Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'zizek'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Categories

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

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 5 results

  1. So in one of my coaches files he shared with me, there's a very interesting kritik that is meant to be read against affs of personal experience. There is no alternative for it, but it's meant to be read as a case turn. I read it on case against an aff of legalizing undocumented migrants that talked about forced harm and internalized racism. There's only two cards, but in cross-ex, I stumbled a little bit because I didn't quite understand it well enough. My understanding was that the 1AC was simply a forced confession of a story in exchange for the ballot which ultimately trivialized the violence they truly faced. Their answers were that we don't give a sh** about your guilt. The judges said that their answers were good and that we shouldn't be reading those authors if we didn't understand them, but we won on a procedural so it didn't end up mattering. Can someone help explain the argument made by Foucault and Zizek in these cards? I don't want to put the whole thing in the event that someone takes our evidence and I am blamed, but I'll put some excerpts and if anyone could help me understand them, I would greatly appreciate it. First card- Aff is a process of confessional-their demand is an exchange of truth of experience as the price of redemption. Foucault Excerpt 1: The mad would be cured if one managed to show them that their delirium is without any relation to reality. Excerpt 2: Leuret wishes to obtain a precise act the explicit affirmation, “I am mad.” Excerpt 3: To declare aloud and intelligible the truth about oneself – I mean, to confess-has been considered for be a long time in the western world either a condition for redemption for one sins or a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty. Second Card- Their confessional is tantamount to a Stalinist show-trial that locks us all into an unproductive forced choice – their criticism deploys guilt as a means of avoiding a full questioning of privilege. Their argument enforces a kind of metaguilt, implicated by individuals who participate in their own oppression-their project doesn’t allow for the possibility of escape, meaning there is no alternative Zizek Excerpt 1: the subject experiences guilt before the big Other, while anxiety is a sign that the Other itself is lacking, impotent – in short, guilt masks anxiety. Excerpt 2: The more they proclaim their innocence, the more guilty they are!’) therefore contains a grain of truth; the ex-Party cadres wrongfully condemned as ‘traitors’ were guilty in a way, although not, of course, of the crimes of which they were explicitly accused – their true guilt was a kind of metaguilt: that is, it lay in the way they themselves participated in the creation of the system which rejected them Excerpt 3: their condemnation meant that they got from the system their own message in its inverted-true form. Can someone help me understand these cards better? I would really appreciate it, because I think the literature is very interesting but I only understand a small fraction of it. Some key things I don't understand include-"a essential item in the condemnation of the guilty" "Stalinist show-trial" "metaguilt" "their own message in its inverted-true form". Thanks!
  2. I was wondering if there is currently a K that combines the ideas of both Baudrillard and Zizek since they speak of hyperreality and fantasy respectively. Pretty much what I want the K to be is that we can't solve anything because of the whole hyperreality bs AND that we are trapped in a fantasy of sorts.
  3. I'm writing a cap K and need a queer theory link (It's a common LD aff for this topic) and came across the card below (Excuse the formatting). What exactly is it saying? What's the warrant for how capitalist goals are furthered? While concentrating on decentering identity, queer theory succeeds in promoting the goals of global cap that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist.Kirsch 6 Max Kirsch (PhD from Florida Atlantic University). “Queer Theory, Late Capitalism and Internalized Homophobia.” Journal of Homosexuality - Harrington Park Press - Vol. 52 - No. ½. 2006. pp. 19-45. Jameson has proposed that the concept of alienation in late capitalism has been replaced with fragmentation (1991, p.14). Fragmentation highlights the it also becomes more abstract: What we must now ask ourselves is whether it is precisely this semi-autonomy of the cultural sphere that has been destroyed by the logic of late capitalism. Yet to argue that culture is today no longer endowed with the relative autonomy is once enjoyed as one level among others in earlier moments of capitalism (let alone in precapitalist societies) is not necessarily to imply its disappearance or extinction. Quite the contrary; we must go on to affirm that the autonomous sphere of culture throughout the social realm, to the point at which everything in our social life–from economic value and state power to practices and to the very structure of the psyche itself–can be said to have become ‘cultural’ in some original and yet untheorized sense. This proposition is, however, substantially quite consistent with the previous diagnosis of a society of the image or simulacrum and a transformation of the “real” into so many pseudoevents. (Jameson, 1991, p. 48) The fragmentation of social life repeats itself in the proposal that sexuality and gender are separate and autonomous from bureaucratic state organization. If, as in Jameson’s terms, differences can be equated, then this should not pose a problem for the mobilization of resistance to inequality. However, as postmodernist and poststructuralist writers assume a position that this equation is impossible and undesirable, then the dominant modes of power will prevail without analysis or opposition. The danger, of course, is that while we concentrate on decentering identity, we succeed in promoting the very goals of global capitalism that work against the formation of communities or provide the means to destroy those that already exist, and with them, any hope for political action. For those who are not included in traditional sources of community building–in particular, kinship based groupings–the building of an “affectional community . . . must be as much a part of our political movement as are campaigns for civil rights” (Weeks, 1985, p. 176). This building of communities requires identification. If we cannot recognize traits that form the bases of our relationships with others, how then can communities be built? The preoccupation of Lyotard and Foucault, as examples, with the overwhelming power of “master narratives,” posits a conclusion that emphasizes individual resistance and that ironically, ends up reinforcing the “narrative” itself.
