AFF QPQ TOOLBOX 7wS BFJR

Notes

This file has 3 components;

1 Theory. Your best bet against most conditions CP involves theory being extended at least through
the 1ar. If you read this block exactly as its written the other team will likely be more well-prepared than
you since they also have access to the 2ac and will have thought about it in advance. Therefore, the best
course of action is to use this 2ac as a template for writing your own rather than as your fallback 2ac on
this question.

2 Say No. If you win the other actor says no theres no net benefit and the Aff is a DA. While it is
optimal to have specific say no evidence to every possible bargain, its unrealistic. You may need generic
say no evidence, particularly with Cuba and Venezuela affs, where QPQ proposals are far more
common in the literature.

3 K of bargaining and gift exchange economy. This is useful both on the Aff to answer QPQ CPs and on
the Neg as a PIC out of the plans condition. It is labeled separately as a 1nc/2ac argument. The
difference is that the 1nc contains an alternative and the 2ac doesnt.

Also, Julia Goldman from Rowland Hall did this whole entire file and is a one-person wrecking ball. Dont
mess with Utah, yall.

**Theory**

2ac QPQs Bad
1. Limits there are infinite conditions, requiring the aff to generate say no or turns
an infinite, unpredictable abyss thats an IMPOSSIBLE research burden the combo
with conditionality makes it an impossible 2AC and a reason to reject the team
2. Its a delay CP the plan isnt implemented until outcome of bargaining, allowing
them to artificially spike out of disad links forces teams to go for theory and perms
because they cant generate offense, killing topic specific education
3. Moots the 1ac the plan is the only guaranteed aff ground they destroy plan
focus and shift it towards a contrived net benefit, killing opportunity cost
4. C/I the neg gets these arguments as disads solves all their offense
Solves education they still get to debate about bargaining leverage
Solves ground they still get any lit that substantiates a trade-off
5. We cant read add-ons theyre all solved by the CP and any DA we generate is
useless since they can kick the CP theres only one 2AC, its a reason to reject the
team

2ac Perms
Perm do both.
Perm do the counterplan.
Perm offer the CP and do the plan regardless of their answer.
1ar AT: Lit Checks
1. Infinite amounts of literature on all subjects the we have a card standard sets the
bar way too low, especially without any common conception of what a solvency
advocate is

2. Not reciprocal just because some journalist invents an idea doesnt mean there is
an active debate in the literature

1ar AT: Policy-Making Ev
1. Were not policy-makers; fairness comes first and short-circuits neg education
claims competitive equity must be maintained or else the neg would always win and
everyone would quit

2. Policy education is something we inevitably solve and its not intrinsic to debate
clash is unpredictable CPs kill clash
3. Economic engagement isnt the same as trade literature theyre conflating all
decision-makers, which is illogical because OFFERING economic engagement isnt the
same as striking a TRADE BARGAIN which sets rules for a reciprocal economic
exchange

1ar AT: Core Ground
1. C/I solves neg can still get offense on the affirmative its only a question of
whether its DA or CP ground. NONE of your offense is unique to why you need CP
ground and ALL of our offense is about why that CP ground is bad.

2. Cross-apply answers from AT Lit Checks


**Say No**

- Venezuela/Cuba
Intervention 2ac
Countries do not like the US intervening Snowden, sentiment
Payne and Castillo 7/8 (Ed Payne and Mariano Castillo, 7/8/13 Snowden weighs asylum offers
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/08/world/americas/nsa-snowden-asylum/,//JG)
American politicians from both parties warned nations to consider what's at stake should they grant Snowden asylum. "It's very clear
that any of these countries that accept Snowden and offer him political asylum is taking a step against
the United States. It's making a very clear statement. I'm not surprised by the countries that are offering him asylum ;
they like sticking it to the United States ," Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested serious trade and policy implications await countries that accept
Snowden. Lawmakers: Asylum for Snowden is an affront to U.S. "Clearly any such acceptance of Snowden to any country,
any of these three or any other, is going to put them directly against the United States, and they need to
know that," Menendez told "Meet the Press."
Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, agreed with Menendez, calling for action from the United States.
"We shouldn't just allow this to happen and shrug it off. This is serious business. Those Latin American companies enjoy certain trade benefits
with the United States. We ought to look at all of that to send a very clear message that we won't put up with this kind of behavior," the
Michigan Republican told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union" on Sunday.
Rogers said the countries willing to accept Snowden are using the former intelligence worker as a "public
relations tool." Offers from Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua With the United States flexing its international clout, Snowden had faced a
string of rejections to asylum requests. The Latin American countries were the first to respond in the positive. Bolivian President Evo Morales,
who became part of the saga last week when his presidential plane was denied permission to enter the airspace of several European countries
amid a rumor about Snowden, said his country is "willing to give asylum." Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said he would grant Snowden
asylum "if the circumstances permit. "The asylum offers could provide Snowden a chance to evade U.S. authorities, though it is unclear how he
would get to Venezuela or the other countries. In his asylum request to Nicaragua, Snowden argued he had exposed serious violations of the
U.S. Constitution when he revealed details about U.S. surveillance programs. He compared his case to Ecuador's granting of asylum to
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, arguing there is already an "international precedent for providing asylum to figures in my circumstances."
And he said the ongoing trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning shows what could happen to him if he returns to the United States. "It is unlikely I would
receive a fair trial and proper treatment prior to that trial, and face the possibility of life in prison and even death," he wrote, according to a
copy of the letter published by Nicaraguan state media Sunday. In a speech Sunday, Cuban President Raul Castro said he
supported the Latin American countries' rights to grant asylum. "We back the sovereign right of Venezuela
and all the states in the region to grant asylum to those persecuted for their ideals or fights for democratic rights, according to our
tradition," he said. Snowden's exit from Russia would provide relief to authorities there, who appear weary of the American's presence at
the airport.

- Cuba
Empirics 2ac
Conditions fail - empirics
Hudson et al 1 (Rex A. Hudson, Senior Research Specialist in Latin American affairs with the Federal
Research Division of the Library of Congress. His earlier research on Cuba focused on Cuban support for
insurgency in Latin America and Cuban diplomatic relations in the region. , Federal Research Division,
Library of Congress, Sergio Diaz-Briquets: Senior Division Director, Casals and Associates, Arlington,
Virginia. He has written extensively on Cuban social and environmental issues. Jorge I. Dominguez is
Director, Weatherhead Center for International affairs, and Clarence Dillon Professor of International
Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has written extensively on Cuban political
affairs and foreign relations. Enrique J. Lopez is an international information technology consultant and
President, AKL Group, Inc., Coral Cables, Florida. Jorge Perez-Lopez is Director, Office of International
Economic affairs, Bureau of International Labor affairs, United States Department of Labor, Washington,
D.C. He has written extensively on the Cuban economy. Jaime Suchlicki is Professor of History, Graduate
School of International Studies, and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS),
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. He has written extensively on Cuban history. Phyllis Greene
Walker is a Washington-area political scientist
Rapprochement with the United States would also have been fraught with danger and uncertainties
for the Cuban leadership. It would have required a loosening of Cuba's military ties with the Soviet
Union, the abandonment of visible support for violent revolutions in Latin America, and the withdrawal
of Cuban troops from Mrica and other parts of the world. These were conditions that Castro was not
willing to accept . He perceived them as an attempt by the United States to isolate Cuba and
strengthen anti-Castro forces within Cuba , thus posing a threat to the stability of his regime. Castro,
therefore, was not able or willing to offer meaningful concessions that would be indispensable for
United States-Cuban rapprochement. Negotiations proceeded, however, and ad hoc agreements were
struck on some issues such as skyjacking and the Mariel Boatlift, which brought 125,000 Cuban refugees
to the United States in 1980.

Cuba historically backlashes
Hudson et al 1 (Rex A. Hudson, Senior Research Specialist in Latin American affairs with the Federal
Research Division of the Library of Congress. His earlier research on Cuba focused on Cuban support for
insurgency in Latin America and Cuban diplomatic relations in the region. , Federal Research Division,
Library of Congress, Sergio Diaz-Briquets: Senior Division Director, Casals and Associates, Arlington,
Virginia. He has written extensively on Cuban social and environmental issues. Jorge I. Dominguez is
Director, Weatherhead Center for International affairs, and Clarence Dillon Professor of International
Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has written extensively on Cuban political
affairs and foreign relations. Enrique J. Lopez is an international information technology consultant and
President, AKL Group, Inc., Coral Cables, Florida. Jorge Perez-Lopez is Director, Office of International
Economic affairs, Bureau of International Labor affairs, United States Department of Labor, Washington,
D.C. He has written extensively on the Cuban economy. Jaime Suchlicki is Professor of History, Graduate
School of International Studies, and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS),
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. He has written extensively on Cuban history. Phyllis Greene
Walker is a Washington-area political scientist
who has written extensively on Cuban military and security affairs. Cuba: A Country Study
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/pdf/CS_Cuba.pdf,// JG)
The Castro regime's repressive policies, however, continued to limit international solidarity with the
island nation. For example, in May 1996 Cuba's failure to enact political reforms and economic
liberalization led the EU to suspend discussions with Havana on an economic cooperation agreement. At
the annual Ibero-American Summit, held in Santiago, Chile, on November 10-11,1996, Latin American
leaders pressed Castro to make democratic changes on the island, while they denounced moves by
the United States to isolate Cuba. On December 2, the EU further conditioned improvement in political
and economic relations with Cuba and developmental assistance on progress in human rights and
fundamental democratic reforms in Cuba. Cuba responded to the Helms-Burton Act by adopting a law
in January 1997 that penalizes United States citizens who seek restitution of their expropriated
properties under the Helms-Burton law. More significantly, the United States was also subjected to
retaliatory legislation from its trade partners, and in 1997 the United Nations General Assembly voted
143 to three against the embargo of Cuba. Individual countries flouted the embargo. For example, in
August 1997 France announced a trade agreement with Cuba.

