North Texas Quinn McCullough Neg Harvard Round6

8/9/2019 North Texas Quinn McCullough Neg Harvard Round6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/north-texas-quinn-mccullough-neg-harvard-round6 1/32

1NC



Off

The affirmative’s attempt to proliferate black knowledge production will be

incorporated into the system and sold as a new market for capital’s infiltration.

Their framing certainly does not resist capitalism commodification. Despite the bestintentions Difference and identity can and must only be understood from a class!

based perspective. This is key to creating a successful movement capable of

cataly"ing ethical demands at the global level

D’#nnibale and $c%aren &''( (Valerie Catamburio, PhD, chairs the Graduate Program in Communication and SocialJustice at the University of Windsor, and Peter, rofessor in the Division of Urban Schooling, Graduate School of !ducation and "nformationStudies, UC#$, %&he Strategic Centrality of Class in the Politics of 'ace' and 'Difference),) Cultural Studies *+ Critical -ethodologies, Vol./, 0o. 1, 2345267 (188/99

:ecause post!al theories of difference often circumvent the material dimensions of difference and tend

to segregate )uestions of difference from analyses* of class formation and capitalist social relations,

;e contend that it is necessary * to +re,conceptuali"e difference by drawing on $ar-’s materialist and

historical* formulations. Difference needs to be understood as the product of social contradictions

and in relation to political and economic organi"ation. :ecause systems of difference almost al;ays involve relations ofdomination and oression, ;e must concern ourselves ;ith the economies of relations of difference< that e=ist in secific conte=ts. Dra;ing onthe -ar=ist concet of mediation< enables us to unsettle the categorical (and sometimes overly rigid9 aroaches< to both class and difference for it ;as -ar= himself ;ho ;arned against creating false dichotomies at the heart of our olitics>that it ;as absurd to choose< bet;eenconsciousness and the ;orld, sub?ectivity and social organi@ation,<ersonal or collective ;ill, and historical or structural determination. "n asimilar vein, it is eAually absurd to see %difference as a historical form of consciousness unconnected to class formation, develoment of caital

and class olitics)< (:anner?i, 2BB7, . /89. anner/i has pointed to the need to historici"e difference in relation

to the history and social organi"ation of capital and class* +inclusive of imperialist and colonialist

legacies, and to acknowledge the* changing configurations of difference and 0otherness.) $rehendingthe< meaning and function of difference in this manner necessarily highlights the< imortance of e=loring (a9 the institutional and structuralasects of difference (b9 the meanings and connotations that are attached to categories of difference (c9 ho; differences are roduced out of, andlived ;ithin, secific his torical, social, and olitical formations and (d9 the roduction of difference in< relation to the comle=ities,

contradictions, and e=loitative relations of< caitalism.< -oreover, it presents a challenge to 0identitarian

understandings of difference based almost e-clusively on )uestions of cultural and2or racial

hegemony .*3n such approaches the answer to oppression often amounts to creating greater*

cultural space for the formerly e-cluded to have their voices heard +represented,. $uch of what is

called the 0politics of difference is little more than a* demand for an end to monocultural

)uarantine and for inclusion into the metropolitan salons of bourgeois representation 4a posture

that reinscribes a* neoliberal pluralist stance rooted in the ideology of free market capitalism. "n<

short, the political sphere is modeled on the marketplace and freedom* amounts to the liberty of all

vendors to display their different 0cultural goods .<$ aradigmatic e=ression of this osition is encasulated in the

follo;ing assage that chamions a form of difference olitics ;hose resumed aim< is to mae social grous aear. $inority and

immigrant ethnic groups have laid * claim to the street as a legitimate forum for the promotion and

e-hibition of traditional dress food and culture....5This6 is a politics of visibility and invisibility.

:ecause it must deal ;ith a tradition of reresentation that insists on subsuming varied social ractices to a standard norm, its struggle is as muchon the< age, screen . . . as it is at the barricade and in the arliament, traditional< forums of olitical intervention before the ostmodern.

(EueryF -ansfield,<1888, . 2789< This position fosters a 0fetishi"ed understanding of difference in terms of

primordial and seemingly autonomous cultural identities and treats such 0differences as inherent

as ontologically secure cultural traits of the individuals of* particular cultural communities. ather

than e=loring the construction of< difference ;ithin secific conte=ts mediated by the con?unctural< embeddedness of o;er differentials, we

are instead presented with an overflowing cornucopia of cultural particularities that serve as

markers of ethnicity * race group boundaries , and so forth. "n this instance, the discourse of difference

operates ideologically4cultural recognition derived from the rhetoric of* tolerance averts our ga"e



from relations of production and presents a strategy* for attending to difference as solely an ethnic

racial or cultural issue.<What advocates of such an aroach fail to acno;ledge is that the forces of* diversity and

difference are allowed to flourish provided that they remain* within the prevailing forms of

capitalist social arrangements. The neopluralism * of difference politics cannot ade)uately pose a

substantive challenge to the productive system of capitalism that is able to accommodate a vast

pluralism of* ideas and cultural practices. "n fact, the post!al themes of identity difference* diversity

and the like mesh )uite nicely with contemporary corporate interests* precisely because they reverelifestyle4the )uest for and the cultivation of the* self4and often encourage the fetishi"ation of

identities in the marketplace as they compete for 0visibility (:oggs, 1888 Eield, 2BB69. -oreover, the< uncritical,celebratory tone of various forms of difference olitics can also< lead to some disturbing conclusions. Eor e=amle, if ;e tae to their logical<conclusion the statements that %ostmodern olitical activism fiercely contests< the reduction of the other to the same,) that ost5al narratives

believe that %difference needs to be recogni@ed and resected at all levels) (EueryF -ansfield,<1888, . 2349, and that the recognition of differentsub?ect ositions is aramount (-ouffe, 2B44, . /75/9, their olitical folly becomes clear. !agleton< (2BB9 sardonically commented on theimlicationsH<$lmost all ostmodern theorists ;ould seem to imagine that difference, variability and heterogeneity are %absolute) goods, and it isa osition " have long held< myself. "t has al;ays struc me as unduly imoverishing of :ritish social life that< ;e can muster a mere t;o orthree fascist arties. . . . &he oinion that lurality is< a good in itself is emtily formalistic and alarmingly unhistorical. (. 2152169< &heliberal luralism manifest in discourses of difference olitics often means a< lurality ;ithout conflict, contestation, or contradiction. &heinherent limitations of this osition are also evident if ;e turn our attention to issues of class.<!=anding on !agletonIs observations andadoting the logic that seems to< inform the unAualified celebration of difference, one ;ould be comelled to< chamion class differences as;ell. Presumably, the differences bet;een the< 367 billionaires ;hose combined ;ealth no; eAuals the combined yearly< incomes of more than78 of the ;orldIs oulation are to be celebrated>a< osturing that ;ould undoubtedly lend itself to a triumhant endorsement of< caitalism

and ineAuitable and e=loitative conditions. San Juan (2BB79 noted< that the cardinal flaw in current instantiations ofculturalism lies in its decapitation of discourses of intelligibility from the politics of antagonistic

relations.<Ke framed the Auestion Auite ointedlyH %"n a society stratified by uneven< roerty relations, by asymmetrical allocation ofresources and of o;er, can< there be eAuality of cultures and genuine toleration of differencesL) (. 1/15< 1//9.

$odern capitalism ensures that Differentiations e-ist between the ontologicalworlds

of identity politics. These differentiations are central to violence and e-termination

and necessitate unending war. The alternatives presupposition of ethical e)uality is a

prere)uisite to dealing with "ones of sacrifice like debate

alibar &''1 (!tienne, !meritus Prof. of Philosohy M U. of Paris N 0anterre and U. of Cal., "rvine, %Outlines of a &oograhy ofCrueltyH Citi@enshi and Civility in the !ra of Global Violence,) Constellations, Vol. 4.29

this aer is based on a tal ;hich " ;as ased to deliver in 0ovember 2BBB for the oening of the Graduate Course in Kumanitarian $ction at

the University of Geneva.1 &his ;ill e=lain ;hy the issues of citi"enship and segregation asylum and migration mass

poverty and genocides in the globali"ed world order ;ill lay a central role in this discussion. &hese are to me the crucial%cosmoo5 litical) issues ;hich ;e should try to locate and connect if ;e ;ant to understand ho; and ;hy democratic citi@enshi in todayIs

;orld cannot be separated from an invention of concrete forms and strategies of civility.<" shall focus ont;o sets of roblems. &he first is tyically !uroean. " am thining of the negative counterart of the ost5national integration and introduc5 tion

of %!uroean Citi@enshi,) ;hich is not only a revival of so5called %commu5 nitarian) demands and % identity politics but above

all a development of )uasi!#partheid social structures and institutions. This forms a contradictory

pattern, ;hich in many resects is no; becoming highly unstable. &he second set of roblems is globalH it appears as a systematic

use of various forms of e-treme violence and mass insecurity to prevent collective movements of

emancipation that aim at transforming the structures of domination. Eor this reason and also ;ith the attern ofstate5construction that &homas Kobbes once described in the #eviathan as reventive counter5violence in mind " shall not hesitate to sea of a

olitics of global reventive counter5revolution or counter5insurrection. :ut from another angle this 0politics is really anti!

political since in a nihilistic way it leads to suppressing the very conditions of building a polity."nstead, ;e ;itness the ?oint develoment of various sorts of ;ars and a ind of %humanitarian) action or intervention, ;hich in many cases becomes an instrument in the service of recisely those o;ers ;ho created the distress. 0ot by chance, in these t;o sets of roblems thetraditional institution of borders, ;hich " thin can be defined in the modern era as a %sovereign) or non5democratic condition of democracyitself, mainly ;ors as an instrument of security controls, social segregation, and uneAual access to the means of e=istence, and sometimes as aninstitutional distri5 bution of survival and deathH it becomes a cornerstone of institutional violence. &his e=lains in advance ;hy " shall insist onthe democrati@ation of borders, not only as their oening (and erhas least of all as their generali@ed abolition, ;hich in many cases ;ouldsimly lead to a rene;ed ;ar of all against all in the form of ;ild cometition among economic forces9, but above all as a multilateral, negotiatedcontrol of their ;oring by the oulations themselves (including, of course, migrant oulations9. Perhas ne; reresentative institutions should

be set u in this regard ;hich are not merely %territoria l) and certainly not urely national. &his is art of ;hat " ;ould call a %cosmoolitics ofhuman rights,) ;here citi@enshi and civility are closely associated.<:efore giving more detail about the t;o sets of concrete roblems " ;ant todeal ;ith here, " thin that ;e need some hilosohical instruments to lace them in the broader ersective of a reflection on the relationshi



bet;een human rights and oli tics. "t is ;idely acceted and " share this vie; to a large e=tent that here Kannah $rendtIs ;or rovides anecessary starting oint. $llo; me a fe; considerations on ;hat ;e can dra; from her. "n her discussion of imerialism in &he Origins of&otalitarianism she addresses the Auestion of %stateless) oula5 tions, derived of any civil and civic rights, ;hich had been immenselyincreased in !uroe (and else;here9 after the t;o ;orld ;ars./ "n so doing, she inverts the ersective of olitical hilosohy in a double

manner.<Eirst, she reinstalls right in the middle of debates about citi"enship and polit! ical regimes 7 forms

of e-clusion and situations of e-treme violence where the survival of humans as mere

representatives of the species is threatened. She did not ;ant only to assert a humanistic criterion ;ith a vie; to doing

?ustice, but to sho; that it is only through the discovery of a solution for such situations that ;e can find a ne; foundation for the ublic shere,;here collective olitical action (or ra=is9 taes lace, and not only the management of oulation movements and olicing of social conflicts."n a very similar ;ay, the Erench hilosoher JacAues anciQre more recently argued that, since the very origins of democracy, the measure ofeAual liberty for all in the olitical realm ;as based on %la art des sans art,) i.e., giving a fair share to those ;ho hold no share in the common5;ealth, or the olitical recognition of the have5nots. "n other ;ords, this ;ould mean an active transformation of e=clusion rocesses into

rocesses of inclusion of the discriminated categories into the %city) or the %olity.)3 &his is e=actly ;hat isonomia in Gree cities ;as about. "nthis resect, %olitics) in the strong sense becomes insearable from %ermanent revolution,) a notion that Kannah $rendt might have inheritedfrom osa #u=emburg.<Erom this ersective, the ?uridical form of eAual liberty is clearly not elimi5 nated. :ut it has to be re;ored comletely.With resect to the rinciles of modern humanism5universalism, a notion of %ersons ;ithout rights) is a contra5 diction in terms, since de ?urenobody is ;ithout rights, not even children or the handicaed. :ut if ;e vie; ositively, for instance, such claims as those of ro5 ertyless

easants in :ra@il, ;hose motto is %?ustice for the rightless) ;hen they demand that aramilitary forces ;ho ill and terrori@e the oor be triedand condemned, or those of migrant ;orers in Erance ;ho rotest against their being denied official documents by asing for a %droit de citR

our les sans aiers) (legal residence for the undocumented9, ;e can vie; these demands based on resistance and the refusal of violence as artial but direct e=ressions of the rocess of the creation of rights, a dynamic ;hich allo;s the olitical constitution to become recogni@ed as%oular sovereignty) or democracy.< &his is one asect of the lessons ;e can dra; from $rendtIs reflections on citi5 @enshi, but there isanother ;hich in a sense is even more relevant today. " am thining of the famous argument sho;ing that the history of nation5states has

roduced a reversal of the traditional relationshi bet;een %human rights) and %olitical rights) (or droits de lIhomme and droits du citoyen9

since they evolved from the originary democratic national revolutions to the generali@ation of inter5 national conflicts and the develoment ofimerialism. Kuman rights in general can no longer be considered a mere rereAuisite and an abstract foundation for olitical rights that are set uand reserved ;ithin the limits of a given national and sovereign state, but neither can they be considered to set a limit to the domi5 nation of the

olitical over the ?uridical it has become the oosite, as the tragic e=eriences of imerialism and totali tarianism in the t;entieth century mademanifest. We discovered that olitical rights, the actual granting and conditions of eAual citi@enshi, ;ere the true basis for a recognition anddefinition of %human rights) to begin ;ith, the most elementary ones concerning survival, naed life. Giving a ne;, %unolitical) meaning tothe @onolition itself, those ;ho ;ere not citi@ens of some state, ;ho ;ere %citi@ens of no;here in the ;orld,) ;ere no longer racticallyrecogni@ed and treated as humans. When the ositive institu5 tional rights of the citi@en are destroyed e.g., ;hen, in a given historical conte=t;here citi@enshi and nationhood are closely associated, individuals and grous are chased out of their national belonging or simly ut in thesituation of an oressed national %minority) the basic rights ;hich are suosed to be %natural) or %universally human) are threatened anddestroyedH ;e ;itness forms of e=treme violence, creating a distinction bet;een so5called Untermenschen (subhumans9 and %humans) believed to

be suermen, Tbermenschen. &his is by no means a contingent henomenon it results from an irreversible rocess that has become common incontemorary olitics. "t imoses uon democracy the immediate tas of a rene;ed foundation. &he very essence of olitics is at stae, since

olitics is not a mere %suerstructure) above the social and natural condi5 tions of life, communication, and culture. &he true concet of oliticsalready concerns the very ossibility of a community among humans, establishing a sace for encounter, for the e=ression and dialecticalresolution of antagonisms among its various constitutive arts and grous.<Seen from this angle, the crucial notion suggested by $rendt, that of a