  4. Could someone please explain how the Zizek 89 card functions as a standard perm against K's? If you don't know I am talking about this piece of evidence- Thanks for any help! The kritik alone fails – criticizing the plan head-on pushes the alternative aside – only the perm solves Zizek 89, Senior Researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Codirector of the Center for Humanities at Birkbeck College, University of London, and Distinguished Fashion Expert for Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly, ’89 (Slavoj, Autumn, “Looking Awry” October, Vol 50 p 30-55, JSTOR) By means of a metaphor of the way anamorphosis functions in painting, Bushy tries to convince the queen that her sorrow has no foundation, that its reasons are null, but the crucial point is the way his metaphor splits, redoubles itself, i.e., the way he entangles himself in contradiction. First ("sorrow's eye, glazed with blinding tears, / Divides one thing entire to many objects"), he refers to the simple, commonsense opposition between a thing as it is "in itself," in reality, and its "shadows," reflections in our eyes, subjective impressions multiplied because of our anxieties and sorrows. When we are worried, a small difficulty assumes giant proportions; we see the thing as far worse than it really is. The metaphor at work here is that of a glass surface sharpened, cut in such a way that it reflects a multitude of images; instead of the tiny substance, we see its "twenty shadows." In the following verses, however, things become complicated. At first sight it seems that Shakespeare only illustrates the fact that "sorrow's eye . . . divides one thing entire to many objects" with a metaphor from the domain of painting ("Like perspectives, which rightly gaz'd upon/Show nothing but confusion; ey'd awry/Distinguish form"), but what he really accomplishes is a radical change of terrain. From the metaphor of a sharpened glass surface he passes to the metaphor of anamorphosis, the logic of which is quite different. A detail of a picture that "rightly gaz'd," i.e., from a straightforward, frontal view, appears a blurred spot, assumes clear, distinct shapes once we look at it "awry," from aside. The verses which apply this metaphor back to the queen's anxiety and sorrow are thus profoundly ambivalent: "so your sweet majesty, / Looking awry upon your lord's departure, / Finds shapes of grief more than himself to wail; / Which, look'd on as it is, is nought but shadows / Of what is not." That is to say, if we take the comparison between the queen's look and the anamorphic look literally, we would be obliged to state that precisely by "looking awry," i.e., from aside, she sees the thing in its clear and distinct form, in opposition to the "straightforward," frontal view which sees only an indistinct confusion (and, incidentally, the further development of the drama fully justifies the queen's most sinister presentiments), But, of course, Bushy did not "want to say" this. His intention was to say quite the opposite: by means of an imperceptible subreption, he returned to the first metaphor (that of a sharpened glass) and "wanted to say" that, because her view is distorted by sorrow and anxiety, the queen sees causes for alarm where a closer, matter-of-fact look attests that there is next to nothing in it. What we have here are thus two realities, two "substances." On the level of the first metaphor, we have the commonsense reality as "substance with twenty shadows," as a thing split into twenty reflections by our subjective view; in short, as a substantial "reality" distorted by our subjective perspective (inflated by our anxiety, etc.). If we look at a thing straight on, from a matter-of-fact perspective, we see it "as it really is," while the look puzzled by our desires and anxieties ("looking awry") gives us a distorted, blurred image of the thing. On the level of the second metaphor (anamorphosis), however, the relation is exactly the opposite: if we look at a thing straight on, i.e., from a matter-of-fact, disinterested, "objective" perspective, we see nothing but a formless spot. The object assumes clear and distinctive features only if we look at it "from aside," i.e., with an "interested" look, with a look supported, permeated, and "distorted" by a desire. This is precisely the Lacanian objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, an object which is, in a way, posited by the desire itself. The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., an object that can be perceived only by the look "distorted" by desire, an object that does not exist for an "objective" look. In other words, the objet petit a is always, by definition, perceived in a distorted way, because, outside this distortion, "in itself," it does not exist, i.e., because it is nothing but the embodiment, the materialization of this distortion, of this surplus of confusion and perturbation introduced by desire into so-called "objective reality." Objet petit a is "objectively" nothing, it is nothing at all, nothing of the desire itself which, viewed from a certain perspective, assumes the shape of "something." It is, as is formulated in an extremely precise manner by the queen in her response to Bushy, her "something grief" begot by "nothing" ("For nothing hath begot my something grief "). Desire "takes off" when "something" (its object-cause) embodies, gives positive existence to its "nothing," to its void. This "something" is the anamorphic object, a pure semblance that we can perceive clearly only by "looking awry." It is precisely (and only) the logic of desire that belies the notorious wisdom that "nothing comes from nothing." In the movement of desire, "something comes from nothing." It is true that the object-cause of desire is a pure semblance, but this does not prevent it from triggering off a whole chain of consequences which regulate our "material," "effective" life and deeds.
  5. http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/slavoj-i-ek-greece-courage-hopelessness
×
×
  • Create New...