Empirics 1ar
Cuba does not like conditions
Suchlicki 3/4 (Jamie Suchlicki, the Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director,
Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba:
From Columbus to Castro, Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA and Breve Historia de Cuba., 3/4/13,
Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-
castro/273680/,// JG)
Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China,
Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States . At a time that anti-
Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain
closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from
Cuba in return for generous aid. Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible
concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and
speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe.
Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually
carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the
United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by
the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.

Democracy 2ac
Cuba says no hates democracy
AP 2 (Associated Press, 6/2/2 Castro rejects Bush call for democracy
http://onlineathens.com/stories/060202/new_20020602040.shtml,// JG)
HOLGUIN, Cuba -- Speaking before hundreds of thousands of people in a drenching rain Saturday,
President Fidel Castro said the democracy President Bush wants to see in Cuba would be a corrupt and
unfair system that ignores the poor. ''For Mr. W, democracy only exists where money solves
everything and where those who can afford a $25,000-a-plate dinner -- an insult to the billions of
people living in the poor, hungry and underdeveloped world -- are the ones called to solve the
problems of society and the world,'' Castro said in his continuing attack on Bush's hard line policies
toward the island. Castro's early morning address is part of Cuba's answer to Bush's May 20 speeches in
Washington and Miami, promising trade sanctions against Cuba would not be lifted until all political
prisoners are freed, independently monitored elections are allowed and a series of other conditions
are accepted for a ''new government that is fully democratic.''
Democracy 1ar
Aid empirically ineffective as a condition to promote democracy
Dunning 4 (Thad Dunning, Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California,
Berkeley and directs the Center on the Politics of Development there. He studies comparative politics,
political economy, and methodology. Dunnings work has appeared in the American Political Science
Review, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Political
Analysis, Studies in Comparative International Development, and other journals. Spring 2004
Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, donor Credibility and Democracy in Africa
International Organization 58 pages 409-423, http://www.thaddunning.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/12/IO.pdf,//JG)
Why might one expect the causal relationship between foreign aid and regime type to diverge in the Cold War and postCold War periods? The
essence of the difculty of using aid to promote democracy may lie not so much in an informational asymmetry between
donors and aid recipients, as the moral hazard argument made by many prominent critics of aid would suggest, but rather in the lack of
credibility of donors commitment to reform+ When two opposing and competing donors ~or groups of donors! such as the
Soviet Union and the West vie for inuence and clients, aid-receiving countries enjoy greater leverage vis--vis their
foreign patrons+ To the extent that donors actually prefer to promote democracy among recipient countries, threats to make aid
conditional on the fulllment of democratic reforms may not be credible, because withholding aid from
autocratic countries could mean losing clients to the other Cold War power+ In other words, the geostrategic cost
of losing clients may override any perceived benet from successfully promoting democratic reforms
among recipient countries+ Recognizing the resulting incredibility of any threat to condition foreign aid on the adoption of
democratizing reforms, the leaders of recipient countries may be unwilling to make the changes that donors demand+ Donors, who trade off
the costs of a lack of democratic reform against the benets of retaining strategic African clients, Conditioning the Effects of Aid 411may
nonetheless provide aid to autocratic leaders+ One should thus expect no observed association between aid and democracy in this period+


- Venezuela
Intervention 2ac
Venezuela says no viewed as US unilateral intervention
VENEZUELANALYSIS.COM 11 (an independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated
to disseminating news and analysis about the current political situation in Venezuela. 9/9/11 Venezuela
Rejects New U.S. Sanctions against High-Ranking Officials http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6479,//
JG)
Merida, September 9th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) On Thursday the Venezuelan government
strongly rejected a U.S. Treasury Department decision to sanction four members of the countrys
political and military establishment, calling the move another expression of the imperial and
arrogant character by which these institutions act against our countries . The declaration came in
response to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that placed four Venezuelan nationals on an
updated list of Specially Designated Nationals accused of arming leftist guerrillas in neighboring
Colombia. The four men sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department are socialist lawmaker and
former Caracas mayor Freddy Bernal, Latin American assemblyman Amilcar Figueroa, Army General
Cliver Alcala, and intelligence office Ramon Isidro Madriz Moreno. According to a U.S. Treasury press
release, the four have acted for or on behalf of the narco-terrorist organization the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), often in direct support of its narcotics and arms trafficking activities.
The men join three other high-ranking Venezuelan officials already on the U.S. list: General Henry Rangel
Silva, General Hugo Carvajal, and former interior minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin. While no concrete
evidence was provided to demonstrate the mens support for the Colombian guerrillas, the U.S.
decision prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in transactions with the men and places a freeze on any
assets that they may have under U.S. jurisdiction. In response to the OFAC decision, Venezuelan
Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro called the United States a "sick society" that is responsible for "this
sickness of narco-trafficking ." He accused the U.S. of attempting to serve as "a kind of global police
to judge decent citizens of our country" and called the move abusive . Venezuelas Ministry of
Foreign Affairs later issued a public statement in which it affirmed the sanctions are part of the
permanent defamatory campaigns orchestrated in the imperial power centers of the United States,
precisely aimed at nourishing hostile policies against our homeland.

Perception 2ac
Venezuela says no hates strong arming
Fernandez 3/22 (Yusuf Fernandez, 3/22/13 Venezuela Rejects U.S. Interference,
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=18&frid=18&eid=86989,// JG)
Shortly after Chavez passed away, the Venezuelan government expelled the air force attach of the US embassy in Caracas and his deputy,
claiming that they had made inappropriate contacts with Venezuelan military officers in order to try to destabilize the country. The United
States retaliated by expelling the second secretary at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington and another diplomat. Finally, the
Venezuelan government has ordered an investigation to know whether Chavezs cancer was induced
by the enemies of his Bolivarian revolution, especially the US administration. For his part, Acting President
Nicolas Maduro Maduro has promised to follow Chavezs path and to confront the Empires attempts to
prevent Venezuela and Latin Americas independence from consolidating. He recently announced that some
people in the Pentagon and the CIA were conspiring as the election approaches in the South American country. I am telling the absolute
truth, Maduro said, because we have the testimonies and direct, first-hand information. He accused explicitly a group of
former US officials -including Roger Noriega, Otto Reich and John Negroponte - of working to destabilize Venezuela.
Shortly after, Maduro added that Venezuela had detected a plot from those same circles to kill his opponent in the election Henrique Capriles
Randoski. The implication was that the attack on the right-wing candidate would be a provocation in order to create a chaos in the country.
Maduro did not give more details. Otto Reich was ambassador in Venezuela from 1986 to 1989 and Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs in the administration of George W. Bush. He was deeply involved in the 2002 anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela. He was a close friend to
right-wing Venezuelan businessman and lawyer Robert Carmona-Borjas, who fled from the Latin American country shortly after the failure of
the coup in which he was also heavily involved. A second individual denounced by Maduro was Robert Noriega, US permanent representative
to the Organization of American States, Noriega also supported the 2002 failed coup. After the Honduran military coup in 2009, Noriega
became a lobbyist for the new regime. The third individual, John Negroponte, was Director of National Intelligence and was actively involved in
the contra war against the Sandinist Nicaragua in the 1980s. It is worth pointing out that these three individuals have written numerous articles
in which they called on the US administration to take a tough line against Venezuela. All these events show that the Obama
Administration continues to develop the same failed Cold War policies towards Latin America that
George W. Bush put into practice. Washington keeps militarizing much of the continent and spending
enormous amounts of cash in order to set up obedient governments, train armies and militias, deploy
troops and build new military bases in countries such as Guatemala, Panama, Belize, Honduras or the Dominican Republic.