%right to have rights,) does not feature a minimal remainder of the olitical, made of ?uridi5 cal and moral claims to be rotected by a constitutionit is much more the idea of a ma=imum. Or, better said, it refers to the continuous rocess in ;hich a minimal recognition of the belonging ofhuman beings to the %common) shere of e=is5 tence (and therefore also of ;or, culture, ublic and rivate seech, etc.9 already involves atotality of rights, and maes it ossible. " call this the %insurrectional) element of democracy, ;hich redetermines every constitution of ademocratic or reublican state. Such a state, by definition, cannot consist (or cannot only consist9 of statuses and rights ascribed from above itreAuires the direct artici5 ation of the demos. " should say that $rendtIs argument clearly recogni@es the imortance of the egalitarian orinsurrectional element constitutive of democratic citi@enshi, but there is moreH ;hat she dislays is the dialectical relationshi of this elementand the olitics of civility. &his comes from the fact that the radically e=cluded, those ;ho, being denied citi@enshi, are also automaticallydenied the material conditions of life and the recognition of their human dignity, do not rovide only a theoretical criterion to evaluate historicalinstitutions against the model of the ideal constitution. &hey also force us to address the reality of e=treme violence in contemorary oliticalsocieties nay, in the very heart of their everyday life. &his is only a seeming arado=H the limit or the %state of e=cetion) (Schmitt9 is noth5 ing

e=cetional. On the contrary, it is 0banal 8 it permeates the functioning of social and political systems which

claim or believe themselves to be 0democra! tic. 3t is both an instrument for the continuity of their

vested interests in power and a permanent threat to their vitality. &his is ;hy ;e should not consider the choice bet;een access to and denial of the rights of citi@enshi more generally, the ossibility and imossibility of an inclusive olitical order as aseculative issue. "t is a concrete challenge. &he (democratic9 olitical order is intrinsically fragile or recarious if not continuously recreated in

a olitics of civility, it becomes again a %state of ;ar,) ;ithin or across borders.<We no; that $rendtIs argument ;as based on the e=erience ofa %catastrohe) in !uroean historyH 0a@ism, World War &;o, and the racist e=termination of !uroean Je;s, Gysies, and other grous. Shetried to trace bac its %origins) in the evolution of the nation5form to;ards imerialism, ;hile at the same time carefully remaining a;are of itsuniAueness. We might summari@e her idea by seaing of a deadly circle in ;hich the national constitution of the state had traed us. &henation5state ;as at the same time the sole ositive or institutional hori@on for the recognition of human rights and an %imossible) one, roducingthe destruction of the universal values it had suorted. 0o; ;e must as ourselves ;hether ;e are still living and acting in the same conditions."f not, ;e should as ;hat the claim of %a right to have rights) could become in todayIs olitics. &his Auestion becomes a burning one ;hen ;eobserve that, although the nation5form has not simly been ;ithering a;ay, the conditions of olitics, the economy, and culture, the materialdistribution of o;er and the ossibilities of controlling it, have become increasingly transnational. %Post5 national) state or Auasi5stateinstitutions have emerged in the general frame;or of globali@ation. &he %!uroean Community) is a rivileged case of these develo5 ments.#et us first reflect on some of the contradictory and ;orrying asects of this rocess, ;hich, seen from another side, holds much romise.<" taeit to be a crucial issue to acno;ledge that, along ;ith the develoment of a formal %!uroean citi@enshi,) a real %!uroean $artheid) has



emerged. "n the long or even the short run, it could obstruct or bloc the construction of a democra5 tic !uroean community. "t could therefore bloc !uroean construction altogether, since there is no real ossibility of the suranational community being achieved in an authoritarian ;ay, la :ismarc, even for the sae of accumulating o;er or creating a regional o;er ;hich ;ould be able to match the ;orldIs economic,

olitical, and military suero;er. $ suranational !uroean community ;ill e=ist only if, comared ;ith e=isting national const itutions, itmeans a democratic surlus for the ma?ority. #et me clarify the issue by asing t;o symmetrical Aues5 tionsH Why sea of a !uroean$artheidL Why sea of $artheid in !uroeL<Why sea of a !uroean %$artheid)L &his cannot be simly the case because foreigners aregranted lesser rights (more reciselyH some categories of foreigners, mainly immigrant ;orers and asylum seeers from the !ast and the South;ho legally or illegally crossed the frontiers rotecting the ;ealthy %civili@ation) of !uroe, the :alan region featuring in this resect a ind of

combination of both e=traneities9. &here must be something Aualitatively ne;. &his is indeed the case ;ith the ne; develoments of theconstruction of !uroe since the 2BB/ &reaty of -aastricht. "n each and every one of the !uroean nation5states, there e=ist structures ofdiscrimination ;hich command uneven access to citi@enshi or nationality, articularly those inherited from the colonial ast. :ut the additionalfact ;ith the birth of the !uroean Union (coming after a mere !uroean !conomic Community9 is that a concet of Civis!uroeanus

rogressively acAuires a secific contentH ne; individual and collective rights, ;hich rogres5 sively become effective (e.g., ossibilities toaeal to !uroean Courts against oneIs o;n national administration and system of ?ustice9.<0o; the crucial Auestion becomesH ne; rights for;homL "t could be, abstractly seaing, either for the ;hole oulation of !uroe, or simly for a more limited !uroean eole (" am e=andinghere the dilemma ;hich is no; taing lace in Germany about the distinction bet;een Vol and :evlerung, since this dilemma actuallyconcerns all of !uroe and the German controversy is aradigmatic9. "t roves very difficult and embarrassing to %define) the !uro5 ean eoleas the symbolic, legal, and material basis for the !uroean constituency. -aastricht solved the roblem by simly stating that those and onlythose ;ho already ossess citi@enshi (i.e., are nationals9 in one of the constituent national states ;ill automatically be granted !uroeanciti@enshi. :ut this ;hich may remind us of debates among the Eounding Eathers of the US Consti5 tution already determines an orientation.Given the Auantitative and Aualitative imortance of the immigrant oulation ermanently residing in !uroe (;hat Erench olitical scientistCatherine de Wenden has called %the si=teenth member5 state)79, it immediately transforms a ro?ect of inclusion into a rogram of e=clu5 sion;hich could be summari@ed by three metamorhosesH< from foreigners to aliens (meaning second5class residents ;ho are deemed to be of adifferent ind9< from rotection to discrimination (this is a very sensitive issue, as sho;n by the $ustrian case, but again, ;ith some differencesin degree and language, it is a general !uroean roblemH since some of the immigrant ;orers ;ho are derived of olitical citi@enshi en?oy

some social rights, i.e., are included in %social citi@enshi,) it becomes a crucial olitical issue and an obsession for conservative forces to havethem e=elled from ;elfare, social rotection, etc. ;hat the Erench 0ational Eront has called rRfRrencenationale, but recisely because a

degree of rRfRrence already e=ists in the national institutions, it is liely to become a rRfRrenceeuroRenne9 and finally,< from

cultural difference to racial stigmati"ation which is the heart of the creation of the 0new racism

postcolonial and post!national. Why suggest a arallel ;ith South $frican %$artheid)L &his could only be a useless rovocation. . .Should ;e really suggest that, ;hile $artheid has offi5 cially disaeared in $frica, it is no; reaearing in !uroe (and erhas also else;here9

a further develoment in the rocess of %the !mire striing bac) (Paul Gilroy9L We could thin of comarisons ;ith other historical cases ofinsti5 tutional racism, for e=amle the US, ;hich ;e no; has never comletely forgot5 ten the Jim Cro; system, and eriodically seems to be onthe ;ay to recreating it ;hen conservative olicy is on the agenda. . . Eor his art, my German colleague Kelmut Dietrich, ;ho has long ;oredon refugees and migrants on the %!astern :order) of !uroe, articularly the :alans, soe of the Kinterland of the ne; !uroean eich, etc.<#eaving aside the Auestion of ho; to measure the amount of suffering created by one or another system and focusing instead on the structures, "suggest t;o comlementary reasons at least to borro; lessons from the historical e=amle of $artheid, i.e., to comare the situation of theregions ;hence most of the migrants come, in $frica, $sia, or other arts of !uroe, ;ith homelands in the South $frican sense. One is that the

osition of the imortant grou of ;orers ;ho %reroduce) their lives on one side of the border and %roduce) on the other side, and thus more recisely are neither insiders nor outsiders, or (for many of us9 are insiders officially considered outsiders, roduces a steady increase in the

amount and the violence of %security) controls, ;hich sread every;here in the society and ramify the borderline throughout the %!uroean)territory, combining modern techniAues of identification and recording ;ith good old %racial rofil5 ing) (contrle au faciQs9. &his in articular is

;hat the Schengen agreement ;as about. The second complementary reason is that the e-istence of migrant

families +and their composition their way of life, has become a true obsession for migra! tion

policies and public opinion. 9hould the alien families be separated or united (that is, reunited9L "f so, on ;hichside of the border, ;hich ind of families (traditional, modern9, ;hich ind of relatives (arents, children9, ;ith ;hat ind of rights, etc.L $s "have argued else;here, the interference of family olitics, more generally a olitics of genealogy, ;ith the definition of the national %community)is a crucial structural mode of roduction of historical racism. Of course, this is also true ;hen the national becomes multinationalcommunity.<Erom all this ;e might dra; the conclusion that a de5segregated !uroe, i.e., a democratic !uroe, is far from the agenda. "ndeed,the situation is much more contradictory, since tendencies oint in both directions ;e are in the middle of a historical crossroad that is, only

artially and reluctantly acno;ledged. :ut " refer to insist on another idea, ;hich rovides me ;ith the necessary transition to the ne=t oint,namely the fact that these issues tyically illustrate a global5local (%glocal)9 roblem. &he contradictory and evolutionary attern of %!uroeanciti5 @enshi5cum5$artheid) (or statutory, ascritive citi@enshi9 (ogers Smith9 in a sense is a reaction to real and imaginary effects ofglobali@ation. "n another sense it is a mere ro?ection, albeit ;ith historical secificities, of such effects. " shall no; directly address the mainissue that " announced, that of the %global counter5insurrection)H not the violence of the border, but the violence ;ithout borders or beyond

borders.<$llo; me to Auote from a recent study of humanitarian action, ublished by a S;iss e=ert, Pierre de Senarclens of the University of

#ausanne, ;ho rightly insists on the imortance of official definitions of contemorary violence and also on the roblematic asects of the ?ustifications they rovide for an e=tension of the scoe and meaning of %humanitarian interventions)H< "n 2B42, the United 0ations General$ssembly adoted a resolution dedicated to a 0e; "nternational Kumanitarian Order. . . . Shortly thereafter, the $ssembly gave its suort to thecreation of an indeendent commission on international humani5 tarian Auestions, ;hich brought together eminent eole. . . . &he CommissionIs2B4 reort laced ;ithin the humanitarian ro?ect the rincial olitical and social challenges of the age, such as environmental degradation,demograhic transition, oulation movements, human rights violations, ;eaons of mass destruction, 0orth5South olari@ation, terrorism, anddrugs.6< Ke concludesH %We consider humanitarianism as a frame of reference for the iden5 tification of imortant contemorary roblems and aformula for their solution.) #ater the author sho;s ho;, after 2B4B, the collase of the Cold War system of %t;o cams) suressed the limits;hich the confrontation bet;een the suer5 o;ers had set to olitical violence, and blurred the borderlines bet;een %;ar) and %eace)H<0o oneforesa; the destruction of the :erlin Wall, the relude to the s;ift end of the Cold War. 0or did anyone anticiate the transformations ininternational struc5 tures and the violence that follo;ed. &o;ard the mid52BB8s, ;e count more than fifty ne; armed conflicts, essentially civil;ars. Certain of these conflicts in ;anda, Xugoslavia, Chechnia, or $lgeria astonish by their violence and cruelty, by the e=tent of the



destruction and the oulation movements they rovoe. "nter5 national society has never been confronted ;ith so many ;ars maing so many

victims in such a short time.4< "n such conditions, ;e can incline to;ards diverging conclusions. :ither we think that the

multifaceted phenomenon of mass violence and e-treme violence has generally replaced politics

including internal and e-ternal relationships of forces among states or we fully take into account

the fact that the fields of poli! tics and violence a violence that seems to lac rational organi@ation, not e=cet5 ing self5destruction are no longer searated they have rogressively ermeated one another. "t is recisely in such conditions that something called%humanitar5 ian action) or %intervention,) both %rivate) and %ublic,) has become the neces5 sary sulement of olitics. " cannot discuss all the

asects of this mutation, but " ;ould lie briefly to address three Auestions ;hich seem to me to have an imortance for the concet of oliticsitself. 2. $re ;e facing an %unrecedented) sread of e=treme violence (or violence of the e=tremes9L<" should lie to be very careful on this

oint, ;hich raises a number of discussions ranging from the issue of %old and ne; ;ars)B to the highly sensitive moral Aues5 tions of ;hy andho; to %comare genocides) in history. Perhas ;hat is unrecedented is basically the ne; visibility of e=treme violence, articularly in thesense that modern techniAues of media coverage and broadcasting and the transformation of images in the end, as ;e could see for the first timeon a grand scale during the Gulf War, of the roduction of %virtual reality) transform e=treme violence into a sho;, and dislay this sho;simultaneously before a ;orld audience. We also no; that the effect of such techniAues is, at the same time, to uncover some violent rocesses,or scenes of horror (truly horrifying, such as hundreds of mutilated children in $ngola or Sierra #eone9, and to cover u others (eAually

horrifying, such as babies starving in :aghdad9. We susect that powerful ideological biases are at work when the

coverage of e-treme violence gives credit to such simple ideas as the political transition from the

0e)uilibrium of terror during the Cold ;ar to the 0competition among victims through the

undifferentiated uses of the legal and moral but hardly political notion of 0crimes against

humanity.) "n the end, ;e become a;are of the fact that tal5 ing about and sho;ing the images of everyday horror roduces, articularly inthe relatively ;ealthy and rotected regions of humanity, a very ambivalent effectH raising comassion but also disgust, reinforcing the idea thathumanind as such is really divided into Aualitatively different cultures or civili@ations, ;hich, according to one olitical scientist, can only leadto a %clash) among them.<" am a;are of all these difficulties, but " ;ould maintain that a reality lies behind the notion of something%unrecedented.) Perhas it is simly the fact that a number of heterogeneous methods or rocesses of e=termination (by ;hich " meaneliminating masses of individuals inasmuch as they belong to ob?ective or sub?ective grous9 have themselves become %globali@ed,) i.e., oeratein a simi5 lar manner every;here in the ;orld at the same time, and so rogressively form a %chain,) giving full reality to ;hat !.P. &homson

anticiated 18 years ago ;ith the name %e=terminism.)28 "n this series of connected rocesses, we must include precisely

because they are heterogeneous they do not have one and the same %cause,) but they roduce cumulative effectsH< wars (both

%civil) and %foreign,) a distinction ;hich is not easy to dra; in many cases thin of Xugoslavia or Chechnya9< communal rioting,

;ith ethnic andYor religious ideologies of %cleansing8 * < famines and other kinds of 0absolute poverty roduced

by the ruin of tradi5< tional or non5tradit ional economies< seemingly %natural catastrophes which in fact are killing on

a mass scale < because they are overdetermined by social economic and political structures such as

pandemics (thin of the difference in the distribution of $"DS and the ossibilities of treatment bet;een !uroe and 0orthern $merica onone side, and $frica and some arts of $sia on the other9, draught, floods, or earthAuaes in the absence of develoed civil rotection. . .< "n the

end it ;ould be my suggestion that the %gobali"ation of various kinds of e-treme violence has produced a

tendential division of the 0globali"ed world into life!"ones and death!"ones. :et;een these @ones (;hichindeed are intricate, freAuently reroduced ;ithin the boundaries of a single country or city9 there e=ists a decisive and fragile suerborder, ;hichraises fears and concerns about the unity and division of manind something lie a global and local %enmity line,) lie the %amity line) ;hiche=isted in the beginning of the modern !uro5 ean sei@ure of the ;orld.22 "t is this suerborder, this enmity line, that becomes at the same time anob?ect of ermanent sho; and a hot lace for intervention. :ut also for nonintervention. We might consider ;hether the most ;orrying asect of

resent international olitics is %humanitarian intervention) or %gener5 ali@ed non5intervention,) or one coming after the other. . .< 1. Should ;econsider that e=treme violence is %rational) or %functional) from the oint of vie; of maret caitalism (%liberal economics)9L<&his is a verydifficult Auestion in fact, " thin it is the most difficult Auestion but it cannot be avoided. $gain, ;e should ;arn against a aralogism that isonly too obvious but nonetheless freAuentH that of mistaing conseAuences for goals or uroses. (:ut is it really ossible to discuss socialsystems in terms of urosesL On the other hand, can ;e avoid reflecting on the immanent ends of a given structure, such as caitalism, or its%logic)L9 "t seems to me, very schematically, that the difficulty arises from the t;o oosite %global effects) ;hich derive from the emergence ofa chain of mass violence as comared, for e=amle, ;ith ;hat -ar= called rimitive accumulation ;hen he described the creation of the

reconditions for caitalist accumulation in terms of violent suression of the oor.<One ind of effect is simly to generali@e material andmoral insecurity for millions of otential ;orers, i.e., to induce a massive roletariani@ation or rero5 letariani@ation (a ne; hase of

roletariani@ation ;hich crucially involves a return of many to the roletarian condition ;hich they had more or less escaed, given thatinsecurity is recisely the heart of the %roletarian condition)9. &his rocess is contemorary ;ith an increased mobility of caital and also

humans, and so it taes lace across borders. :ut, seen historically, it can also be distrib5 uted among several olitical varietiesH< in the %0orth,)it involves a artial or dee dismantling of the social olicies and the institutions of social citi@enshi created by the ;elfare state, ;hat " call the%national social state,) and therefore also a violent transition from ;elfare to ;orfare, from the social state to the enal state (the US sho;ingthe ;ay in this resect, as has been convincingly argued by #oZc WacAuant219< in the %South,) it involves destroying and inverting the%develomental) rograms and olicies, ;hich admittedly did not suffice to roduce %tae5off,) but indicated a ;ay to resist imoverishment<

in the %semi5erihery,) to borro; WallersteinIs category it was connected with the collapse of the dictatorial

structure called 0real e-isting socialism which was based on scarcity and corruption but again

kept the polari"ation of riches and poverty within certain limits. * #et me suggest that a common formal feature ofall these rocesses that result in the reroletariani@ation of the labor5force is the fact that they suress or mini5 mi@e the forms and ossibilitiesof reresentation of the subaltern ;ithin the state aaratus itself, or, if you refer, the ossibilities of more or less effective counter5o;er. Withthis remar " ;ant to emhasi@e the olitical asect of rocesses ;hich, in the first instance, seem to be mainly %economic.)



