Jump to content

SirAravis

Member
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SirAravis last won the day on December 31 2017

SirAravis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About SirAravis

  • Rank
    Junior-Varsity

Profile Information

  • Name
    Siddharth Namachivayam
  • School
    La Cueva

Recent Profile Visitors

1902 profile views
  1. So an assemblage is essentially a dynamic collection of things that is greater than the sum of its parts. For example take warrior and a horse. When separate, each has unique capacities (or affects), and when in an assemblage, certain virtual affects are actualized (the speed of the horse along with the combative skill of the warrior). You cannot simply reduce the assemblage to the sum of its parts (a warrior and a horse), as they must exist in relation together to properly constitute that assemblage. Note also that the dynamacity of each component of this assemblage makes the assemblage as a whole open to change and alteration (a change in the health of the warrior or the horse also changes the assemblage as a whole). Also note that individual components can change according to the other components of the assemblage. Switching the warrior with a jockey makes the horse actualize different capacities, and so in a way, the horse it self changes and takes on a new meaning. When it comes to race, Deleuze believes that racial formations exist as a dynamic assemblage. This stands in stark opposition to afro-pessimist theories of static ontology where subjects are trapped within the binary positions of Master and Slave. Deleuzeans argue that this approach to critical race theory is bad because it creates an ontology where subjects aren't able to fluidly navigate between identities and it locks them into the very positions that inflict violence in the first place. So, instead of viewing racialization as a binaristic process that's gridlocked, we can take individual racial formations (such as the African American racial formation) to be an assemblage, as well as the assemblage between all the various racial formations (Asian, Latino, Native American, Black, White etc...) each with its own capacities, affects, and exteriority of relations. For Deleuzeans, this racial ontology is far more dynamic and liberating than the one outlined in AP.
  2. So an assemblage is essentially a dynamic collection of things that is greater than the sum of its parts. For example take warrior and a horse. When separate, each has unique capacities (or affects), and when in an assemblage, certain virtual affects are actualized (the speed of the horse along with the combative skill of the warrior). You cannot simply reduce the assemblage to the sum of its parts (a warrior and a horse), as they must exist in relation together to properly constitute that assemblage. Note also that the dynamacity of each component of this assemblage makes the assemblage as a whole open to change and alteration (a change in the health of the warrior or the horse also changes the assemblage as a whole). Also note that individual components can change according to the other components of the assemblage. Switching the warrior with a jockey makes the horse actualize different capacities, and so in a way, the horse it self changes and takes on a new meaning. When it comes to race, Deleuze believes that racial formations exist as a dynamic assemblage. This stands in stark opposition to afro-pessimist theories of static ontology where subjects are trapped within the binary positions of Master and Slave. Deleuzeans argue that this approach to critical race theory is bad because it creates an ontology where subjects aren't able to fluidly navigate between identities and it locks them into the very positions that inflict violence in the first place. So, instead of viewing racialization as a binaristic process that's gridlocked, we can take individual racial formations (such as the African American racial formation) to be an assemblage, as well as the assemblage between all the various racial formations (Asian, Latino, Native American, Black, White etc...) each with its own capacities, affects, and exteriority of relations. For Deleuzeans, this racial ontology is far more dynamic and liberating than the one outlined in AP.
  3. I went last year and I would go again this year...but I'm too poor
  4. UTNIF is the bees knees. I had very limited exposure to debate before Skills Intensive, and now I feel like I can put up a good fight in the Nat Circuit so as not to go 0-6 every tournament.
  5. I think another cool argument would be like "Debate is a unique space that allows us to explore how we constitute our world view by advocating things we wouldn't usually agree with and perf conning across multiple rounds (as opposed to in a single where that would hurt fairness) allows us to deconstruct binaries that we have internalized over the course of our lives."
  6. Well it makes more sense looking at it from a stock issues paradigm or hypo testing more than a policymaking paradigm. Hypo-Testing: A lot of the burden gets shifted to the negative in hypo-testing, so obviously they'd need something like Justification arguments to test the truth of the resolution in its entirety. Stock Issues: Imagine you are providing a solution to something that you think needs to be fixed within your community. Obviously before taking the risk of changing the status quo, you would want to make sure that your proposed plan is the best plan of action. Obviously this is kinda dumb in policy-making cause the perm blows it out of the water, but thats not how Stock Issues or Hypo-testing work cause they focus more on the resolution than on a specific policy option.