Drugs 2ac
Venezuela will not listen to the US on drugs Actually though they just really like
telling us off
Smith 12 (Phillip Smith, 9/18/12, Bolivia, Venezuela Reject US Drug Criticism http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/12282/bolivia-venezuela-
reject-us-drug-criticism/,// JG)
WASHINGTON, DC Last Thursday, the White House released its annual determination of major drug trafficking or producing countries,
singling out Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela as countries that have failed to comply with US drug policy
demands. That has sparked sharp and pointed reactions from Bolivia and Venezuela. I hereby designate
Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela as countries that have failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to make substantial efforts to adhere
to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements, President Obama said in the determination. That marks the fourth year
in a row the US has singled out Bolivia and Venezuela, which are left-leaning regional allies highly critical of US influence in Latin America. But
while the US has once again put the two countries on its drug policy black list, it is not blocking foreign assistance to them because support for
programs to aid Bolivia and Venezuela are vital to the national interests of the United States. But despite that caveat, Bolivia and
Venezuela were having none of it. Venezuela deplores the United States governments insistence on
undermining bilateral relations by publishing this kind of document, with no respect for the
sovereignty and dignity of the Venezuelan people, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry said in a communique Friday.
Venezuela rejects in the most decided manner the accusations of the government of the United States, the communique said, adding that the
presidential determination is plagued with false statements, political preconceptions and veiled threats,
which only repeat its permanent line of aggression against independent sovereign governments.
Venezuela also counterpunched, accusing the US of allowing a fluid transit of drugs across its borders and
the laundering of capital from drug trafficking through the financial system. The government of the
United States has become principally responsible for this plague that is the scourge of the entire
world, it said. The foreign ministry added that Venezuelas anti-drug efforts improved after it kicked out the DEA in 2005, that it has been
free of illegal drug crops since 2006, and that it has actively pursued leading drug traffickers, including 19 it had extradited to the US since 2006.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, for his part, said the US, home of the worlds largest drug consumer market, had no grounds on which to
criticize other countries about its war on drugs. The United States has no morality, authority or ethics that would
allow it to speak about the war on drugs. Do you know why? Because the biggest market for cocaine
and other drugs is the United States, Morales said in a Saturday speech. They should tell us by what percentage they have
reduced the internal (drug) market. The internal market keeps growing and in some states of the United States theyre even legalizing the sale
of cocaine under medical control, the Bolivian president said. Its unclear what Morales was trying to say with that latter remark. Although as a
Schedule II drug, cocaine can be prescribed by a doctor, there are no moves by any US state to legalize its use. Some 17 US states and the
District of Columbia have, however, moved to legalize the sale of marijuana under medical control. Im convinced that the drug
trade is no less than the United States best business, Morales added, noting that since the first international drug control
treaties were signed in 1961, drug trafficked has blossomed, not declined. He said he has suggested to South American leaders that they form a
commission to report on how well Washington is doing in its war on drugs.

Democracy 2ac
Aid empirically ineffective as a condition to promote democracy
Dunning 4 (Thad Dunning, Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California,
Berkeley and directs the Center on the Politics of Development there. He studies comparative politics,
political economy, and methodology. Dunnings work has appeared in the American Political Science
Review, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Political
Analysis, Studies in Comparative International Development, and other journals. Spring 2004
Conditioning the Effects of Aid: Cold War Politics, donor Credibility and Democracy in Africa
International Organization 58 pages 409-423, http://www.thaddunning.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/12/IO.pdf,//JG)
Why might one expect the causal relationship between foreign aid and regime type to diverge in the Cold War and postCold War periods? The
essence of the difculty of using aid to promote democracy may lie not so much in an informational asymmetry between
donors and aid recipients, as the moral hazard argument made by many prominent critics of aid would suggest, but rather in the lack of
credibility of donors commitment to reform+ When two opposing and competing donors ~or groups of donors! such as the
Soviet Union and the West vie for inuence and clients, aid-receiving countries enjoy greater leverage vis--vis their
foreign patrons+ To the extent that donors actually prefer to promote democracy among recipient countries, threats to make aid
conditional on the fulllment of democratic reforms may not be credible, because withholding aid from
autocratic countries could mean losing clients to the other Cold War power+ In other words, the geostrategic cost
of losing clients may override any perceived benet from successfully promoting democratic reforms
among recipient countries+ Recognizing the resulting incredibility of any threat to condition foreign aid on the adoption of
democratizing reforms, the leaders of recipient countries may be unwilling to make the changes that donors demand+ Donors, who trade off
the costs of a lack of democratic reform against the benets of retaining strategic African clients, Conditioning the Effects of Aid 411may
nonetheless provide aid to autocratic leaders+ One should thus expect no observed association between aid and democracy in this period+

- Mexico

Decision-Making 2ac

Their QPQ arguments all assume authoritarian states Haass and OSullivan conclude
democracies cant quickly say yes because theres a chain of command, meaning delay
is built in and any Aff timeframe argument is a DA
Elliott, 10 Kimberly Ann Elliott, Carrots and Sticks: The Role of Economic Incentives in American
Foreign Policy Center for Global Development, Paper for the Tobin Project National Security Conference
2010, http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Elliott_Carrots%26Sticks.pdf.
Third, HSEO conclude that authoritarian regimes are less susceptible to sanctions, while Haass and OSullivan
(2000, p. 162) conclude that the best potential candidates for conditional engagement are often
countries in which decisionmaking is highly concentrated.3 An authoritarian regime, which often
also controls the economy with a heavier hand, may be in a better position to organize evasion
strategies and manipulate sanctions to shield themselves and their key supporters. In the case of a
conditional engagement strategy, the target must be able to deliver what it promises on its side of
the bargain and narrower, more authoritarian regimes may be better able to do so than more open
or divided governments.



CONDITIONS K

**1nc/2ac**
1nc QPQ K
The condition of the Affirmative plan text forecloses open gift exchange - creates the
worst forms of violence
Vaughan 4
(Genevieve , A radically different world is possible http://www.gifteconomyconference.com/pages/confstate.html)

The stage seems to have been set for the millennium by Patriarchy and Capitalism with wars and counter wars at the personal and at the
political levels. Attack and reprisal seem to be the pattern of interaction of all. Even suspicion of intent to attack is thought to justify
counterattack. The cycle of violence is based upon exchange, tit for tat, which is a development of the logic of
the market, giving in order to receive a quantitative equivalent. There is another logic, the logic of unilateral gift giving,
that has not been considered, yet it is practiced in society at many levels all the time. First, the gift logic is necessary for mothering: satisfying
the needs of children who cannot give an equal payment in return. Housework is itself an immense free gift that women give to the market
economy. In fact it has been estimated that housework would add 40% to the GNP in the US if it were calculated monetary terms. Directly
satisfying needs of all kinds, whether material, psychological or spiritual, creates community, while exchange, which is adversarial, with each
trying to get more and give less, creates competition and hierarchy. Exchange is "ego" oriented because one satisfies the
need of the other only to satisfy h/er own need, while giving directly to the other is "other" oriented.
Capitalism is built upon exchange and incorporates the Patriarchal values of competition and hierarchy. In fact Capitalism needs Patriarchal
individuals to carry out its self aggrandizing agendas. Gift based societies existed prior to Capitalism and some still exist today. Indigenous
peoples practice gift giving both in interpersonal interactions and in regard to the Spiritual and natural worlds. Matriarchal societies (which are
not the mirror image of patriarchies) on all the continents continue to practice gift giving. There are many gift based areas within Capitalism as
well. The home, where children are parented free, is one example of this. In fact mothering may be considered as a vestigial gift giving practice
and homes as pockets of a gift economy. An example at a different level of a gift within Capitalism is the huge quantity of remittances that
immigrants to Northern countries send home to their families and friends in the South, equaling or sometimes surpassing sources of income in
their countries of origin. In fact the free distribution of goods to needs can be considered as a working gift economy with its own priorities and
values. Any time a need is satisfied free, a gift is given. Gift giving happens not only with material goods but also with communication, and a
case can be made that language itself is based on gift giving at many levels. Music, dance, arts of all kinds which are not bought or sold, or when
they are priceless, ie beyond commerce, have an important gift aspect. Nature gives many free gifts as well: air, water, sky, space, and all the
varieties of perception. Culture also provides gifts of tradition, the common know-how, lore and information that have been handed down for
centuries, given as gifts from one generation to another. With globalization these gifts are being commodified and transformed into goods to
be bought and sold to the advantage of corporations. The gift has been ignored by those who study the economy but actually from our
perspective, surplus labor, the labor above the value of the workers' salary, in other words profit, is a gift to the capitalist from the worker. The
motivator of the market, profit, is itself a gift though it is not called that. In fact all the gifts of humanity and nature are being siphoned off at an
alarming rate and passed into the hands of the few who miss-spend them on armaments or otherwise waste profit gifts instead of using them
to satisfy human and environmental needs. Patriarchal Capitalism has to create the scarcity that makes gift giving difficult in order to maintain
its control. In a situation of abundance the system of domination would not be necessary. Capitalist patriarchy accords privilege to the few and
wastes 'excess' wealth to maintain scarcity. Within Capitalism there are many areas of gift giving, beginning with those in which people are
trying to satisfy the big picture needs of society for systemic change. For example there is the anti globalization movement, which is trying to
save the collective gifts of the common people from the corporations. There is the peace movement, there is the movement against domestic
violence; there is even a movement of the capitalists themselves to satisfy the need to change the system: the funding movement for social
change. There are also cross-overs in these movements, for example anti global Native American funders for social change, matriarchal goddess
spirituality artists, people working on domestic violence, who see how it is connected to war and international violence. All of these
attempts to satisfy needs, and to give gifts, are discredited by the ideology of exchange and self interest.
That ideology ignores the importance of needs and of giving to satisfy them. Instead it privileges
'effective demand', a market category which privileges the needs that people must pay to satisfy and for
which they possess the necessary money. Even education and the media which should satisfy the needs of the people for
knowledge are becoming commercialized to the extent that they only satisfy the needs of Capital and the governments' needs for propaganda.
At most Patriarchal Capitalism permits band aid charitable giving which allows the system to continue unchanged by addressing some of its
most cruel inequities. On the other hand it also advertises its own manipulative 'gifts' - thus foreign 'aid'- or uses
the satisfaction of needs as a pretext for its aggressions- thus the invasion of Iraq to 'help' the Iraqi
people. The system of exchange arrogates to itself the right to model gift giving (in return for a price). It
discredits real gift giving and validates itself. Many of us internalize those negative judgments and values. People who give their
time and indeed their lives to improve conditions for others do so under the burden of believing that the system is right or that they are crazy,
too soft hearted or even co dependent, but they do it anyway. The answers will not be found in the old paradigm. We need to recognize what
Patriarchal Capitalism is doing and provide an alternative. Denouncing the terrible evils of the system is important but
until we recognize that another world view is possible, a world view that validates our humanity, we will
not be able to create the possible world we long for. Moreover, the market and patriarchy lead us to believe in solutions
that re-propose aspects of the system as answers to the problems the system creates. We need to recognize the thread that unites us, that
unites the women's movement with the movement of indigenous peoples, the movement against globalization, the movement for the
elimination of hunger and disease, the movement against domestic violence and trafficking of women and children, the peace and ecology
movements, the movements for alternative spiritualities and art.