This debate is about competing methodologies. The )uestion at the end of the debate

is whose ethical orientation best cataly"es political organi"ation against Capital.

=ote negative to affirm the Communist >ypothesis as a prere)uisite to political or

personal calculations which ensure that discussions in debate continue to operate

from within a broader framework of capitalistic competition

adiou &''? ($lain, Prof. M !uroean Graduate [ ,The Meaning of Sarkozy, gs. B6528/ bb9

" ;ould lie to situate the Saro@y eisode, ;hich is not an imressive age in Erench history, in a broader hori@on. #et us icture a ind ofKegelian fresco of recent ;orld history 5 by ;hich " do not, lie our ?ournalists, mean the triad -itterrand5Chirac5Saro@y, but rather thedeveloment of the olitics of ;oring5class and oular emanciation over nearly t;o centuries.<Since the Erench evolution and its graduallyuniversal echo, since the most radically egalitarian develoments of that revolution, the decrees of obesierre\s Committee of Public Safety onthe \ma=imum\ and :abeuf\s theori@a tions, ;e no; (;hen " say \;e\, " mean humanity in the abstract, and the no;ledge in Auestion is

universally available on the aths of emanciation9 that communum u the right hyothuu. "ndeed, there is no other or at least 3 am

not aware of one. #ll those who abandon this hypothesis immediately resign themselves to the

market economy to parliamentary democracy ! the form of state suited to capitalism ! and to the

inevitable and @natural@ character of the most monstrous ine)ualities.*What do ;e mean by \communism\L $s

-ar= argued in the 2433-anUJcritJ, communism is an idea regarding the destiny of the human species. This

use of the word must be completely distinguished from the meaning of the ad/ective @communist@

that is so worn!out today in such e-pressions as @communist parties@ @communist states@ or@communist world@ ! never mind that @communist state@ is an o-ymoron to which the obscure

coinage @socialist state@ has wisely been preferred. !ven if, as ;e shall see, these uses of the ;ord belong to a time ;hen the

hyothesis ;as still coming5to5be.<"n its generic sense, @communist@ means first of all in a negative sense 5 as ;e can readin its canonical te=t &he Communut-ani?eJto 5 that the logic of classes, ofthefunda mental subordination of eole ;ho actually ;or for a

dominant class, can be overcome. &his arrangement, ;hich has been that of history ever since antiAuity, is not ievitable. ConseAuently, the

oligarchic power of those who possess wealth and organi"e its circulation crystalli"ed in the might

of states is not inescapable. The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organi"ation is

practicable one that will eliminate the ine)uality ofwealth and even the division of labour A every

individual will be a @multi!purpose worker@ and in particular people will circulate between manual

and intellectual work as well as between town and country. &he rivate aroriation of monstrous fortunes and theirtransmission by inheritance ;ill disaear. &he e=istence of a coercive state searate from civil society, ;ith its military and olice, ;ill no longer seem a self5evident necessity. &here ;ill be, -ar= tells us 5 and he sa; this oint as his ma?or contribution 5 after a brief seAuence of \roletarian

dictatorshi\ charged ;ith destroying the remains of the old ;orld, a long seAuence of reorgani@ation on the basis of a \free association\ of roducers and creators, ;hich ;ill mae ossible a \;ith ering a;ay\ of the state.<@Communism@ as such only denotes this

very general set of intellectual representations . This set is the hori"on of any initiative however

local and limited in time it may be that breaks with the order of established opinions 5 the necessity ofineAualities and the state instrument for rotect ing these 5 and comoses a fragment of a olitics of emanciation. "n other ;ords,

communism is what Bant called an @3dea@ with a regulatory function rather than a programme. 3t

is absurd to characteri"e communist principles in the sense 3 have defined them here as utopian as

is so often done. &hey are intellectual atterns, al;ays actuali@ed in a different fashion, that serve to roduce lines of demarcation bet;eendifferent forms of olitics. :y and large, a articular olitical seAuence is either comatible ;ith these rinciles or oosed to them, in ;hichcase it is reactionary. \Communism\, in this sense, is a heuristic hyothesis that is very freAuently used in olitical argument,<even if the ;orditself does not aear. "f it is still true, as Sartre said, that \every anti5communist is a s;ine\, it is because any olitical seAuence that, in its

rinciles or lac of them, stands in formal contradiction ;ith the communist hyothesis in its generic sense, has to be ?udged as oosed< to theemanciation of the ;hole of humanity, and thus to the roerly human destiny of humanity. Whoever does not illuminate the coming5to5be ofhumanity ;ith the communist hyothesis 5 ;hatever ;ords they use, as such ;ords matter little 5 reduces humanity, as far as its collective

becoming is concerned, to animality. $s ;e no;, the contemorary 5 that is, the caitalist name of this animality 5 is \cometition\. &he ;ar

dictated by self5interest, and nothing more.<#s a pure 3dea of e)uality the communist hypothesis has no doubt

e-isted in a practical state since the beginnings of the e-istence of the state . $s soon as mass action oosesstate coercion in the name of egalitarian ?ustice, ;e have the aearance of rudiments or fragments of the communist hyothesis. &his is ;hy, in a

amhlet titled De l\uJeologie, ;hich " ;rote in collaboration ;ith the la te lamented Eran*ois:almes and ;as ublished in 2B6, ;e roosed toidentifX \communist invariants\.1 Poular revolts, such as that of the slaves led by Sartacus, or that of the German easants led by &homas-un@er, are e=amles of this ractical e=istence of communist invariants.< Ko;ever, in the e=licit form that it ;as given by certain thiners andactivists of the Erench evolution, the commu nist hyothesis inaugurates olitical modernity. "t ;as this that laid lo; the mental structures of theancien regime, yet ;ithout being tied to those \democratic\ olitical forms that the bourgeoisie ;ould mae the instrument for its o;n ursuit of

o;er. &his oint is essentialH from the beginning, the communist hypothesis in no way coincided with the

@democratic@ hypothesis that would lead to present!day parliamentarism. 3t subsumes a different



history and different events. What seems imortant and creative ;hen illuminated by the communist hyothesis is different in indfrom ;hat bourgeois5democratic historiograhy selects. &hat is indeed ;hy -ar=, giving materialist foundations to the first effective greatseAuence of the modern olitics of emanciation, both too over the ;ord \communism\ and distanced himself from any ind of democratic\oliticism\ by maintaining, after the lesson of the Paris Commune, that the bourgeois state, no matter ho; democratic, must be destroyed.<Well, "leave it to you to ?udge ;hat is imortant or not, to ?udge the oints ;hose conseAuences you choose to assume against the hori@on of thecommunist hyothesis. Once again, it is the right hyothesis, and ;e can aeal to its rinciles, ;hatever the declensions or variations that theseundergo in different conte=ts.<Sartre said in an intervie;, ;hich " arahraseH "f the communist hyothesis is not right, if it is not racticable,

;ell, that means that humanity is not a thing in itself, not very different from ants or termites. What did he mean by thatL 3f competition

the @free market@ the sum of little pleasures and the walls that protect you from the desire of the

weak are the alpha and omega of all collective and private e-istence then the human animal is not

worth a cent.<$nd it is this ;orthlessness to ;hich :ush ;ith his aggressive conservatism and crusader sirit, :lair the Pious ;ith hismilitarist rhetoric, and Saro@y ;ith his \;or, family, country\ disciline, ;ant to reduce the e=istence of the immense ma?ority of livingindividuals. $nd the \#eft\ is still ;orse, simly ?u=taosing to this vacant violence a vague sirit of charity. &o morbid comet"t"On, the

asteboard< victories of daddy\s boys and girls, the ridiculous suermen< of unleashed finance, the coed5u heroes of the lanetary< stoce=change, this #eft can only oose the same actors< ;ith a bit of social oliteness, a little ;alnut oil in the ;heels,<crumbs of holy ;afer for the

disinherited 5 in other ;ords,< borro;ing from 0iet@sche, the bloodless figure of the \lastman

,. < &o ut an end once and for all to -ay \4 means

agreeing that our only choice is bet;een the hereditary nihilism of finance and social iety. "t not only means acceting that communismcollased in the Soviet Union, not only acno;ledging that the PartiCommuniste Eran*ais has been ;retchedly defeated, but also and above allit means abandoning the hyothesis that -ay \4 ;as a militant invention recisely a;are ofthe failure ofstate \communism\. $nd thus that -ay\4, and still more so the five years that follo;ed, inaugurated a ne; seAuence for the genuine communist hyothesis, one that al;ays ees its

distance from the state. Certainly, no one could say where all this might lead but we knew in any case that

what was at stake was the rebirth of this hypothesis.<3f the thing that 9arko"y is the name ofsucceeds in imposing the necessity of abandoning any idea of a rebirth of this kind if human society

is a collection of individuals pursuing their self!interest if this is the eternal reality then it is certain

that the philosopher can and must abandon the human animal to its sad destiny. * :ut ;e shall not let a

triumhant Saro@y dictate the meaning of our e=istence, or the tass of hilosohy. Eor what we are witnessing in no way

imposes such a renunciation of the communist hypothesis but simply a consideration of the

moment at which we find ourselves in the history of this hypothesis.

This round is key 7 every act of discussion must be understoo'd as a point of

metaphoric condensation for Communism. =oting negative means the assuming

with full ethical force that the battle is already won.#D3O&'1' ]$#$"0, &he Communist Kyothesis &ranslated by David -acey and Steve Corcoran 1828 1715

176#et\s recaitulate as simly as ossible. $ truth is the olitical real. Kistory, even as a reservoir of roer names, is a symbolic lace. &he ideological oeration of the "dea of communism is the imaginary ro?ection of the olitical real into thesymbolic fiction of Kistory , including in its guise as a reresentation of the action of innumerable masses via the One of a roer name.

&he role of this "dea is to suort the individual\s incororation into the disciline of a truth rocedure, to authori@ethe individual, in his or her o;n eyes, to go beyond the Statist constraints of mere surviva l by becoming a art of the

body5of5truth, or the sub?ectivi@able body. We ;ill no; asH ;hy is it necessary to resort to this ambiguous oerationL Why do theevent and its conseAuences also have to be e=osed in the guise of a fact 5 often a violent one that "S accomanied by different versions of the

\cult of ersonality\L What is the reason for this historical aroriation of emanciatory oliticsL &he simlest reason is that ordinary history,

the history of individual lives, is confined ;ithin the State. &he history of a life, ;ith neither decision nor choice, is initself a art of the history of the State, ;hose conventional mediations are the family, ;or, the homeland, roerty,religion, customs and so forth. &he heroic, but individual, ro?ection of an e=cetion to all the above 5 as is a truth

rocedure 5 also aims at being shared ;ith everyone else it aims to sho; itself to be not only an e=cetion but also a ossibility that everyone can share from no; on. $nd that is one of the "dea\s functionsH to ro?ect the e=cetion intothe ordinary life of individuals, to fill ;hat merely e=ists ;ith a certain mea\mre of the e=traordinary. &o convince my o;nimmediate circle 5 husband or ;ife, neighbours and friends, colleagues 5 that the fantastic e=cetion of truths in the maing alsoe=ists, that ;e are not doomed to lives rogrammed by the constraints of the State. 0aturally, in the final analysis, only thera;, or militant, e=erience of the truth rocedure ;ill comel one erson or another\s entry into the bodyoftruth. :ut totae him or her to the lace ;here this e=erience is to be found 5 to mae him or her a sectator of, and therefore artly a articiant in, ;hat is

imortant for a truth the mediation of the "dea, the sharing of the "dea, are almost al;ays reAuired. &he "dea of communism (regardless of

;hat name it might other;ise be given, ;hich hardly mattersH no "dea is definable by its name9 is ;hat enables a truth rocedure to besoen in the imure language of the State and thereby for the lines of force by virtue of ;hich the State rescribes;hat is ossible and ;hat i s imossible to be shifted for a time. "n this vie; of things, the most ordinary action is to tae



someone to a real olitical meeting, far from their home, far from their redetermined e=istential arameters, in a hostel of ;orers from

-ali, for e=amle, or at the gates of a factory. Once they have come to the lace ;here olitics is occurring, they ;ill mae adecision about ;hether to incororate or ;ithdra;.:ut in order for them to come to that lace, the "dea and for t;o

centuries, or erhas since Plato, it has been the "dea of communism 5 must have already shifted them in the order ofreresentations, of Kistory and of the State. &he symbol must imaginarily come to the aid of the creative flight from the real.$llegorical facts must ideologi@e and historici@e the fragility of truth. $ banal yet crucial discussion ;ith four ;orers and a student in an ill5litroom must momentarily be enlarged to the dimensions of Communism and thus be both ;hat it is and ;hat it ;ill have been as a moment in the

local construction of the &rue. &hrough the enlargement of the symbol, it must become visible that \?ust ideas\ come from this ractically invisible ractice.&he fiveerson meeting in an out5of5the5;ay suburb must be eternal in the very e=ression of its

recariousness. &hat is ;hy the real must be e=osed in a fictional structure .

;e must have the courage to reinvent and remain faith to the idea of communism.