  7. Apparently some old school retro argument that almost became like a 6th prima facie issue. Anyone wanna explain?
  8. So I've been encountering a lot of weird stuff (multiple plan texts, perms on disads, opportunity costs etc...), and I was wondering if anyone had some resources to learn about all the argumentative and theoretical trends that have shaped policy debate to become what it is now. I think I would learn a lot from seeing what contentions the debate community initially had with the arguments that have become so popular today, and what arguments have fallen out of fashion (and is it possible to resuscitate them?). I envision something like a history book tracing the development of policy debate as an activity. EDIT: Found this dank thread: https://www.cross-x.com/topic/38487-retro-theory/
  9. Well I mean the origins don't really matter. Like for example I ran an aff last year about the normalization of the surveillance-industrial complex and how we could only diagnose the issue through a genealogical analysis to create counter memory which challenges the dominant narrative about the necessity of normalized surveillance. It's quite a flexible idea.
  10. The idea actually originated with a term called "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" from Germany and is used to describe the way Germany dealt with its political identity post-Hitler. So there are dominant historical narratives. For example, like Germany being a dictatorship that is filled with anti-semitic racist people, or the inferiority of non-Western knowledges, or manifest destiny, or the move from sovereign power to technologies of the self etc... The people who benefit from these dominant narratives are usually the people who put them there in the first place. For example narratives of the white colonizer having to come in and 'cleanse' the native body only benefits the white colonizer. So respectively there is a oppressor class and oppressed or marginalized population. Now this marginalized population has no political identity. They are defined purely in terms of falling outside of the dominant political discourse (and the dominant political discourse only gives non-marginalized oppressors political identity). This means that the marginalized population must put forth a counter narrative/counter discourse/counter memory that challenges the dominant narrative/dominant discourse put forth by the oppressing class to obtain political identity. This may include things like a different perspective on the consequences of a significant event, or different interpretations of history (Foucault's genealogy), or considering history from a variety of mediums and accounts (Deleuze's geology), or attempting rekindle revolutions of the past from the stand point of now as they pop up in the present (Benjamin's Messianism). The terms counter-memory/counter-discourse/counter-memorial are near synonymous with differing meanings only in nuance. I hope this helped!
  11. Well It's a little bit deeper than this. The unconscious rather than being the Other itself, is rather a consequence of the Other. When we are born we feel completely immersed in the world around us, we obtain what we want through the immediacy of desire. However we eventually conclude this is not enough (consequence of the oedipus complex). We feel as our natural, maternal desires will never be fulfilled until we try to impose upon ourselves organized, paternal representations. When we submit to the phallus, we do so because we are unable to attain objet petit a through other means. Submitting to the phallus is exactly equivalent to entering the Symbolic Order. We sacrifice the immediate satisfaction of our desires for representations of those desires so we can demand them(language). Thus desire is oedipal. It starts to become clear what Lacan means by the fact that "The unconscious is structured like a language" when we look at this alongside structuralism. The signifier is an arbitrary and differential representation of the signified(what we truly want). But the very nature of the signifier, in the fact it has no relation what so ever to the signified, means our representations of the world deny us what exists outside of language. This is why Lacan says we can never attain objet petit a. This system of signifiers(the phallus) that we allow ourselves to express ourselves in, is one that exists outside consciousness. It is material condition that is imposed upon us. It is truly Other. This why the language of the unconscious is the language of the Other, because language is a structure that does not allow us to express our desires through our own agency. It has been taken over by the big Other(i.e. the Symbolic).
  12. So recently I have been seeing a lot of counter memory affs and have a rough idea of whats going on and it seems pretty similar to historical revisionism. I was wondering what the lit for counter memory was so I can better understand these affs. Thanks.
  13. SirAravis

    Shrek K

    I found a link for 2016-2017 m8's. http://moviepilot.com/posts/2561113
  14. Just look at old FW files for traditional policy debate good evidence
×
×
  • Create New...