This rationality decks diplomatic ability
Der Derian, '87 Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with Masters and PhD in international relations
[James, also has been a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California, MIT, Harvard, Oxford.
On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, p. 202-203]

To make some sense of the way states and non-state organizations now communicate and interact at
the international level, I would like to suggest that a techno-diplomacy is operating. In a general sense, this
refers to the global communication processes by which scientific or other organized knowledge is being
systematically applied to and inscribed by power politics. We cannot possibly explore all the intellectual factors and social
and economic forces behind the emergence of a techno-diplomacy; nor do I wish to pretend some form of technological determinism is at
work. Instead, as throughout this genealogy, I shall present some of the technological innovations significant to diplomacy which are inscribed
by alienation. And, as said before, this is not to presume that technology or alienation alone currently determines diplomatic relations.
Rather, it is to recognize the need for a central concept which can orient the observer in the welter of and establish a measure of intelligibility
for new problems in diplomacy.
The immediate question is how technology, in the sense of technical invention applied to social
relations, has transformed the relevant mediation of estrangement. First, the systematic application of
science and knowledge means that men increasingly interact in what Max Weber called an 'instrumental rational
way'. This means that as traditional cultures wane in urban, industrialized states, it is not so much a given goal or
teleological value which dictates men's actions, but rather the most efficient and economic means to reach a given goal.
In effect, the legitimacy of interactions is increasingly gauged by the very criteria with which they have
been planned and implemented. Second, alienation is inherent in technological processes in which people
are treated as objects or means to be used in achieving goals which are not of their own making. And third,
for reasons given below, diplomacy has become a subsidiary of these technological processes of alienation.
The self-interested exchange embodied in the plan extinction inevitable
Vaughan, 98
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

There are today two major paradigms or world views which are locked in a struggle with each other. One
involves giving directly to needs. The other is based on exchange, or giving in order to receive (at least) an equivalent of what was given. One is
invisible, the other visible. One promotes the satisfaction of needs, the other promotes the competition to be 'first'. One functions according to
the values of care, the other according to the values of domination. The very asymmetry of the paradigms creates a 'fit'
which perpetuates the struggle. The exchange paradigm is artificial but, because it is nurtured by the gift
paradigm it appears to define 'reality' itself while the gift paradigm and its nurturing values appear
'unrealistic'. In our society we look at everything through the values of exchange. The equation 'x = y'
seems to be the basis of justice, of understanding, of human dignity. Equal exchange seems to be the
standard of right human relations, where we do not want to give more than we can get. From love to law,
from education to entertainment we get what we gave, and we insist on our money's worth. Exchange is self-reflecting and spawns images of
itself everywhere while in giftgiving there is a transitive movement of the gift which goes from self to other. Giftgiving seems to be an inferior
kind of behavior undertaken by those who cannot succeed in exchange. Instead it is exchange that is an artificial and aberrant kind of behavior
which could not exist without a flow of gifts from the other paradigm. For-Giving is an attempt to describe this state of affairs, to explain why it
happens and how it works in order to make it possible to change it consciously. The gift paradigm requires other- orientation
and gives value to the other by satisfying needs. The exchange paradigm promotes ego orientation and
gives value to the ego by the logic of the kick back- by using the needs of the other as a means for the
satisfaction of the ego's own needs. The gift paradigm creates bonding and co operation while the
exchange paradigm creates isolation and competition. In the competition between the paradigms, the exchange paradigm
is at an advantage because it promotes the values of competition. The gift paradigm is at a disadvantage because it promotes the values of
cooperation. In fact those who practice it appear to lose the competition while actually they are simply not competing. Since the gift paradigm
is based on giving to the other it allows or encourages giftgivers to give to those who are practicing the other paradigm - the exchangers. Since
the exchange paradigm encourages giving to the self, it fosters mirroring of the self and re-cognition of the self. A kind of socio-economic
narcissism is created in which external images of exchange validate its point of view over and over. This hall of mirrors effect makes it possible
for the exchangers to see and give value only to themselves and their own processes while receiving from the giftgivers without recognizing
them and without giving back to them. The equation 'x = y' appears to be fair and neutral because we do not see
how many gifts are being given to exchange. The world view of exchange receives a great deal of energy from those practising
the gift paradigm, but neither group re-cognizes the importance of what the giftgivers are doing. The gift paradigm encourages us to take the
point of view of the other, while the exchange paradigm promotes the ego's self confirming point of view. Thus the exchangers assert their
superiority while considering the giftgivers inferior and the gift givers internalize this attitude - because they take the point of view of the
exchangers (their 'others') about themselves. Because of our growing participation in the labor market, many women are now in the situation
of maintaining both paradigms at the same time internally. This creates an internal conflict. Although we women may behave in giftgiving ways
and feel the emotions arising from others' unsatisfied needs, we discount our own values and motivations, giving credit to the point of view of
the exchange paradigm-which validates me-first behavior. I believe that women are socialized to be mothers. Since babies cannot 'pay back' for
what they receive, someone must satisfy their needs free, without an exchange. This functional other-orientation is made necessary not by the
'nature' of women but by the nature of babies who cannot satisfy their own needs. Society reads the biological differences to mean that
women must mother. The job is so difficult and time consuming, and its values so foreign to the values of exchange, that we must be
encouraged in that direction from childhood, taking our own nurturing mothers as models. The exchange paradigm has created a
large number of interlocking misperceptions which together make up a sort of many faceted fly's eye
lens through which we collectively see reality, misunderstand it and act upon it according to our
misunderstandings. Then we construct reality in the image of our image of it. In our society the gift paradigm
seems to have many defects, even to be dysfunctional. I submit that its defects are all due to its forced coexistence with the exchange
paradigm. For example, giftgiving is difficult, even self-sacrificial in scarcity. However, if we look at it in another way, we can see that scarcity
serves the exchange paradigm by keeping its patterns in place. If abundance existed there would be no need to exchange because giving would
become easy. It would be enjoyable for people to satisfy each others' needs directly. Therefore abundance threatens exchange, and it is not
allowed to accrue. For example abundant peaches are plowed under when they would flood the market and lower the price. But on a larger
scale 18 billion dollars is spent every week on armaments world wide while that amount of money would be enough to feed all the hungry
people on earth for a year. The military and the arms business do not produce any nurturing good. Humanity's effort to maintain itself has to
come from other sources, doing without the wealth that has been wasted. Over the years a huge drain on the economy occurs through military
and other make-waste spending. Because there is also a short cycle of money through a few pockets, the arms business itself (like the drug
business) is lucrative for those who engage in it. However because they do not produce any nurturing good, these businesses drain the
economy as a whole, causing scarcity and thus ensuring the ability of the exchange economy to prevail. Another consequence of the
coexistence of giftgiving and exchange is that the giftgivers do not see that what they are doing is
valuable. The exchange paradigm seems to be the 'human' way to behave. Getting to the top of the
heap appears to be the way to survive and thrive in 'reality'. Actually we are creating the heap ourselves.
Our validation of patriarchal competitive values only operates because we are inside the paradigm and
therefore cannot see the exchange economy for what it is - an artificial parasite which derives its
sustenance from the gift economy. If we can understand how the parasite is created we can liberate
ourselves and humanity from it. If we cannot we will continue proposing the same wrong solutions to
our socio-economic problems until we finally destroy life on earth.