The world of the status )uo is not necessary and should be abolished. This radical

starting point is good enough to create possibilities for new politics#D3O&'1' ]$#$"0, &he Communist Kyothesis &ranslated by David -acey and Steve Corcoran 1828 156Kaving closed that arenthesis, ;e can say that ;e are still struggling ;ith the difficult Auestions raised by -ay \4. We arethe contemoraries of \4 from the oint of vie; of olitics , the definition of olitics, and the organi@ed future of

olitics . " therefore use the ;ord \contemorary\ in the strongest ossible sense. Of course, the ;orld has changed,and of course categories have changed. &he categories \student th' \ d ' h\ you , ;orers an easants no; mean sometlng different, and

the union and arty organi@ations of those days are no; in ruins. :ut ;e have the same roblem, and are the contemoraries of the roblem revealed by -ay \4H the classical figure of the olitics of emanciation ;as ineffective. &hose of us ;ho ;ere

olitically active in the 2 B8s and 2B68s did not need the collase of the USS to teach us that. Countless ne; things have beene=erimented ;ith , tried out and tested both in theory and in the ractices that are dialectically bound u ;ith it. $ndit still goes on thans to the energy of a handful of activists, intellectuals and ;orers 5 and no distinction is made bet;een them 5 ;ho aear to

be ;oring in isolation. &hey are the guardians of the future and they are inventing the future. :ut it cannot be said thatthe roblem has been resolvedH ;hat ne; forms of olitical organi@ation are needed to handle olitical antagonismsL$s in science, until such time as the roblem has not been resolved, you have all sorts of discoveries stimulated by the search for a solution.Sometimes, and for the same reason, ;hole ne; theories see the light of day, but the roblem itself is still there. We can define our

contemoraneity ;ith -ay \4 in similar terms. "t is another ;ay of taling about our fidelity to -ay \4. &he decisive issue is the need tocling to the historical hyothesis of a ;orld that has been freed from the la; of rofit and rivate interest 5 even;hile ;e are, at the level of intellectual reresentations, still risoners of the conviction that ;e cannot do a;ay ;ithit, that this is the ;ay of the ;orld, and that no olitics of emanciation is ossible. &hat is ;hat " roose to call thecommunist hyothesis. "t is in fact mainly negative, as it is safer and more imortant to say that the e=isting ;orld is

not necessary than it is to say, ;hen ;e have nothing to go on , that a different ;orld is ossible. &his is a Auestion ofmodal logicH ho;, in olitical terms, can ;e move from non5necessity to ossibilityL:ecause Auite simly, if ;e accet theinevitability of the unbridled caitalist economy and the arliamentary olitics that suorts it, then ;e Auite simlycannot see the other ossibilities that are inherent in the situation in ;hich ;e find ourselves . Second, ;e have to tryto retain the ;ords of our language, even though ;e no longer dare to say them out loud. "n \4, these ;ere the;ords that ;ere used by everyone. 0o; they tell usH \&he ;orld has changed, so you can no longer use those ;ords,and you no; that it W"#\S the language of illusions and terror.\ \Oh yes, ;e can^ $nd ;e must^\ &he roblem is stillthere, and that means that ;e must be able to ronounce those ;ords. "t is u to us to criticise them, and to give thema ne; meaning. We must be able to go on saying \eole\, \;orers\, \abolition of rivate roerty\, and so on,;ithout being considered has5beens, and ;ithout considering ourselves as has5beens. We have to discuss these ;ordsin our o;n field, in our o;n cam. We have to ut an end to the linguistic terrorism that delivers us into the hands of our enemies. Giving u on the language issue, and acceting the terror that sub?ectively forbids us to ronounce;ords that offend dominant sensibilities, is an intolerable form of oression . $nd finally, ;e have to reali@e that all

olitics is organi@ed , and that the most difficult Auestion is robably that of ;hat tye of organi@ation ;e need. Wecan resolve it through the multifaceted e=eriments that begin in \4. Eor the classic arty disositif, and its social suorts, the most imortant\battles\ ;ere in fact electoral battles, and that is a doctrine that has given all it can give. "t is ;orn out and no longer ;ors, desite the greatthings it ;as able to achieve or romote bet;een 2B88 and 2B8. We have to discuss our fidelity to -ay \4 on t;o levels. $t the ideological andhistorical level, ;e should dra; u our o;n balance sheet for the t;entieth century, so that ;e can reformulate the emanciation hyothesis in

contemorary terms, no; that the socialist states have failed. $nd ;e also no; that ne; local e=eriments and olitical battles aregoing on, and that they ;ill rovide the bacdro that ;ill create these ne; forms of organi@ation. &his combination ofcomle= ideological and historical ;or, and theoretical and ractical data about ne; forms of olitical organi@ation, is the defining feature ofour times. " ;ould readily describe this as the era of the reformulation of the communist hyothesis. &hen ;hat is the virtue that means most tousL Xou no; that the revolutionaries of 2 6B15B3 used the ;ord \virtue\. Saint5Just ased the crucial AuestionH \What do those ;ho ;ant neithervirtue nor terror ;antL\ Kis ans;er ;as that they ;anted corrution. $nd that indeed is ;hat today\s ;orld ass of usH to accet the ;holesale

corrution of minds under the yoe of commodities and money. &he main olitical virtue ;e need to fight that no; is courage.



0ot only courage ;hen ;e face the olice 5 though ;e ;ill certainly find that 5 but the courage to defend and ractice ourideas and rinciles, to say ;hat ;e thin, ;hat ;e ;ant, and ;hat ;e are doing.&o ut it in a nutshellH ;e have to

be bold enough to have an idea.$ great idea.We have to convince ourselves that there is nothing ridiculous or criminalabout having a great idea. &he ;orld of global and arrogant caitalism in ;hich ;e live is taing us bac to the2438s and the birth of caitalism. "ts imerative, as formulated by Gui@ot, ;asH \Get rich^\ We can translate that as \#ive ;ithout an idea^\

We have to say that ;e cannot live ;ithout an idea. We have to sayH \Kave the courage to suort the idea, and it canonly be the communist idea in its generic sense.\ &hat is ;hy ;e must remain the contemoraries of -ay \4. "n its o;n ;ay, it tells

us that living ;ithout an idea is intolerable. $nd then a long and terrible resignation set in. &oo many eole no; thin that there is noalternative to living for oneself, for one\s o;n interests. #et us have the courage to cut ourselves off from such

eole. " am a hilosoher, so let me tell you something that has been said again and again since Plato\s day. "t is very simle. " am tellingyou as a hilosoher that ;e have to live ;ith an idea, and that ;hat deserves to be called a real olitics begins ;iththat conviction.

Our ethico!political obligation is to assume responsibility for our actions. Capitalism

render’s its victims anonymous and ensures that the aff’s personal focus never come

to terms with the billions of degraded life choices globally4our epitstemological

position is a E:E:F393T: to understanding the full e-tent of accessibility

concerns.

Slavo? Gi"ek and Glyn Daly, Senior #ecturer in Politics in the Eaculty of $rts and Social Sciences atUniversity College, 0orthamton, &''(, Conversations With _i@e, . 2352

Eor _i@e it is imerative that ;e cut through this Gordian not of ostmodern rotocol and recogni@e that ourethico5olitical resonsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of todayIs global caitalism and its obscenenaturali@ationYanonymi@ation of the millions ;ho are sub?ugated by it throughout the ;orld. $gainst the standardi@ed

ositions of ostmodern culture > ;ith all its ieties concerning `multiculturalistI etiAuette > _i@e is arguing for a olitics that might becalled `radically incorrectI in the sense that it breas ;ith these tyes of ositions and focuses instead on the very organi@ing rinciles oftodayIs social realityH the rinciles of global liberal caitalism. &his reAuires some care and subtlety. Eor far too long, -ar=ism has been

bedevilled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended to;ards olitical morbidi ty. With the lies of Kilferding and Gramsci, andmore recently #aclau and -ouffe, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. "n

this ne; conte=t, ho;ever, _i@e argues that the roblem that no; resents itself is almost that of the oosite fetish. &hat is to say , the rohibitive an=ieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a ;ay of not engaging ;ith economicreality and as a ;ay of im licitly acceting the latter as a basic hori@on of e=istence. "n an ironic Ereudian5

#acanian t;ist, the fear of economism can end u reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in resect ofcontemorary caitalism (i.e. the initial rohibition con?ures u the very thing it fears9. &his is not to endorse any ind of retrograde

return to economism. _i@eIs oint is rather that in re?ecting economism;e should not lose sight of the systemic o;er ofcaital in shaing the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the ossible. "n articular ;e should not

overloo -ar=Is central insight thatin order to create a uni versal global system the forces of caitalism see to concealthe olitico5discursive violence of its constructionthrough a ind of gentrification of that system. What is ersistently denied by

neo5liberals such as orty (2B4B9 and Euuyama (2BB19 is thatthe gentrification of global liberal caitalism is one ;hoseùniversalismI fundamentally reroduces and deends uon a disavo;ed violence that e=cludes vast sectors ofthe ;orldIs oulation. "n this ;ay, neo5liberal ideology attemts to naturali@e caitalism by resenting its out5comes of ;inning and losing as if they ;ere simly a matter of chance and sound ?udgement in a neutralmaretlace . Caitalism does indeed create a sace for a certain diversity, at least for the central caitalistregions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its rice in terms of social e=clusion is e=orbitant. &hat is to say,the human cost in terms of inherent global overty and degraded `life5chancesI cannot be calculated ;ithin the

e=isting economic rationale and, in conseAuence, social e=clusion remains mystified and nameless (vi@, the atroni@ing reference to the `develoing ;orldI. $nd _i@eIs oint is that this mystification is magnified through caitalismIs rofoundcaacity to ingest its o;n e=cesses and negativityH to redirect (or misdirect9 social antagonisms and to absorb them ;ithin a culture of differ5ential affirmation. "nstead of :olshevism, the tendency today is to;ards a ind of olitical boutiAuism that is readily sustained by

ostmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. $gainst this_i@e argues for a ne; universalism ;hose rimary ethicaldirective is to confront the fact that our forms of social e=istence are founded on e=clusion on a global scale.While it is erfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it ;ill al;ays reAuire a hegemonic5articular embodiment in orderto have any meaning9, ;hat is novel about _i@eIs universalism is that it ;ould not attemt to conceal this fact or to reduce the status of theab?ect Other to that of a `glitchI in an other;ise sound matri=.



Case

The 1#C’s performance of the war machine enacts a military mentality 7 forecloses

comprehensive problemati"ation

Cady 1' (Duane #., rof of hil M hamline university, Erom Warism to PacifismH $ -oral Continuum, . 1151/9

The widespread un)uestioning acceptance of warism and the corresonding reluctance to consider

pacifism as a legitimate otion make it difficult to propose a genuine consideration of pacifist alternatives.

Warism may be held imlicitly or e=licitly. Keld in its imlicit form, it does not occur to the ;arist to challenge the view that

;ar is morally ?ustified war is taen to be natural and normal. No other way of understanding large5scale human

conflict even comes to mind . "n this sense ;arism is lie racism, se=ism, and homohobiaH a re?udicial bias built into concetionsand ?udgments ;ithout the a;areness of those assuming it. "n its e=licit form, ;arism is oenly acceted, articulated, and deliberately chosenas a value ?udgment on nations in conflict. War may be defended as essential for ?ustice, needed for national security, as %the only thing the

enemy understands,) and so on. "n both forms warism misguides /udgments and institutions by reinforcing the

necessity and inevitability of war and precluding alternatives . Whether held imlicitly or e=licitly, warism

obstructs )uestioning the conceptual framework of the culture. 3f we assume +without reali"ing it,

that war itself is morally /ustifiable our moral considerations of war will be focused on whether a

particular war is /ustified or whether particular acts within a given war are morally acceptable .

These are important concerns, but addressing them does not get at the fundamental issue raised by

the pacifistA the morality of war as such . "n Just and Un?ust Wars -ichael Wal@er e=lains that %war is always

/udged twice first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting secondly with reference to

the means they adopt.4 &he acifist suggestion is that there is a third ?udgment of ;ar that must be made rior to the other t;oH

might ;ar, by its very nature, be morally ;rongL &his issue is considered by Wal@er only as an afterthought in an aendi=, ;here it isdismissed as naZve. Perhas Wal@er should not be faulted for this omission, since he defines his tas as describing the conventional morality of

;ar and, as has been argued above, conventional morality does take warism for granted. &o this e=tent Wal@er is correct.

$nd this is ?ust the ointH our warist conceptual frameworks 4 our warist normative lenses4 blind us to

the root )uestion . &he concern of acifists is to e=ose the hidden ;arist bias and not merely describe cultural values. Pacifists see to

e=amine cultural values and recommend ;hat they ought to be. This is why the pacifist insists on /udging war in itself

a /udgment more fundamental than the more limited assessments of the morality of a given war

or the morality of specific acts within a particular war.

This mindset is important 7 our consciousness of war guarantees endless violence

that ensures planetary destruction and structural violence- $nother imactH freeing ourselves from ;ar + more resources for eace

%awrence ? (Grant, %-ilitary "ndustrial 'War' Consciousness esonsible for !conomic and Social Collase,)O!0>O!d0e;s, -arch 169

$s a residential candidate, :arac Obama called $fghanistan \\the ;ar ;e must ;in.\\ Ke ;as absolutely right. 0o; it is time to ;in it...

Senators John -cCain and Joseh #ieberman calling for an e=anded ;ar in $fghanistan 'Ko; true it is that war can destroyeverything of value.' Poe :enedict NV" decrying the suffering of $frica Where troos have been Auartered, brambles and thorns sring

u. "n the trac of great armies there must follo; lean years. #ao &@u on War #s #mericans we are raised on the utility of

war to con)uer every problem. We have a drug roblem so ;e ;age ;ar on it. We have a cancer roblem so ;e ;age ;ar on it.

We have a crime roblem so ;e ;age ;ar on it. Poverty cannot be dealt ;ith but it has to be ;arred against. &error is another roblem that must

be ;arred against. 3n the nited 9tates solutions can only be found in terms of wars. 3n a society that

functions to support a massive military industrial war machine and emire, it is important that the

terms promoted support the conditioning of its citi"ens . ;e are conditioned to see war as the

http://obama.senate.gov/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)



http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/



http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/960269.html



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iuue8kE-e0lYZVFpt4RlbX4M_IEw



http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/salt/salt09.htm

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667&spn=10.0,10.0&q=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667%20(United%20States)&t=h





http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/salt/salt09.htm

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667&spn=10.0,10.0&q=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667%20(United%20States)&t=h




solution to ma?or social ills and ma?or political disagreements. &hat ;ay when we see so much of our

resources devoted to war then we don@t )uestion the utility of it. The term HwarH e-cites mind and body

and creates a fear mentality that loos at life in terms of attac. "n ;ar, there has to be an attac and a must ;in attitude to carry us

to victory. ut is this war mentality working for usI "n an age ;hen nearly half of our ta- money goes to

support the war machine and a good deal of the rest is going to suort the elite that control the ;ar machine, ;e can see that our resent ;ar mentality is not ;oring. Our values have been so erverted by our ;ar mentality that ;e see se= as sinful but illing as

entertainment. Our society is dripping violence . &he violence is fed by poverty social in/ustice the brea do;n of

family and community that also arises from economic in/ustice, and by the managed media. The cycle of violence that

e-ists in our society e-ists because it is useful to those that control society. 3t is easier to sell the war

machine when your population is conditioned to violence. Our military industrial consciousness

may not be working for nearly all of the life of the planet but it does work for the very few that are the

master manipulators of our values and our consciousness. uert -urdoch, the media monooly man that runs the 'Eair and:alanced' Eo= 0et;or , Sy &elevision, and 0e;s Cor ?ust to name a fe;, had all of his 267 ne;saers editoriali@e in favor of the "raA ;ar . -urdoch snicers ;hen he says ';e tried' to maniulate ublic oinion.' &he "raA ;ar ;as a good ;ar to -urdoch because, '&he death toll,certainly of $mericans there, by the terms of any revious ;ar are Auite minute.' :ut, to the media maniulators, the hony oliticos, the military

industrial elite, a million dead "raAis are not to be considered. ;ar is big business and it is supported by a war

consciousness that allows it to prosper. That is why more ;ar in $fghanistan, the ;ar on Palestinians, and the other

wars around the planet in ;hich the military industrial comle= builds massive ;ealth and o;er will continue. Themilitary industrial war mentality is not only killing maiming and destroying but it is also

contributing to the present social and economic collapse. $s mentioned reviously, the massive wealth

transfer that occurs when the #merican people give half of their money to support death and

destruction is money that could have gone to support a /ust society. 3t is no accident that after years

of war a nd preparing for war our society is crumbling . 9cience and technological resources along ;ith

economic and natural resources have been s)uandered in the never!ending pursuit of enemies. #ll

of that energy could have been utili"ed for the good of humanity < instead of maintaining the

power positions of the very fe; super wealthy. So the suffering that ;e give is ultimately the suffering ;e get. >umans

want to believe that they can escape the consciousness that they live in. ut that consciousness

determines what we e-perience and how we live. #s long as we choose to live in H;arH in our

minds then we will continue to get H;arH in our lives.;hen humanity chooses to wage peace on

the world then there will be a flowering of life. ut until then we will be forced to live the life our

present war consciousness is creating.

