Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'explanation'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive


  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL


Google Chat/Jabber











Found 6 results

  1. Csayani


    Hello, I was cutting links for a biopower K when I came across this card. Can someone explain it to me? Nadesan 2008 (Marjia is an Associate Professor of Social and Behavioral sciences at Arizona State University “Governmentality Biopower and Everday Life” pg.5) Foucault argued that biopower involves both the life politics of population and the harnessing and disciplining of corporeal bodies. Although his later work emphasized the former expressions of biopower in order to address power’s productivity and circulation, discipline and sovereignty remain important dimensions of his approach to social anlaysis. Accordingly, it is my contention that analyses of how biopower operates must remain attuned to the systems of marginalization, exclusion, and discipline that supplement liberal technologies of the self implicated in the production of self-regulating agents. This emphasis on how biopower operates as a technology of power that both privileges and marginalizes, empowers and disciplines, sets this book apart from more optimistic formulations of biopwoer as a technology of optimization. Contemproary analyses of power and control must look beyond the disciplines and surveillance technologies of enclosed institutional spaces. Foucault (2007) argued that governmentality extends analysis beyond the inside of disciplinary insitiutions to the outside from spefiic institutional functions to dispersed, networked technologies of power that circulate across all domains of social life. Foucault’s shifted analysis to the outside because he saw historical shifts in the technologies and operations of social power. Gilles Deleuze (1992) coined the idea of “societies of control” (Deleuze, 1992, p.4) to address contemporary forms of power that circulate dynamically, producing individuals who experience themselves as internally fragmented, or dividuated, by dispersed networks (see also Hardt & Negri, 2000). Circulating networks often involve computerized strategies of surveillance, representation, and control, thereby requiring individuals to succumb to historically novel surveillance modes and disciplines while adopting new kinds of technologies of the self requiring continuous self-modulation.. Deleuze argued that market operations and logics have gained disproportionate power within contemporary societies through the iconic figure of the corporation, which encourages competition among individuals while dividing each person “within” with its imperatives for self-modulation (p.5). The corporation and financial capital circulate almost without limit, exacerbating old social divisions while also producing new forms of inclusion and exclusion. My work provides a genealogoy of the new societies of control and their attendant global market networks in order to explain the dispersion of neoliberal governmentality across social fields that older liberal governmentalities presented and constituted as distinct. Marketized neoliberal governmentalities increasingly shape the problem-solution frames and techonologies organizing conduct within state apparatuses and across everytday “private” life. Of particular interest for this project are the ways biopowers operations are transformed by market-oriented neoliberal govnernmentailiteis. Thus, this book emphasized how neoliberal market logics and technologies present particular biopolitical problematic and opportunities for state, market, and private actors while, simultaneously, shaping governmental approaches to representing and addressing these problematic. In what follows, I briefly introduce my approach to governmentality before outlining this book’s organization across chapters.
  2. I've seen the name thrown around, Westminster particularly read it often(ish) last year. Can I get an explanation of the basic thesis - how is it contextualized to identity affs? policy affs? Thanks
  3. Hey everyone, So a while ago, we lost a round against the "Chairman Mao K" by Milpitas DP Here's the round report from my wiki, we were aff 1AC- Kritikal Middle Passage 1NC- FW/ T/Race Binary K/ Chairman Mao K/ Batman K/ Case 2NR- FW Chairman Mao K Can someone explain what the Mao K even says, I was confused in round, and we apparently misunderstood the K and made it worse for us. Judges said the Mao K was a major solvency deficit to the aff
  4. So I know that a lot of K folks will read arguments about what the roll of the ballot is -- ontology/epistemology/etc first, and I know that in my 2ac blocks I'm supposed to have framework that says the roll of the ballot/judge (assuming I'm reading a tpd aff) is to evaluate the effects of the implementation of a hypothetical plan text. But, as far as I know, the "actual" rob is affirming the resolution based off whichever team is more convincing. That said, this is all really shaky in my head. What does it really mean to say that the ballot signifies anything? How does this intersect with arguments about standards -- like, how does an aff being more educational mean that the resolution is true/false? What does it mean to argue that it should be changed, esp. does that affirm the resolution? What about topical counterplans? Is the only point of the resolution to inspire affs and then everything will be determined by the impacts inround? I guess this probably comes from a lack of understanding of the impacts of standards/pre-fiat stuff on the critical side. This was probably a lot, any help would be appreciated, I've a lot to learn. e: I put this in Ks because generally its teams outside of tpd that will make arguments like this (although its just as much if not more about T/theory) -- didn't know quite where it went, hope it's not an issue
  5. Zmag52


    Didn't see much when I searched, but could someone please give me an quick summary of Foucault's philosophy and possible direct me to good books of his and/or books explaining his ideas? Thanks.
  6. doublebind


  • Create New...