces that shape them as such subjects?  We ignore the possibilities that the text as structure, as willed object rather than as object of free play, can actually modify beliefs and provide alternative modes of sensibility.  So it seems that if poetry is to offer effective resistance to aspects of the dominant culture, we will have to grant it the power to construct hypothetical countermodels, or, at the very least, to provide modes of second-order reading by which an audience is invited to take some distance from its own direct first-order habits.

Edited by ZidaoWang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, 

 

I am looking for a card that is an answer to Poetry has to be reduced to semiotics for it to be exchanged.

 

 

 

Lemme Rephrase - I was wondering if there was an answer to the Poetics has to be reduced to semiotics before exchanged

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...