Controls the potential of the method 7 we need to free ourselves of the presumption

towards war and advocate for peace and social /ustice to stop the flow of militarism

that threatens e-istence

Demenchonok ? Wored as a senior researcher at the "nstitute of Philosohy of the ussian $cademy of Sciences,-osco;, and is currently a Professor of Eoreign #anguages and Philosohy at Eort Valley State University in Georgia, listed in1888 Outstanding Scholars of the 12st Century and is a reciient of the &;enty5Eirst Century $;ard for $chievement inPhilosohy from the "nternational :iograhical Centre 55!d;ard, Philosohy $fter KiroshimaH Erom Po;er Politics to the !thicsof 0onviolence and Co5esonsibility, Eebruary, $merican Journal of !conomics and Sociology, Volume 4, "ssue 2, Pages B53B

;here then does the future lieI nilateralism hegemonic political anarchy mass immiseration

ecocide and global violence >a Kobbesian bellum omnium contra omnesL Or international cooperation social

/ustice and genuine collective 4political and human4security I Do;n ;hich ath lies co;ering, fragile hoeL <

>umanistic thinkers aroach these roblems from the ersective of their concern about the situation of individuals and the long5range

interests of humanity. &hey e-amine in deth the root causes of these problems, ;arning about the conseAuences of escalation

and, at the same time, indicating the rosect of their possible solutions through nonviolent means and a

growing global consciousness. Today@s world is in desperate need of realistic alternatives to violent

http://www.fox.com/

http://www.fox.com/

http://www.fox.com/

http://www.newscorp.com/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War



http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=341


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex



http://www.fox.com/









conflict. Nonviolent action4 properly planned and e-ecuted4is a powerful and effective force for

political and social change. The ideas of peace and nonviolence as e-pressed by "mmanuel Bant #eo

Tolstoy -ahatma Jandhi $artin %uther B ing and many contemporary philosophers >suorted by eace and civi l

rights movements> counter the araly@ing fear with hope and offer a realistic alternativeA a rational approach

to the solutions to the problems, encouraging eole to be the masters of their o;n destiny. < Kortunately the memory of the

tragedies of war and the growing reali"ation of this new e-istential situation of humanity has

awakened the global conscience and generated protest movements demanding necessary changes.

During the four decades of the Cold ;ar ;hich olari@ed the ;orld, power politics was challenged by the

common ersective of humanity, of the sureme value of human life, and the ethics of peace. &hus, in !uroe, ;hich suffered from both

;orld ;ars and totalitarianism, siritual5intellectual efforts to find solutions to these problems generated ideas of

'ne; thining,' aiming for peace freedom and democracy. Today philosophers intellectuals progressive

political leaders and peace!movement activists continue to promote a peaceful alternative. "n the

asymmetry of o;er, desite being frustrated by ;ar5rone olitics, peaceful pro/ects emerge each time, lie a hoeni= arising from

the ashes, as the only viable alternative for the survival of humanity. The ne; thinking in hilosohy

affirms the supreme value of human and nonhuman life freedom /ustice and the future of human

civili"ation. 3t asserts that the transcendental tas of the survival of humankind and the rest of the biotic

community must have an un)uestionable primacy in comparison to particular interests of nations, social

classes, and so forth. "n alying these rinciles to the nuclear age, it considers a /ust and lasting peace as a categorical

imperative for the survival of humankind and thus proposes a world free from nuclear weapons

and from war and organi"ed violence.33 "n tune ;ith the Charter of the United 0ations, it calls for the democrati"ation

of international relations and for dialogue and cooperation in order to secure peace human rights and

solutions to global problems. "t further calls for the transition to;ard a cosmoolitan order. < The escalating global

problems are symptoms of ;hat might be termed a contemorary civili"ational disease, develoed over the course of

centuries, in ;hich techno5economic rogress is achieved at the cost of deersonali@ation and dehumani@ation. &herefore, the possibility

of an effective HtreatmentH today depends on ;hether or not humankind ;ill be able to regain its humanity, thus

establishing ne; relations of the individual ;ith himself or herself, ;ith others, and ;ith nature. >ence the need for a ne; hilosohy

of humanity and an ethics of nonviolence and lanetary co5resonsibility to help us make sense not only of our ast

historical events, but also of the e=tent, )uality, and urgency of our present choices.

#ll of these link arguments prove their method can’t solve 7 try or die for the altGi"ek 1??? ]Slavo?, Senior esearcher at "nstitute for Social Studies, #?ubliana, The Ticklish Subject: the absent

centre of political ontology, 0e; XorH Verso, 2BBB, 24Crucial for a successful "deology is thus the tension ;ithin its articular content bet;een the themes and motifs that

belong to the oressed\and those ;hich belong to the oressors\H ruling ideas are never directly the ideas of the rulingclass. #et us tae ;hat is arguably the ultimate e=amle Christianity 5 ho; did it become the ruling ideologyL :y incororating a series ofmotifs and asirations of the oressed (truth is on the side of the suffering and humiliated o;er corruts...9 and re rticulating them in such a

;ay that they became comatible ;ith the e=isting relations of domination.$nd the same holds even for Eascism.&he fundamentalideological contradiction of Eascism is that bet;een organicism and mechanicism H the cororatist5organicaesthetici@ed vision of the Social :ody and the e=treme technologi@ation\, mobili@ation, destruction, ;iing5out, of thelast vesties of organic\ communities families, universities, local self5management traditions9 at the level of the actual micro5

ractices\ of the o;er e=ercise. "n Eascism, the aesthetici@ed organicist cororate ideology is thus the very form of an unrecedented

technological mobili@ation of society ;hich disruts organic\ lins.27 &his arado= enables us to avoid the liberal5multiculturalisttra of condemning every call for a return to organic (ethnic, etc.9lins as roto5Eascist\H ;hat defines Eascism is , rather,

a secific combination of organicist cororatism and the drive to ruthless moderni@ation. &o ut it in yet another ;ayH inevery actual Eascism, one al;ays encounters elements ;hich mae us say &his is not yet full5blo;n Eascism there are still inconsistent

elements of leftist traditions or liberalism in it\ ho;ever, this removal from 5 this distance to;ards 5 the hantom of ure\ Eascismis Eascism tout court Eascism\, in its ideology and ractice, is nothing but a certain formal rincile of distortion ofsocial antagonism, a certain logic of its dislacement by a combination and condensation of inconsistent attitudes .



&NC



Case



Overview

Ee/ect the affirmative’s methodology 7 the enunciation of the war machine is a

devastating drawback to the 1ac 7 the /udge should not endorse a methodology as

problematic as the war machine. The affirmative’s method leads to 1, paranoiace-clusive segregating of movements and reaffirmation of structures of power and &,

fascist pathways of death where their method ends up violently turning them away

from their supporters and outlashing against everyone around them 7 the impact is

mass scale failure and e-treme violence without purpose.Diken and %austsen &''1 (:lent, lecturer in Sociology at #ancaster University, and Carsten :agge #austsen, Ph.D. student at theUniversity of Coenhagen, Deartment of Political Sciences, %!n?oy your fight^) %Eight Club) as a symtom of the 0et;or Society,httHYY;;;.lancs.ac.uYfassYsociologyYaersYdien5laustsen5en?oy5your5fight.df 9

In his Programme from 1936 and his analysis of fascism, ataille concludes that there is much the %eft can learn

from the organi"ational forms of fascism (Bataille 1997, 1997b; Sørensen !!1"# $%ss&me the f&nction of destr&ction

and decom'osition#### a)e 'art in the destr&ction of the e*isting +orld### ight for the decom'osition ### of all comm&nities###-(Bataille 1997. 11"# ight /l&b, too, see)s $a 'remat&rely ind&ced dar) age10# he com'lete and right2a+ay destr&ction of

ciili4ation#- (Palahni&) 1997. 15"# Bataille had arg&ed that it is necessary to affirm the $al&e of iolence- and $to ta)e &'on oneself 'erersion and crime- (1997. 11"; and ight /l&b, again, iolently lifts the c&rse. $yes, yo&re going to hae to )ill someone10# oe*c&ses and no lies10# 8o& are the same decaying organic matter as eeryone else- (Palahni&) 1997. 15, 13"# ight /l&b +antsthe +hole +orld to $hit the bottom- (Ibid# 13"# choing the rench no&ea&* 'hiloso'hes, es'ecially the Sit&ationist manifesto, ites'ecially attac)s the society of s'ectacle# $ight cl&b isnt abo&t +ords ### ight cl&b is not football on teleision# 8o& arent +atchinga b&nch of men yo& dont )no+ half+ay aro&nd the +orld beating on each other lie by satellite +ith a t+o2min&te delay- (Ibid# 5!,51"# ight /l&b is abo&t street fights, &rban anarchism, and strategies of s&bersion# < $:eali4e ### the irony of the animal +orld-,contin&es Batailles Programme (1997. 11"# In his imagination, ac) +al)s &' the entrance of a cae and o&t comes a 'eng&in#

$Slide-, it says, smiling# $<itho&t any effort, +e slid thro&gh t&nnels and galleries- (Palahni&) 1997. !"# 3t is no coincidence

that the social space in +hich ac)='eng&in $slides-, is a smooth social space. %osing the social bond is

freedom and in this sense Kight Club is a Deleu"ian 0war machine a free assemblage oriented

along a line of flight out of the repressive social machinery. 3t is that which cannot be contained in

the striated rigidly segmented social space8 it consists of flows +speed, operates in a smooth space

and unties the social bond +codes, in multiplicity +mass!phenomena,. 3n this respect 0war or

0fight is the surest mechanism against social organi"ationA 0 /ust as >obbes saw clearly that the9tate was against war so war is against the 9tate and makes it impossible- (>ele&4e ? @&attari 19A7. 357"#

It is cr&cial in this conte*t that >ele&4e and @&attari recogni4e a +ar machine as an assemblage that has as its obect not +arC+aris only $the s&''lement- of the +ar machineCb&t the constit&tion of a creatie line of flight, a smooth s'ace# <ar is sim'ly $a socialstate that +ards off the State- (Ibid# 17"# In this sense, iolence is ight /l&bs s&''lement, not necessarily its obect; ight /l&b isaboe all a social state that +ards off $society-# ight /l&b 'roliferates in, or een better, constr&cts a nomadic social s'ace +itho&t4ones, centres, segments. a flattened s'ace, in +hich one can $slide- thro&gh connections. $and- ### $and- ### $and-# Dines rather than'oints; connection rather than con&gation# ight /l&b does not hae a fi*ed s'atiality, a 'ermanent address; it gro+s li)e a rhi4ome,thoro&gh discontin&o&s &m's# %nd tem'orally, it $e*ists only in the ho&rs bet+een +hen fight cl&b starts and +hen fight cl&b ends-(Palahni&) 1997. A"# < ight /l&b is a film abo&t mobility and mobili4ation# Eo+eer, it de'icts mobility as a 'arado*ical to'ic# $8o&+a)e &' at %ir Earbor International#### 8o& +a)e &' at FEare# 8o& +a)e &' at Da@&ardia# 8o& +a)e &' at Dogan#### yo& +a)e &'and hae to as) +here yo& are#### 8o& +a)e &', and yo&re no+here- (Ibid# 5, 33"# ac)s e*treme geogra'hical mobility leads to$inertia- G la Hirilios theory (!!!"# 8et ight /l&bs nomadism is not (only" geogra'hical mobility# It is, rather, a nomadism in the>ele&4ian sense, +hich is related to deiation, ho+eer slo+ly, from fi*ation and linear moement (>ele&4e ? @&attari 19A7. 371"# Itis by staying non2sociali4ed, by deiation, and not necessarily by 'hysical moement, that the nomad creates his o+n s'ace# hatis, ight /l&bs nomadism is also s'irit&al. $)ee' moing, neer sto' moing, motionless oyage, des&bectification- (19A7. 159"# %

sort of meta'hysical mobility, a schi4o'hrenic connectionism, in search of ne+ 'ossibilities that are to (be"come# $Det the chi's fall+here they may-, says ight /l&b# < %s a +hole, the film ight /l&b constantly ma)es &se of a schi4o2logic# or instance, the motif of $decom'osition- thro&gho&t the moie is a do&ble reference to the 'ost2str&ct&ralist rench 'hiloso'hy and to 'ost2a'ocaly'tic'rimitiism G la he Planet of the %'es and 1 on)eys# he film is both a commercial bloc)b&ster and a critiJ&e of cons&mersociety# It demonstrates both modernist techniJ&es (e#g# flashbac)s2in2flashbac)s, Brechtian e'ic c&ts in +hich the narrator directlyaddresses the a&dience by brea)ing dramatic ill&sions, and so on" and 'o'2 art# It is sim&ltaneo&sly loaded +ith motifs of the /hrist(e#g# fights ta)e 'lace in 'ar)ing lots and basements as the early /hristian meetings in caes" and iet4schean motifs of the anti2/hrist# It refers both to the ran)f&rt style 'essimism=elitism (may I neer be content, delier me from###" and mass moement(fascism", and so on# Fight Club is both iolence and comedy, both 'o'&lar c&lt&re and aantgarde art, both 'hiloso'hy and 'o'2

'hiloso'hy at the same time, in the same schi4o'hrenic 'ac)age# %s a commentator '&t it, $for all its reol&tionary, f&c)2it2&' ferorFight Club’s dirty little secret is its one of the best comedies of the decade# orget the blood, the e*'losions, the iet4schean erbal

o&sting, the +eird gender m&tation ### this is some f&nny, s&bersie st&ff- (Salo !!!"# ¶ Microfascism ¶ Dines of flight, em'hasise

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/diken-laustsen-enjoy-your-fight.pdf

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/diken-laustsen-enjoy-your-fight.pdf



>ele&4e and @&attari, are neither good nor bad in themseles; they are o'en2ended 'rocesses# here is not a dichotomy bet+een

schi4o'hrenia and 'aranoia, bet+een the rhi4ome and the tree, bet+een the strata and lines of flight# %nd then it is not enough

to be against the strata to oppose the strata (organi4ation" and the lines of flight (becoming body +itho&t

organs" to one another# %ines of flight have their own dangers +hich are interesting in relation to Fight Club# ¶ The first

danger is that a line of flight can become re!stratifiedA in the fear of complete destratification rigid

segmentation and segregation may seem attractive # ;henever a line of flight is stopped by an organi"ation

institution interpretation a black hole etc. a 0reterritoriali"ation takes place # In s'ite of the fact that Fight Club

ma)es a moc)ery of an $ill&sion of safety- in the beginning, its line of flight is follo+ed by reterritoriali4ation# It eoles into a project,

Proect ayhem# ecoming a 0bureaucracy of anarchy- (Palahni&) 1997. 119", ro/ect $ayhem is the point

at which Kight Club reterritoriali"es as 0the paranoid position of the mass sub/ect with all the

identifications of the individual with the group the group with the leader and the leader with the

group- (>ele&4e ? @&attari 19A7. 3"# In com'arison +ith ight /l&b, Proect ayhem is centralised aro&nd ac)=yler +ho gies

the m&lti'licity of lines of esca'e a resonance# ethods change too. $<e hae to sho+ these men and +omen freedom by enslaingthem, and sho+ them co&rage by frightening them- (Ibid# 19"# he ne+ r&les are. $yo& dont as) J&estions-; $yo& hae to tr&styler-, and so on (Ibid# 15"# ight /l&b +as a gang, Proect ayhem is more li)e an army# ight /l&b 'rod&ces a microcosm of theaffections of the rigid. it deterritoriali4es, massifies, b&t only in order to sto' deterritoriali4ation, to inent ne+ territoriali4ations# ¶ hesecond danger of the line of flight, +hich is less obio&s b&t more interesting is $clarity-# /larity arises +hen one attains a 'erce'tionof the molec&lar te*t&re of the $social-, +hen the holes in it are reealed# <hat &sed to be com'act and +hole seems no+ to belea)ing, a te*t&re that enables de2differentiations, oerla''ings, migrations, hybridi4ations# /larity emerges +ith the transformationof ight /l&b into Proect ayhem# $erything is nothing, and its cool to be enlightened- (Palahni&) 1997. 6"# /larity is also the

reason +hy ight /l&b fascinates its members# In this sense, Kight Club does not only reproduce the dangers of

the rigid in a miniature scale8 it is microfascism. 0 3nstead of the great paranoid fear we are trapped

in a thousand little monomanias self!evident truths and clarities that gush from every black hole

and no longer form a system but are only rumble and bu"" blinding lights giving any and

everybody the mission of self!appointed /udge dispenser of the /ustice policeman neighbourhood