Alternative Text: Reject the plans use of the exchange paradigm and adopt a gift-
giving paradigm. This solves
Vaughan, 98
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

We must heal this situation by finding and validating a female way of being human, a way which
celebrates life and gives to needs instead of acting out or projecting into society the alienation of the boy
from the mother. The false and artificial goal of being the 'one' having the most and the biggest, competing and fighting with other 'ones'
promotes the psychotic behavior which is bringing the earth to the edge of disaster. We who love life have to stop the behavior, disinvest from
its values in order to heal the psychosis now. We can do that by readjusting the focus, by giving attention to
giftgiving. Patriarchy has under valued the mother (or falsely sentimentalized her) because it is threatened by the direct satisfaction of
needs. Yet all of us long to return to the giftgiving way. Our hearts cry out with the need to be compassionate. We idolize female 'one' models
of charitable action like Mother Teresa and Princess Diana, yet we do not realize that radical social change is the only truly charitable approach.
Only by eliminating the patriarchal parasite from our hearts, our families, our economics and our international relations can we stop creating
the problems that charity tries unsuccessfully to address. Unfortunately charity itself is not the solution as long as we are living under the reign
of the exchange paradigm, though it does point the way. We have to give money, energy, attention, action to cause systemic change. Giftgiving
and receiving must be revealed as the norm. The ability to recognize needs and satisfy them must emerge as the
basic female and male, institutional and individual human behavior. Shifting the paradigm requires a
shift in values. (Let me remind you that value is something we give). Otherwise the problems are continually re
created. Achieving this mothering society will be easier if we realize that we have simply been misinterpreting the many areas of our lives
according to the models of exchange. The liberation of women into the labor market has allowed us to demonstrate that it was not our - or
men's- biology that determined our economic gender roles, but our socialization. We can and must change the socialization of our children, but
as we are beginning to undertake that enormous task there is something else we can do. We can re interpret and reclaim the patriarchal
disciplines for the gift economy by recognizing that the matter or matrix of all their forms is giftgiving - and that even their forms are complex
gift patterns as well. Exchange itself is only a gift which has been doubled, with a proviso of reciprocity so that it cancels the transmission of the
gift's value to the receiver. In this re interpretation we can recognize the negativity of patterns of exchange and the dominance of the 'one'. In
fact the imposition by slaughter of 'one' religion upon the witches during the Inquisition and the imposition by genocide of the exchange
economy on indigenous peoples (many of whom were practicing gift giving) might be interpreted as an expression of the struggle of the
exchange economy against the gift economy, that is, of the imposition of the European male gender identity agenda upon the rest of the world.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the armaments, the phallic guns which the Europeans brought with them to the Americas ensured their
winning a 'one' position. Now we can say the same about the 'so-called '1st World's' missiles. Having restored mothering to
disciplines from which it has been eliminated by patriarchal thinkers throughout history, we can
understand many of the empowering aspects of participation in business and the market not as 'gifts' of
the exchange paradigm but as due to changes in our access to complex gift constructs that patriarchy
has spawned. The ability to use these constructs then provides limited access to the abundance that
allows us to freely give (reclaiming the means of nurturing). The paradoxical promise of the market system is that we will be rewarded
by abundance, and the ability to live in individualized, 'pocket' gift economies in our own families. However, the logic of other-orientation does
not stop at the borders of any in-group. Instead everyone's needs are important. The possibility of giftgiving-in-abundance must spread to all
mothers and their children, to the people of all nations, classes, cultures and religions. Giving and receiving in abundance is the mother-given
birthright of every human. The ego oriented exchange paradigm separates us from one another and destroys
our material co-muni-cation. It exacerbates our individualism and makes us think that our problems are
due to bad individuals. It hides the forest behind the trees. By making it appear that there is no system,
it protects itself from our collective understanding and from the capacity of individuals to join together
to change it. Those of us who have kept our sanity despite the psychotic society are taught that the only thing we can to is to be 'good'
people. (As in Kipling's poem 'If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs, you'll be a man my son.") Instead the only way to
be good is to give up the goal of being good and grapple with the system itself like the angel wrestling Jacob. I say it this way since Jacob was a
Patriarch, and we have to engage our highest and best angelic selves in this struggle. Unfortunately, as angels would, we usually hold back our
strength because we don't want to hurt our patriarchs or damage their self esteem. These acts of kindness keep us from solving the problem.
As we begin to understand how the exchange paradigm works, its continuous, pernicious and insidious
draining of energy from the many to the one, we can and must begin to work together to change it in
the big picture as well as the small. As we begin to recognize the exchange paradigm as parasitic upon
the more fundamental giftgiving way of the mother which we are all meant to enjoy - and after all each
and every patriarchal male was born of a mother - we know that this transformation is not only
necessary, it is possible, for it requires only a return to what we have always known.

2ac QPQ K
The condition of the CP forecloses open gift exchange and enables the worst forms of
violence
Vaughan 4
(Genevieve , A radically different world is possible http://www.gifteconomyconference.com/pages/confstate.html)
The stage seems to have been set for the millennium by Patriarchy and Capitalism with wars and counter wars at the personal and at the
political levels. Attack and reprisal seem to be the pattern of interaction of all. Even suspicion of intent to attack is thought to justify
counterattack. The cycle of violence is based upon exchange, tit for tat, which is a development of the logic of
the market, giving in order to receive a quantitative equivalent. There is another logic, the logic of unilateral gift giving,
that has not been considered, yet it is practiced in society at many levels all the time. First, the gift logic is necessary for mothering: satisfying
the needs of children who cannot give an equal payment in return. Housework is itself an immense free gift that women give to the market
economy. In fact it has been estimated that housework would add 40% to the GNP in the US if it were calculated monetary terms. Directly
satisfying needs of all kinds, whether material, psychological or spiritual, creates community, while exchange, which is adversarial, with each
trying to get more and give less, creates competition and hierarchy. Exchange is "ego" oriented because one satisfies the
need of the other only to satisfy h/er own need, while giving directly to the other is "other" oriented.
Capitalism is built upon exchange and incorporates the Patriarchal values of competition and hierarchy. In fact Capitalism needs Patriarchal
individuals to carry out its self aggrandizing agendas. Gift based societies existed prior to Capitalism and some still exist today. Indigenous
peoples practice gift giving both in interpersonal interactions and in regard to the Spiritual and natural worlds. Matriarchal societies (which are
not the mirror image of patriarchies) on all the continents continue to practice gift giving. There are many gift based areas within Capitalism as
well. The home, where children are parented free, is one example of this. In fact mothering may be considered as a vestigial gift giving practice
and homes as pockets of a gift economy. An example at a different level of a gift within Capitalism is the huge quantity of remittances that
immigrants to Northern countries send home to their families and friends in the South, equaling or sometimes surpassing sources of income in
their countries of origin. In fact the free distribution of goods to needs can be considered as a working gift economy with its own priorities and
values. Any time a need is satisfied free, a gift is given. Gift giving happens not only with material goods but also with communication, and a
case can be made that language itself is based on gift giving at many levels. Music, dance, arts of all kinds which are not bought or sold, or when
they are priceless, ie beyond commerce, have an important gift aspect. Nature gives many free gifts as well: air, water, sky, space, and all the
varieties of perception. Culture also provides gifts of tradition, the common know-how, lore and information that have been handed down for
centuries, given as gifts from one generation to another. With globalization these gifts are being commodified and transformed into goods to
be bought and sold to the advantage of corporations. The gift has been ignored by those who study the economy but actually from our
perspective, surplus labor, the labor above the value of the workers' salary, in other words profit, is a gift to the capitalist from the worker. The
motivator of the market, profit, is itself a gift though it is not called that. In fact all the gifts of humanity and nature are being siphoned off at an
alarming rate and passed into the hands of the few who miss-spend them on armaments or otherwise waste profit gifts instead of using them
to satisfy human and environmental needs. Patriarchal Capitalism has to create the scarcity that makes gift giving difficult in order to maintain
its control. In a situation of abundance the system of domination would not be necessary. Capitalist patriarchy accords privilege to the few and
wastes 'excess' wealth to maintain scarcity. Within Capitalism there are many areas of gift giving, beginning with those in which people are
trying to satisfy the big picture needs of society for systemic change. For example there is the anti globalization movement, which is trying to
save the collective gifts of the common people from the corporations. There is the peace movement, there is the movement against domestic
violence; there is even a movement of the capitalists themselves to satisfy the need to change the system: the funding movement for social
change. There are also cross-overs in these movements, for example anti global Native American funders for social change, matriarchal goddess
spirituality artists, people working on domestic violence, who see how it is connected to war and international violence. All of these
attempts to satisfy needs, and to give gifts, are discredited by the ideology of exchange and self interest.
That ideology ignores the importance of needs and of giving to satisfy them. Instead it privileges
'effective demand', a market category which privileges the needs that people must pay to satisfy and for
which they possess the necessary money. Even education and the media which should satisfy the needs of the people for
knowledge are becoming commercialized to the extent that they only satisfy the needs of Capital and the governments' needs for propaganda.
At most Patriarchal Capitalism permits band aid charitable giving which allows the system to continue unchanged by addressing some of its
most cruel inequities. On the other hand it also advertises its own manipulative 'gifts' - thus foreign 'aid'- or uses
the satisfaction of needs as a pretext for its aggressions- thus the invasion of Iraq to 'help' the Iraqi
people. The system of exchange arrogates to itself the right to model gift giving (in return for a price). It
discredits real gift giving and validates itself. Many of us internalize those negative judgments and values. People who give their
time and indeed their lives to improve conditions for others do so under the burden of believing that the system is right or that they are crazy,
too soft hearted or even co dependent, but they do it anyway. The answers will not be found in the old paradigm. We need to recognize what
Patriarchal Capitalism is doing and provide an alternative. Denouncing the terrible evils of the system is important but
until we recognize that another world view is possible, a world view that validates our humanity, we will
not be able to create the possible world we long for. Moreover, the market and patriarchy lead us to believe in solutions
that re-propose aspects of the system as answers to the problems the system creates. We need to recognize the thread that unites us, that
unites the women's movement with the movement of indigenous peoples, the movement against globalization, the movement for the
elimination of hunger and disease, the movement against domestic violence and trafficking of women and children, the peace and ecology
movements, the movements for alternative spiritualities and art.