99 man- (>ele&4e and @&attari 19A7. A"# ¶ Interestingly, +hereas the moie clearly ma)es a self2refle*ie moc)ery of Proect

ayhem in the conte*t of the first danger (macrofascism", the as'ects of ight /l&b that do not resonate in Proect ayhem (that is,

its microfascist as'ects" esca'e its ironic 'ers'ectie# 3t seems as if the movie assumes that power predominantly

pertains to molar lines. ut lines of flight are not e-empted from power relations and there is a

microfascism in Kight Club that cannot be confined to ro/ect $ayhem# It is in this conte*t remar)able that

Kight Club operates as a deterritoriali"ed line of flight as a war machine that is violently opposed

to the state8 its members are not merely the Oedipali"ed paranoiacs of the capitalist state order. 3ts

micro! fascism can be understood best as a transgressive delirium. 0;hat makes fascism dangerousis its molecular or micropolitical power for it is a mass movement a proliferation of molecular

interactions 0skipping from point to point before beginning to resonate together in the National 9ocialist

9tate (>ele&4e ? @&attari 19A7. 125"# If Proect ayhem is the ridic&lo&s a4i2ty'e organi4ation +ith &nrefle*ie s)inheads

+ho &st re'eat ylers orders, ight /l&b is the molec&lar face of fascism# ¶ The third danger A a line of flight can lose its

creative potentials and become a line of death. This is precisely what happens in Kight ClubA 0the line of

flight crossing the wall getting out of the black holes but instead of connecting with other lines and each

time augmenting its valence turning to destruction abolition pure and simple the passion for abolition -

(19A7. 9"# In fact, fascism is the result of an intense line of flight that becomes a line of death wanting self!

destruction and 0death through the death of others - (Ibid# 3!"# # line of flight that desires its own repression.

The point at which escape becomes a l ine of death is the point at which war +destruction, becomes the main

ob/ect of the war machine rather than its supplement # ight /l&b, transforming into Proect ayhem, becomes an

instr&ment of '&re destr&ction and iolence, of com'lete destratification, a +ar machine that has +ar as its obect# In other +ords,

the regression to the undifferentiated or complete disorgani"ation is as dangereous as

transcendence and organi"ation. &yler, the alluring and charismatic, the free5 ;heeling ervert of Eight /l&b, is as dangero&s

as society# 3f there are two dangers the strata and complete destratification suicide Kight Club fights only

the first. Therefore a relevant )uestion never asked by microfascists is whether it is not 0necessary to



retain a minimum of strata a minimum of forms and functions a minimal sub/ect from which to e-tract

materials affects and assemblages (>ele&4e ? @&attari 19A7. 7!"# he test of desire is not deno&ncing false desires b&t

disting&ishing bet+een that +hich 'ertains to the strata, com'lete destratification, and that +hich 'ertains to line of flight, a test,+hich ight /l&b does not 'ass (Ibid# 165"# Dets J&alify this 'oint by inestigating the +ay the logic of the c&t +or)s in the film#



$ilitarism method

&. The entire defense of their method assumes they are winning the root cause

debate 7 capitalism is the real root cause of systemic oppression and violence 7

hence the /ustification for 0war machine tactics is lost

%abalme &(%$ctivismH PeaceH 0VCDH Discrimination), httHYY;;;.activism.netYeaceYnvcdhYdiscrimination.shtml Jacob9"n this action, our struggle is not only against missiles and bombs but against the system of power they

defendA a system based on domination on the belief that some people have more value than others, and

therefore have the right to control others to e-ploit them so that they can lead better lives than those they oress. < We say

that all eole have value. No person no group has the right to wield power over the decisions and

resources of others. &he structure of our organi@ations and the rocesses ;e use among ourselves are our best attemt to live our belief

in self5determination. esides working against discrimination of all kinds among ourselves we must try to

understand how such discrimination supports the system which produces nuclear weapons. < Kor some

people ;ho come to this action, the overriding issue is the struggle to prevent nuclear destruction . Eor others,

that struggle is not separate from the struggles against racism se-ism classism and the oppressionof groups of people because of their se-ual orientation religion age physical +dis,ability

appearance or life history. Understood this ;ay, it is clear that nuclear weapons are already killing people

forcing them to lead lives of difficulty and struggle. Nuclear war has already begun and it claims

its victims disproportionately from native peoples the Third ;orld women and those who are

economically vulnerable because of the history of oppression. < #ll oppressions are interlocking. ;e

separate racism classism etc. in order to discuss them not to imply that any form of oppression

works in isolation. We no; that to work against any one of these is not /ust to try to stop something

negative but to build a positive vision. -any in the movement call this larger goal feminism. Calling our rocess 'feminist rocess' does not mean that ;omen dominate or e=clude men on the contrary, it challenges all systems of domination. &he term recogni@es the

historical imortance of the feminist movement in insisting that nonviolence begins at home in the ways we treat each

other. < Confronting the issues that divide us is often ainful. Peole may feel guilty, or hurt, or react defensively ;hen ;e begin to sea ofthese things, as if they ;ere being ersonally accused. :ut ;oring through this ain together, taking responsibility for our

oppressive behavior is part of our struggle to end the nuclear arms race. #sking members of

oppressed groups to be the catalyst for this change is avoiding our own responsibility for

discrimination. $ost of us benefit from some form of privilege due to our se=, or class, or sin color, or se=ualorientation, but that rivilege is limited. 0one of us alone has the o;er to end institutions of discrimination. Only ;hen ;e struggle together can;e hoe to do so 55 and ;hen ain and hurt arise in that struggle, ;e can see it as a measure of the deth to ;hich discrimination hurts us all,

eeing us searated and divided in our strength. < Eacism Classism 9e-ism >eterose-ism and $ilitarism < art of

struggling against nuclear weapons involves understanding the ways in which the oppression of

articular grous of eole supports militarism makes the institutionali"ed system of war and violence

appear HnaturalH and Hinevitable.H Eor instance, heterose-ism, or the assumtion that se=ual relations are only

ermissible, desirable, and normal bet;een oosite se=es, /ustifies a system of rigid se- roles, in ;hich men and ;omen are

e=ected to behave and loo in articular ;ays, and in which )ualities attributed to women are devalued. Thus men

who are not willing to be violent are not virile 55 they are threatened ;ith the real sanctions laced on homose=uality

(hysical violence, housing and economic discrimination9 unless they behave like Hreal men.H The military relies

upon homophobia (the fear of homose=uality9 to rovide it ;ith ;illing enlistees, ;ith soldiers ;ho are trained to ill others to rove

their masculinity. < 9e-ism, or the systematic devaluation of ;omen, is clearly related to this. Women have traditionally oosed;ar because ;omen bear the ne=t generation and feel a resonsiblity to rotect it. :ut feminists are not content to sea only from traditional

roles as mothers and nurturers. $any activists see a feminist analysis as crucial to effectively challenging

militarism. &he system of patriarchy, under ;hich men benefit from the oression of ;omen, supports and thrives on

war . 3n a se=ist or patriarchal society women are relegated to limited roles and valued rimarily for their se-ual and



reproductive functions while men are seen as the central maers of culture, the primary actors in history. Patriarchy is enforced by the language and images of our culture by eeing ;omen in the lo;est aying and lo;est status ?obs, and by violenceagainst ;omen in the home and on the streets. Women are ortrayed by the media as ob?ects to be violated 78 of ;omen are battered by men in

their lives, 67 are se=ually assaulted. < The se-ist splitting of humanity which turns women into others , lesser

beings ;hose urose is to serve men, is the same split which allows us to see our enemies as non!human, fair game

for any means of destruction or cruelty. 3n war the victors fre)uently rape the women of the con)uered peoples. Our country\s foreign olicy often seems directed by teenage boys desarately trying to live u to stereotyes of male toughness, ;ith no regard

for the humanity or land of their 'enemy.' -en are sociali@ed to reress emotions, to ignore their needs to nurture and cherish other eole andthe earth. :motions tender feelings care for the living, and for those to come are not seen as appropriate

concerns of public policy. This makes it possible for policymakers to conceive of nuclear war as

Hwinnable.H < 9imilarly racism, or the institutionali@ed devaluation of darer eoles, supports both the idea and the

practice of the military and the roduction of nuclear ;eaons. Eacism operates as a system of divide and

con)uer. "t hels to eretuate a system in ;hich some eole consistently are 'haves' and others are 'have nots.' Eacism tries to

make white people forget that all people need and are entitled to self!determination good health

care and challenging work. Eacism limits our hori@ons to ;hat resently e=ists it makes us suppose that current

in/ustices are HnaturalH or it makes those in/ustices invisible. Eor e=amle, most of the uranium used in

maing nuclear weapons is mined under incredibly ha"ardous conditions by people of colorA Native

#mericans and black 9outh #fricans. 9imilarly most radioactive and ha"ardous waste dumps are

located on lands owned or occupied by people of color. 3f all those people suffering right now from

e-posure to nuclear materials were white would nuclear production remain acceptable to thewhite!dominated power structureI < Eacism also underlies the concept of Hnational securityHA that the

.9. must protect its HinterestsH in Third ;orld countries through the e-ercise of military force and

economic maniulation. 3n this world!view the darker peoples of the world are incapable of managing

their own affairs and do not have the right to self!determination. &heir struggles to democrati@e their countries and

become indeendent of U.S. military and economic institutions are ortrayed as 'fanatic,' 'terrorist,' or 'Communist.' The greatest

danger of nuclear war today lies in the likelihood of superpower intervention in Third ;orld

countries fueled by government appeals to nationalistic and racist interests. < #ll forms of

discrimination are interrelated with economic discrimination, or classism. Classism ?ustifies a system in ;hichcometition is the norm, and rofit is believed to be a universal motivation. &hus, oor and ;oring class eole lac access to education, leisuretime and freAuently basic things lie food and shelter. :ut a classist society blames them for their overty, or devalues their articular ;ay of

living. Classism values certain inds of ;or over others, and sets u a system of uneAual re;ards . Our society threatens the

ma/ority of our members with economic insecurity forcing us to accept things the way they are for

fear of losing the fe; things ;e\ve gained through hard work. Since most oor eole are ;omen, children and eole of color, classism

and other forms of discrimination ;or together to hide the in?ustice of our economic system. < oor and working class people feel

the effects of the military directly profoundly and brutally. =ital social services have been cut to

feed the entagon . "nflation, aggravated by the military budget, che;s a;ay at ;hat is left after disroortionately high ta=es are

deducted from our ay. oor people are prime military recruits, ;ith historically little access to draft deferments or information

about conscientious ob?ection, forced by unemployment to think of the military as a Hcareer opportunity.H

Our militari"ed society does not suort cooerative and socially roductive ;or, but counts on uneAual cometition and

economic deprivation to provide workers in defense industries miners in uranium mines and

soldiers in the armed forces. < No human being is born with discriminatory attitudes and beliefs.

hysical and cultural attitudes are not the causes of oppression8 these differences are used to /ustify

oppression. Eacist classist se-ist heterose-ist and all other forms of discriminatory attitudes are a

mi-ture of misinfo rmation and ignorance which have to be imposed on young people through a

painful process of social conditioning . These processes are left unchallenged partially becausepeople feel powerless to do anything about them. ut the situation is not hopeless. eople can grow

and change. $any successful struggles have taken place against structures of e-ploitation and

discrimination. ;e are not condemned to repeat the past . Discriminatory conditioning can be analy@ed and unlearned. < $ll eole come from traditions ;hich have a history of resistance to in?ustice, and every erson has their o;n individual history of resistance todiscriminatory conditioning. &his history needs to be recalled and celebrated, and eole need to listen to and learn from other eole\s histories.When eole act from a sense of informed ride in themselves and their o;n traditions, they ;ill be more effective in all struggles for ?ustice and

eace.



The form outlives the content 7 warist persuasion rollsback the aff 7 outweighs

other aspects and risks e-tinctionCollins L Jlover & (John, $ssistant Prof. of Global Studies at St. #a;rence University, oss, Visiting Professor of Sociology at St. #a;rence University, Collateral #anguage, . 569

$s any university student no;s, theories about the %social construction) and social effects of language have become a common feature of

academic scholarshi. Conservative critics often argue that those who use these theories of language (e.g.,

deconstruction9 are 0/ust talking about language as opposed to taling about the 0real world. &he essays in this

boo, by contrast, begin from the remise that language matters in the most concrete im mediate way possibleA

its use by political and military leaders leads directly to violence in the form of war, mass murder (in5

cluding genocide9, the hysical destruction of human communities, and the devastation of the natural environment. "ndeed, if the world

ever witnesses a nuclear holocaust it will probably be because leaders in more than one country have

succeeded in convincing their people through the use of political language that the use of nuclear

weapons and, if necessary, the destruction of the earth itself, is /ustifiable. Erom our ersective, then, every act of political

violence >from the horrors eretrated against 0ative $mericans to the murder of olitical dissidents in the Soviet Union to the destruction of

the World &rade Center, and no; the bombing of $fghanistan> is intimately linked with the use of language. Partly ;hat we

are talking about here, of course, are the processes of 0manufacturing consent and shaping people’s per !

ception of the world around them people are more likely to support acts of violence committed in their

name if the reciients of the violence have been defined as %terrorists,) or if the violence is presented as a defense of

0freedom .) -edia analysts such as 0oam Chomsy have ;ritten eloAuently about the corrosive effects that this ind of rocess has on the

olitical culture of suosedly democratic societies. $t the ris of stating the obvious, ho;ever, the most fundamental effects of violence are

those that are visited uon the ob?ects of violence the language that shapes public opinion is the same language

that burns villages besieges entire populations kills and maims human bodies and leaves the

ground scarred with bomb craters and littered with land mines. $s George Or;ell so famously illustrated in his

;or, acts of vio lence can easily be made more palatable through the use of eu phemisms such as

0pacification or, to use an e=amle discussed in this boo, %targets.) "t is imortant to oint out, ho;ever, that the need for such

language derives from the simple fact that the violence itself is abhorrent. ;ere it not for the abstract

language of %vital interests) and %surgical stries) and the flattering language of %civili@ation) and M/ust wars we would be

less likely to avert our mental ga"e from the physical effects of violence .



#& rivilege

The lenses with which we view war and peace influence the policy options we

consider 7 academia is a critical space to break down the warism in our mindsCady 1' (Duane #., rof of hil M hamline university, Erom Warism to PacifismH $-oral Continuum, . 22752269&he very notion of restraint in ;ar> common to all ositions along < the full continuum in varying degrees> uts the burden of roof on going

to ;ar and on ho; the fighting is done. These are the activities in < need of /ustification. The moral presumption

should be to eace, positive peace rather than the pervasive presumption of ;arism and negative peace.

Eecogni"ing the grip that warism has on dominant culture < may be the most formidable task of

genuine peacemaking for the fore5 < seeable future because it is warism that blocks evolution toward more <

pacifistic societies. Only occasionally ;ill individuals bac into the < most absolute form of acifism the cultural redisosition to;arism < confines most of us to a narro; range of otions to;ard the ;ar5 realist < end of the scale. &his brings us full circle and ;e end this

consideration of a moral continuum on the morality of ;ar and eace ;here ;e < began, confronting ;arism. < The normative lenses

of warism the spectacles through which we < in modern culture tend to see and interpret all that happens turn out < to be as much like blinders as lenses because they restrict our vision to < a narrow range

of options. Niet"sche said that if the only tool you have < is a hammer everything begins to look

like a nail. nder such conditions it is pretty hard to resist hammering. $nalogously, if the only <

vision we have is warist and the only tools we build are weapons then < every conflict invites military

intervention and it is hard to resist war 5 < ring. nless we envision a wider value perspective than the warist

we < will not see the nonviolent options before us. :ut to see more ;idely < we need to acknowledge and remove

the blinders . < eace education is a small, struggling, but growing segment of < contemorary education. The

dominant presumption of warism has < made it difficult for those committed to peace education to develop

< and establish it as a legitimate discipline devoid of the image of mere < anti5 militarist roaganda. Some scholars call themselves

eace educators ;hile many ;ithin the traditional discilines are reluctant to be < so labeled they may be symathetic ;ith genuine eaceresearch and < teaching but afraid of the stigma that goes ;ith the label. &hose scholars interested in applying their

professional training and skills to peace < issues face a monumental task. :ducation at all levels must

address < warism /ust as they have had to address racism se-ism ageism classism homophobia

and other forms of domination .3 &here is increasing < academic interest in ;hat scholars call %institutional violence)> social < structures lie racism, se=ism, and overty that involve constraints < that in?ure and violate systems that have entraing, coercive effects."nstitutional forms of violence tend to be more covert than overt < nonetheless acifists> eacemaers>of various sorts tend to ;or < to;ardthe recognition and abolition of these forms of oression as < the natural manifestation of their commitment to ositive eace. Such < ;orinvolves recovery of lost or neglected history, consideration of a < full range of otions beyond traditional social constraints holding the < forms of

domination in lace, and serious, systematic, and legitimi@ed < study of conditions constituting ositive eace. Prearing for war in < an

effort to prevent war and preserve the status )uo must be distinguished from rearing for genuine

positive peace in an effort to en5 < courage cooeration and reclude a resort to ;ar. nless such issues < are entertained

routinely across all educational levels > including the < recognition of ho; the various forms of domination are entangled in <

and reinforced by ;arism> the presumption of warism will continue < to drive us toward war realism and

prevent progress toward an evolving positive peace.7 :asing the grip of warism may be unlikely but <

then racial integration in public schools abolition of slavery women < voting and holding ublic office, the

end of apartheid in 9outh #frica < and the "ron Curtain in !uroe, the election of an #frican #merican < as .9.

president all were e-ceedingly unlikely not long before they < became realities. eople imagine

work for, and sacrifice for important < goals even if they never are achieved . &o the ;onder of us all, unlikely <

goals are sometimes reached. -artin #uther ing, Jr., believed that %the arc of history bends < toward /ustice.) Kene; that racial segregation ;ould end . . . some5 < day . . . so he called on $mericans to %lan for the inevitable.) Similarly, acifists envision a

broad cultural evolution from ;arism to;ard < (and eventually, to9 acifism, so acifists as us to reare for the inevitable by recogni@ing and



bacing a;ay from ;arism and by ;oring to < create and sustain the conditions of genuine ositive eace. While education is crucial ,

eace educators cannot bear the burden of the < ;ider cultural failure to see beyond ;arism. 9cholars and teachers in < traditional

disciplines must address the relevant waristYacifist issues < of their fields /ust as feminist scholarship has

been undertaken by academics in all fields and /ust as racist claims have been tested and dispelled by research

in all disciplines. #nti!warism work and positive < peace making cannot be ghettoi"ed in token

departments and /ournals < and dismissed for ushing an agenda they must be undertaken across everycurriculum not marginali"ed but central if ;e are to assist in < rearing for the inevitable. "t is remarable ho; lo;

peace research is < among government and foundation riorities. &he moral continuum < here may prove useful in erod ing

;arist obstacles to taking peace positively if only because it recogni@es gradual variations among vie;s < ;ithin a single moraltradition rather than encouraging olari@ed < vie;s. Peace research and study need not lead to any conversion e=eriences it ;ould be surrising;ere they to do so, desite oular < fears.



Cap



#& erm Do oth

: 7 impossible 7 can only 0start once 7 the aff was fatally flawed

enkins P Professor of Philosohy M University of $labama ]"redell Jenins, %&he Conditions of Peace), &he-onist, Vol. 76, 0o. 3, Philosohy of War (OC&O:!, 2B6/9, . 786571, httHYY;;;.?stor.orgYstableY16B81/1BGender !dited

" shall argue in this aer that our thinking about the )uestion of war and peace is vitiated at its source by a series of mistaken

assumtions and intentions. These misconceptions pass as sound coin because they have the air of truismsA they appear

to direct our in)uiries along lines that are sure to be successful and are any;ay the only ones available. $t the same

time, these errors are so basic that they distort both theory and practice from the startA they are red

herrings putting us on a false scent from ;hich ;e never free ourselves because ;e cannot get close enough to the Auarry to recogni@e our mistae. 3t is

my purpose to e-pose these errors and oint the ;ay to their correction. &hree basic mistakes have misled our thinking

about war and peace. ;e have employed the wrong categories. We have studied the ;rong data. $nd we have pursued

the wrong goal. &hese errors are intimately related, ;ith each in turn entailing the ne=t. The categories we think in focus our attention

too narrowly. &he data ;e ore over yield distorted conclusions. &he goals we are thus led to pursue are mirages that gro; fainter the closer ;e

aroach them. "t ;ill be necessary to discuss these errors serially, but it must be remembered that they are in reality tightly forged lins in a closed chain. 2. The controlling

factor in all human undertakings is the conceptual apparatus that men ]people employ! the terms in

which they think. These modes of thought largely determine the data ;e e=amine, the phenomena we are

interested in the )uestions we ask and the purposes we pursue. "n more homely language, this aaratus defines

where we look what we look for and what we hope to do. #nd it is here, at their very first ste, that our

dealings with the problem of war and peace go astray. Our mistake is simple but criticalA we think

in terms that focus our attention on only one side of the issue , and that the more suerficial and derivative side. What we do, in brief, is

to treat war as an independent variable which is to be understood in isolation from any largerconte-t and dealt with strictly on its own terms. ;e appear to act on the assumption that wars are

ultimate and ineradicable features of reality so there are only two things we can do about themA delay

their occurrence and make sure we win them when they occur. Seen in the light of reason, this rocedure is

parado-ical. The real and final ob?ect of our concern is peace. ;e want to establish amicable relations among eole, and create a

community of feeling and interests. Qet the overwhelming proportion of our thinking talking and acting is

concerned with war. 3t is war, in fact and in threat, that constantly preoccupies us. So the universe of discourse in which we

treat the problem of war and peace has a vocabulary that is derived entirely from only one of these

elementsA war. &he concets that dominate our thining are \nation states\, \sovereignty\, \foreign o;ers\, \treaties\, \alliances\, \the balance of o;er\, \nuclear deterrents\, and other

such. ;ar so fascinates us that we are incapable of viewing it in perspective and putting it in conte-t.

9o we fail to see that war is only one element in a comple- set of human relationship s , ;hich can be neutrali@ed

by other and very different elements. "nstead,we persist in thinking that the threat of war can be averted, and ;ar itself \;on\, onlyin the terms that it itself poses A namely the appeal to force. eace may be the ob/ect of our prayers

but war is the ob/ect of our efforts. " remared above that there is something e=tremely arado=ical about this situation. :ut there is nothing unusual about itH this

is not an isolated case, but an instance of a general tye of behavior. "n one conte=t after another, ;e find men neglecting to ursue the g ood they see and thining only of averting the evil theyfear. -any dichotomies of this sort come easily to mindH eace5;ar, health5illness, ?ustice5in?ustice, eAuality5discrimination, rehabilitation5unishment. "n every instance, it i s the second item on

;hich ;e lavish our efforts. "t siml y seems to be the case that in all of the conte=ts of life men ]people tend to take sound and satisfactory situations for

granted and to be concerned only with those that are unpleasant threatening or harmful. 9o

instead of trying to preserve peace we think only of preventing wars!or winning them. "n short, ;e are in the

odd osition of not seeing the ends that ;e desire, b ut merely trying to avert or cure t he outcomes ;e fear. "ndeed, ;e do not even thin much about these goods, and we usually

define them as the absence of their opposites. So though our aroach to t he roblem of ;ar and eace is arado=ical, it i s not anomolous. 1. Our



initial mistake in dealing with the issues of war and peace is to employ the wrong categoriesA our

thinking is done e-clusively in terms of @war@ and concepts associated with it. The immediate result

of this mistake is to focus our attention on a narrow and inadeAuate range of data. &he common meaning of \;ar\ is a conflict bet;een nation states, ;aged by armies using every ;eaon of force available, in ;hich each arty sees to defeat the other (the 'enemy'9 and reduce it to a condition of total subservience. $s

Clause;it@ ut it in his classic treatise, 'War therefore is an act of violence intended to comel our oonent to fulfill our ;ill'.2 9ince we think in terms of war and

this is ;hat ;ar means, these are the data ;e turn to ;hen ;e see enlightenment on the issues of ;ar and eaceH we look only at the relations between

sovereign states, and then only ;hen these states are in a condition of actual or threatened violent conflict. ;e thus find ourselves in the absurdposition of trying to understand peace by studying war. This is like trying to understand motion by

studying rest, as the ancients did, or trying to derive the character of man from the nature of God, as the mediaevalists did. We deride these latter efforts as e=ercises in futility. :ut ;e

emloy an e=actly analogous rocedure in our aroach t o eace, and ;e are eretually surrised and frustrated ;hen i t does not succeed. What ;e are doing, in sum, is using t he athological

case as a aradigm for studying the sou nd case. So ;e become e=ert only in t he athology of international relations. Our fascination with the phenomena of

war leads us to certain conclusions that become as unshakeable as they are deceptive. We regard the sovereign

state as at once a brute fact and an imenetrable mystery. ;e assume that there must be irreconcilable conflicts of interest

among such states. Since these conflicts can be neither resolved nor arbitrated, they must eventually lead to trial by force. Jiven the facts that we study

these conclusions follow naturally.

$ilitarist component overwhelms every other frame 7 war machine leaves no roomfor compromise 7 attempt to combine collapses into incoherence ripe for

neoconservative cooption. #ff cannot control the nature of their performance

through intent 7 spin and strategic manipulation of war!frame can be used against

the aff in the long!run because militarist imperatives rise to the topRRR

$egroan S (0ic, Deartment of Geograhy, University of 0e;castle, U, %-ilitarism, ealism, Just War, or 0onviolenceL), Jan 2, Geoolitics, !:SCO, C-9

:very student of the relations bet;een states, who also holds that scholarly engagement must not merely be

theoretical and empirical but also political and moral cannot avoid facing the )uestionA in what

circumstances if at all should a state be considered right in making or /oining warI &he argument of this aer is

simly that critical geoolitics has not roerly graled ;ith this Auestion in a systematic and consistent ;ay. y virtue of opposition

to certain wars but advocacy of others , by imlicit use of /ust war categories and language in moral

reasoning it is de facto operating within the parameters of a version of /ust war theory. Ko;ever, because this

aro5 riation is not made e=licit indeed, because ?ust ;ar theory is at times summarily dismissed its aroriation is artial. &his selective

aroriat ion is roblematic. Whilst critical geoolitical analyses of individual ;ars might be insightful and comelling, the bigger picture

may be one of incoherence and sub?ectivity. &he urose of theory selectively deployed becomes confusing

criti)ue may be turned in on itself there is a lack of clarity and rigour in moral reasoning

despite superficial rhetorical appeals to morality, and the political intent of the pro/ect becomes unclear

and even co!optable to the service of neoconservatism . This partial and contradictory

appropriation of ?ust ;ar theory is also intellectually unsatisfying and limits the potential of critical geoolitics

to be taken seriously outside a small self!selecting readership. -y ob?ection thus far is not to ?ust ;ar theory er se. "t rovides a frame;or for reasoning about ;arfare that regards it as an evil to be deloyed in only e=cetional circumstances, and (desite itsname9, its re5 sumtion is against violence. We liv e in a messy and comlicated and vio5 lent ;orld. Just ;ar theoryIs insistence, against realismand militarism, that military violence is not beyond the le gitimate shere of moral reasoning is imortant, and the arguments for the occasionaland limited use of force to restore eace and rectify in?ustice are strong ones. "f critical geoolitics ;ishes to locate itself e=licitly in this schoolof thought, it ;ill find comel5 ling reasons for doing so and many allies already there. :y this rocess, it ;ill certainly refine and advance the

ro?ect (of critical geoolitics9 ;ith an in?ection of intellectual rigour. $s " have suggested ;ith reference to &oalIs critiAue of the 2BB2 US ;ar on"raA as being about $merican identity, it could in turn also mae an original contribution to thought about the category of ?ust intention .

Ko;ever, ;hilst recognising its a cific intent, 3 remain ersonally unconvinced by /ust war theory as used either consistently by

theorists and ?urists, or artially as in critical geoolit ics. Critical geopolitics, as " read it, is not simly about e=osing the o;er5no;ledge relationshis at the heart of geoolitical reasoning, B2 and denaturalising the global order by ortray5 ing it as socially and historically



constructed B1 through an %e=amination of the geograhical assumti ons, designations, and understandings that enter into the maing of ;orld

olitics) B/ and ho; laces and eole are stitched together to narrate and e=lain events. B3 "t is all of these, but it is moreH a political

pro/ect committed, as Dalby uts it, to challenging the specifications of politics and dangers used to /ustify

violence . B7 Nonviolence as a ositive olitical method and also a vision of eac e and ?ustice that e-plicitly eschews

the resort to force is a ro?ect that has only recently begun to be studied and theorised in a system atic manner, and ha s already yielded

many romising results. B Personally, lie a gro;ing number of eole, 3 am persuaded by the case for a Christian pra-isof nonviolence . B6 Jeopolitics has a long and bloody history of providing arguments for war B4

critical geopolitics should re/ect the temptation to provide more , and lace its caa5 bilities and insights in the

service of this e=citing relatively ne; and under5 resourced ro? ect, not /ust war theory , realism, or militarism . "n his history of

t;entieth5century geoolitical thought, Polelle observed that it %led its believers to be resigned to the necessity of violent international conflict).BB "t ;ould be deely ironic if critical geoolitics ;e re to mae the same mis5 tae in the t;enty5first.

;e address the root cause of attendance 7 economics cut against trending

enrollment of black students 7 the aff does not address the key factor in

participation

obert %ongley ?2Y182/ %College !nrollment Declines $fter Steady Gro;th),

httHYYusgovinfo.about.comYbY182/Y8BY8Ycollege5enrollment5declines5after5steady5gro;th.htm#fter si- years of substantial and steady growth .9. college enrollment has fallen by nearly half a million students inless than a year, according to ne; reort from the U.S. Census :ureau. < Statistics from the Census :ureau\s School !nrollmentH 1821, sho;ed

that college enrollment in fall 1821 lunged by 36,888 students comared to fall 1822. The decline, ;hich includes both graduate and

undergraduate students, reversed a trend that saw college enrollment soar by P.& million students between

&'' and &'11. < &he reort rovides an annual loo at the characteristics of students enrolled in all levels of schools from nursery tograduate school. Data includes enrollment by age, se=, race, Kisanic origin and country in ;hich the students ;ere born. < $lso SeeH EederalStudent $id Primer < &he greatest decline came among older students, age 17 and older. &heir enrollment fell by 32B,888, ;hile the enrollment of

younger students declined by 34,888. < Kisanic !nrollment "ncreased < ;hile college enrollment among white students fell

by 1.1 million and black students by 1'S''', enrollment of Kisanic college students rose to /.3 million, u 336,888

bet;een 1822 and 1821. Overall, Kisanics made u almost 11 of all students enrolled in all levels of education from reschool to graduateschool in 1821, an increase of nearly 2 since 1881.< '&his increase in the number of Kisanics enrolled in college can be attributed to thecombination of an increase in the adult Kisanic oulation and their climbing lielihood of being enrolled,' said Census :ureau statistician Julie

Siebens in a ress release.< -ore Diversity on Camus< The Census report also reveals the growing diversity among

.9. college students. While the ercentage of non5Kisanic ;hite college students fell from 6 to 74 between &'' and

&'1& the percentage of >ispanic students rose from 11U to 1U over the same period and the

percentage of black students rose from 1(U to 1VU. < "n addition, the ercentage of foreign5born students enrolled in reschool through college increased to almost /8 in 1821, u from 14.3 in 1881. < &he statistics also sho;ed a reduction in the oularity of rivate schools. &he number of students enrolled in rivate elementary, middle and high schools fell from 3.4 million in 1887, to 3.1 million in

1821. < "s it the ising Cost of CollegeL < While the Census :ureau offered no reasons for the declining enrollment in U.S. colleges, it seems

only logical that the ever!increasing cost of going to college has played a role.