The self-interested notion of exchange embodied in the CP makes any benefit from
diplomacy impossible guts CP solvency and makes extinction inevitable
Vaughan, 98
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

There are today two major paradigms or world views which are locked in a struggle with each other. One
involves giving directly to needs. The other is based on exchange, or giving in order to receive (at least) an equivalent of what was given. One is
invisible, the other visible. One promotes the satisfaction of needs, the other promotes the competition to be 'first'. One functions according to
the values of care, the other according to the values of domination. The very asymmetry of the paradigms creates a 'fit'
which perpetuates the struggle. The exchange paradigm is artificial but, because it is nurtured by the gift
paradigm it appears to define 'reality' itself while the gift paradigm and its nurturing values appear
'unrealistic'. In our society we look at everything through the values of exchange. The equation 'x = y'
seems to be the basis of justice, of understanding, of human dignity. Equal exchange seems to be the
standard of right human relations, where we do not want to give more than we can get. From love to law,
from education to entertainment we get what we gave, and we insist on our money's worth. Exchange is self-reflecting and spawns images of
itself everywhere while in giftgiving there is a transitive movement of the gift which goes from self to other. Giftgiving seems to be an inferior
kind of behavior undertaken by those who cannot succeed in exchange. Instead it is exchange that is an artificial and aberrant kind of behavior
which could not exist without a flow of gifts from the other paradigm. For-Giving is an attempt to describe this state of affairs, to explain why it
happens and how it works in order to make it possible to change it consciously. The gift paradigm requires other- orientation
and gives value to the other by satisfying needs. The exchange paradigm promotes ego orientation and
gives value to the ego by the logic of the kick back- by using the needs of the other as a means for the
satisfaction of the ego's own needs. The gift paradigm creates bonding and co operation while the
exchange paradigm creates isolation and competition. In the competition between the paradigms, the exchange paradigm
is at an advantage because it promotes the values of competition. The gift paradigm is at a disadvantage because it promotes the values of
cooperation. In fact those who practice it appear to lose the competition while actually they are simply not competing. Since the gift paradigm
is based on giving to the other it allows or encourages giftgivers to give to those who are practicing the other paradigm - the exchangers. Since
the exchange paradigm encourages giving to the self, it fosters mirroring of the self and re-cognition of the self. A kind of socio-economic
narcissism is created in which external images of exchange validate its point of view over and over. This hall of mirrors effect makes it possible
for the exchangers to see and give value only to themselves and their own processes while receiving from the giftgivers without recognizing
them and without giving back to them. The equation 'x = y' appears to be fair and neutral because we do not see
how many gifts are being given to exchange. The world view of exchange receives a great deal of energy from those practising
the gift paradigm, but neither group re-cognizes the importance of what the giftgivers are doing. The gift paradigm encourages us to take the
point of view of the other, while the exchange paradigm promotes the ego's self confirming point of view. Thus the exchangers assert their
superiority while considering the giftgivers inferior and the gift givers internalize this attitude - because they take the point of view of the
exchangers (their 'others') about themselves. Because of our growing participation in the labor market, many women are now in the situation
of maintaining both paradigms at the same time internally. This creates an internal conflict. Although we women may behave in giftgiving ways
and feel the emotions arising from others' unsatisfied needs, we discount our own values and motivations, giving credit to the point of view of
the exchange paradigm-which validates me-first behavior. I believe that women are socialized to be mothers. Since babies cannot 'pay back' for
what they receive, someone must satisfy their needs free, without an exchange. This functional other-orientation is made necessary not by the
'nature' of women but by the nature of babies who cannot satisfy their own needs. Society reads the biological differences to mean that
women must mother. The job is so difficult and time consuming, and its values so foreign to the values of exchange, that we must be
encouraged in that direction from childhood, taking our own nurturing mothers as models. The exchange paradigm has created a
large number of interlocking misperceptions which together make up a sort of many faceted fly's eye
lens through which we collectively see reality, misunderstand it and act upon it according to our
misunderstandings. Then we construct reality in the image of our image of it. In our society the gift paradigm
seems to have many defects, even to be dysfunctional. I submit that its defects are all due to its forced coexistence with the exchange
paradigm. For example, giftgiving is difficult, even self-sacrificial in scarcity. However, if we look at it in another way, we can see that scarcity
serves the exchange paradigm by keeping its patterns in place. If abundance existed there would be no need to exchange because giving would
become easy. It would be enjoyable for people to satisfy each others' needs directly. Therefore abundance threatens exchange, and it is not
allowed to accrue. For example abundant peaches are plowed under when they would flood the market and lower the price. But on a larger
scale 18 billion dollars is spent every week on armaments world wide while that amount of money would be enough to feed all the hungry
people on earth for a year. The military and the arms business do not produce any nurturing good. Humanity's effort to maintain itself has to
come from other sources, doing without the wealth that has been wasted. Over the years a huge drain on the economy occurs through military
and other make-waste spending. Because there is also a short cycle of money through a few pockets, the arms business itself (like the drug
business) is lucrative for those who engage in it. However because they do not produce any nurturing good, these businesses drain the
economy as a whole, causing scarcity and thus ensuring the ability of the exchange economy to prevail. Another consequence of the
coexistence of giftgiving and exchange is that the giftgivers do not see that what they are doing is
valuable. The exchange paradigm seems to be the 'human' way to behave. Getting to the top of the
heap appears to be the way to survive and thrive in 'reality'. Actually we are creating the heap ourselves.
Our validation of patriarchal competitive values only operates because we are inside the paradigm and
therefore cannot see the exchange economy for what it is - an artificial parasite which derives its
sustenance from the gift economy. If we can understand how the parasite is created we can liberate
ourselves and humanity from it. If we cannot we will continue proposing the same wrong solutions to
our socio-economic problems until we finally destroy life on earth.

The exchange paradigm is at the root of violence.
Vaughan, 1998
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

The exchange paradigm brings with it many offshoots and look alikes which we validate because we
already unconsciously or consciously accept and give value to the patterns of exchange. Systems of
rewards and punishments such as the justice system or the attacks and reprisals of war, are exchange
patterns transposed into areas of life beyond the market. The justice system is an exchange based
process through which those who have been injured can make the perpetrators 'pay back' for the harm
they have done. It is of course very difficult to measure harm and in fact those whose loved ones have
been murdered or whose countries have been destroyed by war probably find that no amount of
revenge or payment could ever restore to them what they have lost. I believe that we have to address
the root of the entire problem from the cradle to the grave. We do not need justice, we need kindness.
The root of the problem is the exchange paradigm itself. Its exacerbation creates both the crimes and
the justice system we use to correct them. It expands to arms races, escalations and military exchanges.
It validates those who 'have' more and bigger missiles and penalizes those who 'have not'. Having
missiles does for a country what having a big car or a lot of money can do for an individual. It makes
the country or the individual first, the one at the top.