The narrative of the 1ac is thus only a function to describe the antagonisms below it

they do not paint a picture of resolution that enabls an overcoming of the violence

toward the voices of the 1ca

Gi"ek 1?? ]Slavo?, The Plague of Fantasies, 0XCH Verso, 2BBB, 2852YY

&he third ointH fantasy is the primordial form of narrative which serves to occult some original

deadlock . &he socioolitical fantasy ar e=cellence, of course, is the myth of \rimordial accumulation\H thenarrative of the t;o ;orers, one la@y and free5sending, the other diligent and enterrising, accumulating andinvesting, ;hich rovides the myth of the \origins of caitalism\, obfuscating the violence of its actual genealogy.

0ot;ithstanding his emhasis on symboli@ation andYor historici@ation in the 2B78s, #acan is thus radically anti5narratavistH the ultimate aim of sychoanalytic treatment is not for the analysand to organi@e his confused lifee=erience into (another9 coherent narrative, ;ith all the traumas roerly integrated, and so on. 3t is not only that

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/09/06/college-enrollment-declines-after-steady-growth.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/09/06/college-enrollment-declines-after-steady-growth.htm



some narratives are @false@ based upon the e-clusion of traumatic events and patching up the gaps

left by these e-clusions 7 %acan@s thesis is much strongerA the answer to the )uestion @;hy do we

tell storiesI@ is that narrative as such emerges in order to resolve some fundamental antagonism by

rearranging its terms into a temporal succession . 3t is thus the form of narrative which bears

witness to some repressed antagonism. &he rice one ays for the narrative resoution is the etitiorinciis ofthe temoral loo the narrative silenty resuoses as already given ;hat it urorts to reroduce the narrative of

\rimordial accumulation\ effectively e=lains nothing, since it already resuoses a ;orer behavinglie a full5 blo;n caitalist.

The use of stories and narratives is descriptive of the link par e-cellence. #ccepting

the validity of all narratives e)ually creates a dull and homogenous multiculturalism

and stifles anti!fascist political struggles 7 this means there never will be

mobili"ation from the 1ac.

Gi"ek &''& ]Slavo?, %" am a Eighting $thestH "ntervie; ;ith Slavo?_i@e,) :ad Sub?ects, "ssue 7B Eeb 1881,eserver.orgYbsY7BY@[email protected]

_i@e A " thin that ;e should accet that universalism is a !urocentrist notion. &his may sound racist, but " don\tthin it is. !ven ;hen &hird World countries aeal to freedom and democracy, ;hen they formulate their struggle

against !uroean imerialism, they are at a more radical level endorsing the !uroean remise of universalism. Xoumay remember that in the struggle against aartheid in South $frica, the $0C al;ays aealed to universal!nlightenment values, and it ;as :uthele@i, the regime\s blac suorter in the ay of the C"$, ;ho aealed tosecial $frican values. -y oonent here is the ;idely acceted osition that ;e should leave behind the Auest foruniversal truth > that ;hat ;e have instead are ?ust different narratives about ;ho ;e are, the stories ;e tell aboutourselves. So, in that vie;, the highest ethical in?unction is to resect the other story. $ll the stories should be told,each ethnic, olitical, or se=ual grou should be given the right to tell its story, as if this ind of tolerance to;ardsthe lurality of stories ;ith no universal truth value is the ultimate ethical hori@on. " oose this radically. &hisethics of storytelling is usually accomanied by a right to narrate, as if the highest act you can do today is to narrateyour o;n story, as if only a blac lesbian mother can no; ;hat it\s lie to be a blac lesbian mother, and so on.

0o; this may sound very emanciatory. :ut the moment ;e accet this logic, ;e enter a ind of aartheid."n asituation of social domination, all narratives are not the same . Eor e=amle, in Germany in the 2B/8s, the narrativeof the Je;s ;asn\t ?ust one among many. &his ;as the narrative that e=lained the truth about the entire situation. Or

today, tae the gay struggle. "t\s not enough for gays to say, ';e ;ant our story to be heard.' 0o, the gay narrativemust contain a universal dimension, in the sense that their imlicit claim must be that ;hat haens to us is notsomething that concerns only us . What is haening to us is a symtom or signal that tells us something about;hat\s ;rong ;ith the entirety of society today . We have to insist on this universal dimension.



1NE



%inks

Their understanding of ower 7 is a link 7 the Cross!- of the 1#C articulates power

as fluid concept that is problematic because it allows capitalism to deterritoriali"e

and reinforce itself evin Cryderman, %Jane and #ouisaH &he &aestry Of Critical ParadigmsH Kutcheon, #yotard, Said, Dirli, $nd

:rodber,) &''', httHYY7.286.122.18YostYcaribbeanYbrodberYcry2.html,"n ':orderlands adicalism,' Dirli is critical of the trends of ostmodernism and ostcolonialism in regard to borders, sub?ectivity, and

history. Dirli claims that ostmodernism and ostcolonialism tend to simly reinforce the reign of late

caitalism H Post5modernism, articulating the condition of the globe in the age of fle=ible roduction, has done great theoretical service by challenging the tyrannical unilinearity of inherited concetions of history and society. &he olitical rice aid for this achievement,ho;ever, has been to abolish the sub?ect in history, ;hich destroys the ossibility of olitical action, or to attach action to one of another

diffuse sub?ect ositions, ;hich ends u in narcissistic reoccuations ;ith self of one ind of another. (4B9 Dirli claims that the \hay luralism\ of ostcolonialism 55 such as its emhasis on flu=, borderlands and liminal sace 55 does not somuch oose elite unified narratives of nations and cultures as it does reinforce them. Dirli also lins thistrend of 'fluid sub?ect ositions' (B49 in ostmodernism to ostcolonialism and Global CaitalismH 'in the age offle=ible roduction, ;e all live in the borderlands. Caital, deterritoriali@ed and decentered, establishes

borderlands ;here it can move freely, a;ay from the control of states and societies but in collusion ;ith states againstsocieties' (Dirli 469. -oreover, the roblem 'resented by ostcolonial discourse' is 'a roblem of liberating discourse that divorces itselffrom the material conditions of life, in this case Global Caitalism as the foundational rincile of contemorary society globally' (BB9.Dirli also lins the intellectual class as a roduct of global caitalism ;hich, according to Dirli, 'has ?umbled u notions of sace and

time' (2889. "ndeed, both ostmodernist and ost5colonialist literature involve the fragmentation and rebellionagainst modernist ideologies that imose essentiali@ing identity, linear time schemes, and totali@ingnarratives .

Torres evidence is about Coloniality and slavery 7 ununderlined parts also refer to

pre!#frican slavery. 3t’s e-isted as long as con)uest 7 proven by history of Eoman

empire 7 capitalism is the root cause of e-pansion. 9lavery is also a )uestion of

production 7 racism was /ust a byproduct of needing to /ustify infinite e-pansion at

all costs.Bovel &''& ]Joel Bovel $lger Kiss Prof. $t :ard, &''& &he !nemy of 0ature, _ed :oos, . 21/5217"f, ho;ever ;e as the Auestion of efficacy, that is, ;hich slit sets the others into motion, then riority ;ould have to be given to class, for

the lain reason that class relations entail the state as an instrument of enforcement and control, and it is the state thatshaes and organi@es the slits that aear in human ecosystems. &hus class is both logically and historicallydistinct from other forms of e=clusion (hence ;e should not tal of `classismI to go along ;ith `se=ismI and `racism,I and `secies5

ismI9. &his is, first of all, because class is an essentially ]human5made category, ;ithout root in even a mystified biology . We cannotimagine a human ;orld ;ithout gender distinctions although ;e can imagine a ;orld ;ithout domination bygender. :ut a ;orld ;ithout class is eminently imaginable > indeed, such ;as the human ;orld for the great ma?ority of our

seciesI time on earth, during all of ;hich considerable fuss ;as made over gender. Kistorically, the difference arises because`classI signifies one side of a larger figure that includes a state aaratus ;hose conAuests and regulations createraces and shae gender relations. &hus there ;ill be no true resolution of racism so long as class society stands, inasmuch as aracially oressed society imlies the activities of a class5defending state.I8 0or can gender ineAuality be enacted a;ay so long as class

society, ;ith its state, demands the suer5e=loitation of ;omanIs labour. Class society continually generates gender, racial,ethnic oressions and the lie, ;hich tae on a life of their o;n, as ;ell as rofoundly affecting the concreterelations of class itself . "t follo;s that class olitics must be fought out in terms of all the active forms of social slitting . "t is themanagement of these divisions that ees state society functional.



ower :-ists Differently

The affirmative makes notion of class /ust another marker like racism se-ism

homophobia etc. This makes it impossible to access anti!capitalism

Slavo? Gi"ek , Senior esearcher at the "nstitute for Social Studies in #?ubl?ana, &''', Contingency, Kegemony,Universality, . B75B6#et me, then, tae a closer loo at #aclauIs narrative ;hich runs from -ar=ist essentialism the roletariat as the universal (lass ;hose revolu5tionary mission is inscribed into its very social being and thus discernible via òb?ectiveI scientific analysis9 to the òstmodernI recognitionof the contingent, troological, metahorico5metonymic, lin bet;een a social agent and its `tasI. Once this contingency is acno;ledged,one has to accet that there is no direct, `naturalI correlation bet;een an agentIs social osition and its tass in the olitical struggle, no normof develoment by ;hich to measure e=cetions say because of the ;ea olitical sub?ectivity of the bourgeoisie in ussia around 2B88, the

;oring class had to accomlish the bourgeois5democratic revolution itself. -y first observation here is that ;hile this standard ost>

modern #eftist narrative of the assage from èssentialistI -ar=ism ;ith the roletariat as the uniAue Kistorical Sub?ect, the rivileging

of economic class struggle, and so on, to the ostmodern irreducible lurality of struggles undoubtedly d escribes an actual

historical rocess, its roonents, as a rule, lease out the resignation at its heart the accetance of caitalism as `theonly game in to;nI, the renunciation of any real attemt to overcome the e=isting caitalist liberalregime. &his oint ;as already made very recisely in Wendy :ro;nIs ersicuous observation that `the olitical urchase of contemorary $merican identity olitics ;ould seem to be achieved in art through a certain renaturali@ation of

caitalismI. &he crucial Auestion to be ased is thusH to ;hat e=tent a critiAue of caitalism is foreclosed by the currentcon figuration of oositional olitics, and not simly by the `loss of the socialist alternativeI or the ostensible triumh ofliberalismI in the global order. "n contrast ;ith the -ar=ist critiAue of a social ;hole and -ar=ist vision of total transformation, to ;hat

e=tent do identity olitics reAuire a standard internal to e=isting society against ;hich to itch theirclaims, a standard that not only reserves caitalism from critiAue, but sustains the invisibility andinarticulateness of class > not incidentally, but endemicallyL Could ;e have stumbled uon one reason ;hy class is invariablynamed but rarely theori@ed or develoed in the multiculturalist mantra, `race, class, gender, se=ualityIL2 One can describe in very reciseterms this reduction of class to an entity `named but rarely theori@edIH one of the great and ermanent results of the so5called `Western-ar=ismI first formulated by the young #uics is that the class5and5commodity structure of caitalism is not ?ust a henomenon limited tothe articular `domainI of economy, but the structuring rincile that overdetermines the social totality, from olitics to art and religion. &his

global dimension of caitalism is susended in todayIs multiculturalist rogressive oliticsH its ànti5caitalismI is reduced tothe level of ho; todayIs caitalism breeds se=istYracist oression, and so on. -ar= claimed that in the series

roduction>distribution >e=change>consumtion, the term `roductionI is doubly inscribedH it is simultaneously one of the terms in theseries and the structuring rincile of the entire series. "n roduction as one of the terms of the series, roduction (as the structuring rincile9

èncounters itself in its oositional determinationI,I1 as -ar= ut it, using the recise Kegelian term. $nd the same goes for the ostmodern olitical series class>gender>race[H in class as one of the terms in the series of articular struggles, class Aua structuring rincile of the social totality encounters itself in its oositional determinationI./ "n so far

as ost modern olitics romotes, in effect, a ind of ̀olitici@ation of the economyI, is not this olitici@ation similar to the ;ay

our suermarets ;hich fundamentally e=clude from their field of visibility the actual roduction rocess (the ;ayvegetables and fruit are harvested and aced by immigrant ;orers, the genetic and other maniulations in their roduction and dislay,etc.9 > stage ;ithin the field of the dislayed goods, as a ind of ersat@, the sectacle of a seudo5roduction (meals reared in full vie; in`food courtsI, fruit ?uices freshly sAuee@ed before the customersI eyes, etc.9LI7 $n authentic #eftist should therefore as the ostmodern

oliticians the ne; version of the old Ereudian Auestion ut to the erle=ed Je;H `Why are von saving that one should olitici@e theeconomy, ;hen one should in fact olitici@e the economyLI SoH in so far as ostmodern olitics involves a `]theoretical retreat from the

roblem of domination ;ithin caitalismI, it is here. in this silent susension of class analysis, that ;e are dealing ;ith an e=emlary case of

the mechanism of ideological dislacementH ;hen class antagonism is disavo;ed, ;hen its ey structuring role issusended. ̀ other marers of social difference may come to hear an inordinate ;eight indeed, they may hearall the ;eight of the sufferings roduced by caitalism in addition to that attributable to the e=licitly olitici@ed maring)6. "n other ;ords,

this dislacement accounts for the some;hat Ie=cessiveI ;ay the discourse of ostmodern identity olitics insists on thehorrors of se=ism, racism, and so on 55 this ̀ e=cessI comes from the fact that these other ̀ 5ismsI haveto hear the surlus5investment from the class struggle ;hose e=tent is not acno;ledged.I4



#& rivilige

The #lternative is not a movement with a leader but a method that embraces utopia

7 their articulation of privilege is another link 7 it prevents a focus on the larger

structures of capital$dam Bat", !nglish "nstructor at Onodaga Community College. 18''. Postmodernism and the Politics of

“ulture!" Pg.26Secific modes of no;ledge and techniAue begin to aear fundamentally violent and illegitimate in relation to a different mode of

sovereignty. ConseAuently, the rimary resonsibility of the secific intellectual, the self5refle=ive inAuiry intothe modes of o;erYno;ledge that have formed one, i.e., %unlearning rivilege,) is nothing but atransfer of alle giance to ne; modes of mareti@ed sovereignty emerging around no;ledge roduction. &he co unterublics, mean;hile, and their border5cross ing dilomats are simly negotiating oints, laying one form of mareti@ed sovereignty off against another. Such conditions comlicate olitics, of course>no one gets to choose ;hich mode of mareti@ed sovereignty they come into directconfrontation ;ith> but this doesnIt liAuidate the universali@ing olitical rinciles. &he very fragmentation ofthe %common) is at stae in the multilication of sovereign forms, since the legitimacy of any sovereignty is in the sace it rovides fortheory, accountability, and o;er to be articulated before an outside. &o ut it differently, ho; ;ide a scoe does a given mode of

sovereignty rovide for each to be %outside of the outside of the other,) on a global scaleL "n this ;ay, ;e can also account for the hierarchyarranging different modes of sovereignty, in terms of ;here the antagonism bet;een rivati@ed modes of sovereignty and transnationalmodes of accountability are most concentrated.

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lololotrol
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

North Texas Quinn McCullough Neg Harvard Round6

Documents