**2nc Walls
2nc S Wall
CP solves Cold War proves
Fierke, 98
[K.M. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: critical investigations in security. Manchester University
Press. page below in <brackets>]

Rules provide an alternative way to think about patterns at the international level. A shift to an
emphasis on rules also makes us think differently about rationality. Game theories have emphasised the
rationality of individual moves but say very little about the 'rules of the game'. The question is whether strategic
rationality can ever be detached from the context of a specific game. The analyst wants to know what Kasparov is thinking prior to a move in
order to predict what he will do. The prediction is not only dependent on what Kasparov rationally decides, but on the range of possible moves
and strategies available to him from a position within an ongoing game. Deep Blue was able to beat the grandmaster because it was
programmed to sort through a much larger range of possible strategies than the grandmaster himself. It is not that the computer was
ultimately more rational than Kasparov; rather, the computer was able to access a wider range of possibilities for putting the rules to use
because it had been programmed to do so at a very rapid speed.' The point is that one cannot begin to sort through the range of possible
moves, and therefore choose the most rational one, in the absence of what is possible 'within a particular game. Knowing what is possible from
any one position is dependent on knowledge of the rules. These rules are learned via language. It would make no sense to say that Kasparov
reasons about his next move by drawing on a language other than the one by which he knows the rules of chess.
The question, of course, is whether international relations resembles a game of chess or a single game at all. Kasparov's defeat by Deep Blue
provides an insight into how the two may be different. One commentator in this context asked why it is that programmers have succeeded in
teaching computers to play chess or to do maths, yet have been less successful in teaching a computer natural language (Naughton, 1997: 7).
While all three depend on rules, there is a difference between the rules of chess or maths, on the one hand, and those of natural language, on
the other. The first two represent single games dependent on a context of rules, within which one knows 'how to go on from point A to point B.
These rules are fixed in a way that the rules of language are not.
The use of language and other forms of action in everyday life, as well as at the international level, are
no less interwoven with material practice and no less dependent on rules than moving a knight in this
way is bound up with the rules of chess. However, any two games played in a social or political context are not incommensurable
in the way that playing any two games, for example chess and monopoly, are The use of language, employing the rules,
knowing how to go on, is as dependent on a context as a game of chess or maths, but the possibilities
for changing games within a single context are much greater.
This requires elaboration. One can say that chess and monopoly are incommensurable. They represent two internally coherent sets of rules
which cannot be employed simultaneously in the same space. One cannot play chess and monopoly at the same time. in the same space, at
least in any rational sense, without devising a new set of rules by which one could move the pieces of monopoly on a chess board or vice versa
with purpose, that is, to some end (Wittgenstein, 1958: 564-6). This is less true of language games in the political world. President
Reagan, for instance, after the introduction of SDI in the early 1980s, engaged simultaneously in two
distinct language games about the meaning of deterrence. On the one hand, he increasingly argued that
deterrence was a prison that had to be escaped. The logic or purpose of this argument was that it was necessary and possible
to move away from reliance on nuclear weapons. In this case, he was providing a justification for SDI as an alternative. At the same time, he
engaged in a conflicting game about the need to maintain deterrence until SDI was realised. This was in conflict with the first argument in so far
as the latter had traditionally been and was still within NATO guided by a logic that the prison of deterrence was inescapable. To play both
at once constructed a conflicting logic by which the inescapable was escapable. The logic of playing both games simultaneously has to be
situated in a larger context of contestation in which Western populations and elites were divided over
the desirability and potential consequences of nuclear deterrence. This problem is explored in more depth in Chapter
Seven.
Another type of situation involving multiple changing games might involve two players following different but interfacing rul es. For instance, in the context of
Bosnia, NATO made a threat to compel the Serbs to stop their aggressive acts towards the safe havens. This threat was explicitly presented as a 'Gulf War' game,
and relied on the assumption that the threat of overwhelming force would persuade a rational aggressor to stop its aggressive behaviour. However, given the
context and the identities involved, the Serbs had an alternative move available to them which transformed the game. Just as Saddam Hussein, in the context of the
Gulf War, took Westerners hostage in order to deter NATO from realising its threat, the Serbs took peacekeepers hostage and used this as leverage in bargaining for
a promise that the bombing would stop.' From the perspective of the original Western game of compellence, this move may not have initially been imagined or it
may have been categorised as 'irrational'. However, within a game involving players possessing different types of power, that is, with one having the potential to do
massive damage from the air and the other to do massive damage to humans on the ground. the move on the part of the Serbs may be considered rational in so far
as it involved following the rule of a different but interfacing game. This move transformed the context of choice for the West.8 They were then confronted with a
'terrorist' game within which they could either make concessions to get the peacekeepers back, which they did, or to refuse to make concessions, which is normally
understood to be more 'correct' in this type of game.
The latter example clarifies two points. First, the Serb act was situated in a terrorist game, which constituted the meaning of material practices such as taking
hostages. Stated differently, taking 'hostages' as opposed to 'prisoners', for instance is an act that is dependent on a larger framework of meaning belonging to
terrorism. Second, in a context of change the key issue is less the incommensurability of games at the international level than how new possibilities are created as
multiple games intersect. Serb action cannot be understood merely in terms of cooperation or defection within a compellence game. They transformed the game
and therefore the meaning of action within it. The goal here is to explore an approach that will allow us not only to identify the structure of individual games or
matches, but the 'processes' by which one game is transformed into another.
Game theory relies on a high degree of abstraction. The scientist constructs the structure of the game,
the payoffs and incentives, and therefore the rationality of any particular move. In this study, the task is
to identify the structure of change within the language games of the actors. How is this done? Wittgenstein (1958: para.
66) instructs us to 'look and see' what language games are being played in a given place and time. This raises one further question: if in fact any
number of games can be played simultaneously, are we not simply confronted with a multiplicity of contending interpretations and
subsequently a complete lack of order or coherence at the international level? <20-23>

The gift paradigm can allow us to come up with creative solutions to problems
Vaughan, 1998
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

The gift paradigm is simpler than the exchange paradigm and not self reflecting. There is a transfer of
goods from one person to another, which can be continued to another person and another, so that a
flow is created. 'If a gives to b and b gives to c, then a gives to c' is the gift syllogism. We do not usually
pay attention to the many acts of giving that we actually do, perhaps because we feel that the
recognition of the processes of our good will might distort them by turning them into exchanges.
However, many aspects of life can be interpreted according to the giving and receiving mode, if we look
at them from the gift perspective. Unfortunately the power of definition ('x is y') seems to be in the
hands of exchange. By defining and labeling, the exchange paradigm is able to distort our view of
giftgiving so that it looks inferior. The equation of a product and money: a pound of coffee = four dollars,
and the exchange of one for the other, is a definition played out on the material plane. We have been
interpreting human thinking in terms of the equations and self reflecting patterns of exchange. One
example of the way this works is that exchange defines receiving as passive (unless it is the part of
exchange which is 'giving back'). However we can see from experience that receiving has to be active.
For example our children have to be able to use the goods we give them physiologically and
psychologically. Otherwise our caring intention would not be realized; our gifts would not be gifts.
Receiving is not passive but creative.

Acknowledging that the plan is a gift undermines the ability to solve
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
Much of the distinction between law and justice has implications for the gift (of equality) and the
(im)possibility of justice as equality: The gift is precisely, and this is what it has in common with
justice, something which cannot be reappropriated (Derrida, 1997, p. 1 8).1 Once a gift is given, if any
gratitude is extended in return, the gift becomes circumscribed in a moment of reappropriation
(Demda. 1997. p. 18). Ultimately, as soon as the giver knows that he or she has given something, the
gift is nullified. The giver congratulates him- or herself, and the economy of gratitude, of
reappropriation, commences. Once the offering has been acknowledged as a gift by the giver or
receiver it is destroyed. Thus, for a gift to truly be a gift, it must not even appear as such. Although it is
inherently paradoxical, this is the only condition under which a gift can be given (Derrida, 1991). This is
the relationship between the gift and justice. Justice cannot appear as such; it cannot be calculated as in
the law or other tangible commodities (Derrida, 1997). Although Derrida acknowledges that we must
attempt to calculate, there is a point beyond which calculation must fail and we must recognize that no
amount of estimation can adequately assign justice (Derrida, 1997). For equality (like the gift beyond
exchange and distribution; Derrida, L 992, p.7) to be possible, we must go beyond any imaginable,
knowable notion. This is why the gift and justice are conceptually (im)possible (Desilva Wijeycratne,
1998). They serve a necessary purpose in society; however, they represent something to always strive
for, something that mobilizes our desire. If the impossible was possible, we would stop trying and desire
would die. Justice, and thus democracy, is an appeal for the gift. As Derrida (1992) notes, this idea of
justice seems to be irreducible in its affirmative character, in its demand of gift without exchange,
without circulation, without recognition of gratitude, without economic circularity, without
calculation and without rules, without reason and without rationality (p. 25). The gift (of equality),
like justice and democracy, is an aporia, an (im)possibility. Thus, the use of the gift as a transaction in
the name of equality, and equality in the name of justice and democracy, is truly (un)just,
(un)democratic, and (in)equitable. The gift is a calculated, majorilarian endeavor toward illusive
equality. Equality beyond such a conscious effort (i.e., where the illusion is displaced) is open-ended and
absent of any obligatory reciprocation. As Caputo (1997) notes, justice is the welcome given to the
other in which I do not.. . have anything up my sleeve (p. 149).


2nc Impact Wall
The conditions of the plan allow morals to be exchanged for convenience
Hamacher 2, Professor of Comparative Literature at Goethe-Universitt Frankfurt and Distinguished
Global Professor at New York University 2002
(Werner, Guilt History, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/diacritics/v032/32.3hamacher.html)

A temporal nexus that clearly does not satisfy these conflicting requirements has been characterized in
one of the oldest texts of occidental philosophy as the time of guilt. According to the sentence of
Anaximander (from about 500 BC), handed down by Simplicius in his commentary (530 AD) on
Aristotle's Physics, the origin and end of all things is subordinated to the law of necessity (kat t kren).
"They must pay penance and be judged for their injustice, according to the order of time (kat tn tou
chrnou txin)"so the fragment reads in the translation offered by Nietzsche in his treatise
"Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks." According to Anaximander, the sequence of time orders
the rise and fall of all things and orders them in accordance with the law of guilt and punishment so
that becoming (gnesis) is a guilt (adika) that must be expiated in perishing. Time and more precisely
its txis, the positing of time, is thought in Anaximander's sentence as an order of guilt and retribution,
debt and payback. It is a time of economy in the sense that it is the time of lawand precisely a law that
is valid for all beings, a txis, a decree, an ordinance and an orderingin which the unavoidable
incurring of guilt is atoned in an equivalent penance that is just as unavoidable. The strict coherence of
guilt and penance is ascertained by the principle of their equivalence. Time is therefore conceived here
as a double process of coming into being and perishing, [End Page 81] a process that occurs in such a
way that the genesis is erased in its passing awayso that time is thus erased by time itself.
In Anaximander's sentence, however, time is not only the double-process of coming into being and
passing away, it isas a txisthe common and constantly enduring medium of the exchange of the
contrary but equivalent motions of coming into being and perishing. It is the time of the quid pro quo of
everything that is generated and passes away within time. Its measure is a justice that represents
itself as a txis and thereby as the positing and the law of all becoming and vanishing, the law of
physis and its demise as an onto-economic law. This taxiological order of time places every realm of the
natural and human world under a law of substitution without exception; this also allows ethical,
juridical, and economic concepts to substitute for one another within this order. The ethical dimension
of justice, thus circumscribed by the order of time, is reduced to the juridical dimension of the decree,
and both now define themselves according to the calculus of "an exchange economy in an eternally
unchanging household of nature."1 It can only, however, be a matter of an ethics of time to the extent
that this ethics, already juridified and economized, is subordinated to the schema of exchange, trade,
and the equivalence of guilt and retribution. The time of history, ethical time, is thus interpreted in
Anaximander's sentence as a normative time of inculpation and expiation. Whatever enters this txis of
time is thereby already guilty and can only become ex-cused by its perishing.

The exchange paradigm is at the root of violence.
Vaughan, 1998
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

The exchange paradigm brings with it many offshoots and look alikes which we validate because we
already unconsciously or consciously accept and give value to the patterns of exchange. Systems of
rewards and punishments such as the justice system or the attacks and reprisals of war, are exchange
patterns transposed into areas of life beyond the market. The justice system is an exchange based
process through which those who have been injured can make the perpetrators 'pay back' for the harm
they have done. It is of course very difficult to measure harm and in fact those whose loved ones have
been murdered or whose countries have been destroyed by war probably find that no amount of
revenge or payment could ever restore to them what they have lost. I believe that we have to address
the root of the entire problem from the cradle to the grave. We do not need justice, we need kindness.
The root of the problem is the exchange paradigm itself. Its exacerbation creates both the crimes and
the justice system we use to correct them. It expands to arms races, escalations and military exchanges.
It validates those who 'have' more and bigger missiles and penalizes those who 'have not'. Having
missiles does for a country what having a big car or a lot of money can do for an individual. It makes
the country or the individual first, the one at the top.

This exchange paradigm is used to justify endless wars
Vaughan, 1998
(Genevieve, Jacob Wrestles with the Angel http://www.gift-economy.com/articlesAndEssays/jacobWrestles.html)

In exchange, our gifts return to ourselves - by giving X we get Y in return. The way of exchange
separates us by not allowing the flow of gifts and value from one person to the next. It turns the
attention of some away from needs and towards profit while the many are kept in a survival mode
through scarcity. Exchange creates adversaries, every man for himself, as each person tries to corner
the gifts and to 'have more'. The hierarchies spawned by the imposition of the artificially constructed
male gender upon the nurturing generic human make a sick and distorted social structure appear to be
normal. Nations held in place internally by such hierarchies make war with one another as each tries
to become the 'one' or prototype nation, its leader the necessarily male top 'human'. The US has
basically won this battle to be first in this part of the twentieth century. It dominates the community of
nations, and uses policies such as embargoes and wars upon other smaller nations with strong 'one'
leaders. The attempt to weaken Cuba by creating scarcity there through a decades-long US embargo, is
one such case. Another is that of Iraq. (Actually situations of scarcity strengthen hierarchy, while
abundance makes them unnecessary. Ironically US embargoes are probably strengthening the
hierarchies our government wants to destroy.) It appears that our exchange-based nation applauds
making war against a 'one' who might be dangerous as the prototype of another culture, especially of
another patriarchal way of being human. The fears of those who participate in our psychotic
patriarchy are easily fanned to fury against the missiles of males from other countries who indeed are
probably psychotic as well. Symbolic phalluses have taken over the capacity for violence once reserved
for individual dominant phalluses in the home. The missiles' arena is wider than the family and can
destroy the 'many' who might oppose the 'one'.

This relationship guarantees policy failure. Creates trust problems
Molm, Collet and Schaefer 2k7
(Linda D., Jessica L., and David R, Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a theory of reciprocity, July,
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJS/journ al/issues/v113n1/300414/300414.html)

Ekeh's (1974)

elaboration of Lvi-Strauss's thesis

proposed that direct and

indirect structures of
reciprocity

produce exchanges of markedly

different character, with important

consequences for trust
and

solidarity. Direct exchanges, he

argued, are characterized by

high emotional tension, a

"quid pro
quo" mentality

and strict accounting, intensely

self-interested actors who engage

in frequent conflict
over

the fairness of exchange,

and low levels of

trust and solidarity. Indirect

exchanges, in contrast, are

characterized by reduced emotional

tension, a credit mentality,

actors with a more

collective
orientation, and high

levels of trust and

solidarity. As Yamagishi and Cook

(1993) and Takahashi (2000)

have noted, however, this

emphasis on the collective

aspects of generalized exchange

tends to neglect
other

crucial elements: the high

risk of the structure,

the potential for those

who fail to give

to disrupt
the entire

system, and the difficulty

of establishing a structure

of stable giving without

initial levels of
high

trust or established norms.

We examine the establishment

of generalized exchange and

the
development of bonds

of solidarity under precisely

those conditions: among strangers

who have no
established

norms, no knowledge of

one another, and no

initial basis for trust.

We then ask how

the
structure of indirect

reciprocity affects the emergence

of solidarity in comparison

with forms of
exchange

with direct reciprocity. Variations in Direct Reciprocity In predicting

that structures of direct

and indirect reciprocity produce

exchanges of different character,

Ekeh (1974) ignored key

differences
among forms of

direct exchange. Not all

forms of direct exchange

are characterized by a

"quid pro quo"
mentality,

strict accounting, and an

emphasis on immediate reciprocity.

Of particular importance is

the distinction between negotiated

and reciprocal forms of

direct exchange (Emerson 1981;

Molm
1994).

2nc Turns Case
Gifts have the reverse effect causing the receiver to be in debt and creating
narcissism in the giver
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed. Derridas concept of the gift
is simply as it sounds: Something that is given to someone by someone else. Gift, however, is a
misleading term. Once an award is given to someone, that someone assumes a debt (of gratitude or a
reciprocation of the gift). The giver of the gift, in return, is consciously and explicitly pleased with
him- or herself for the show of generosity (Caputo, 1997, p. 141). This narcissistic, self-cudemonical
exchange is in fact increased if the receiver is ungrateful cris unable, through the anonymity of the gift,
to show gratitude. Thus, the offering that is made without expectation of explicit gratitude simply
nourishes the narcissism of the giver. This is the paradoxical dimension of the gift . The sender of the
gift, instead of giving, receives; and the receiver of the gift, instead of receiving something, is in debt
(Caputo. 1997). To avoid mobilizing the circular economy of the gift (the circle of exchange, of
reciprocation, arid of reappropriation), the gift must not appear as such. Thus, the giver must not be
aware that he or she is giving, and the receiver must not be aware that he or she is receiving. Only
under those circumstances would the giver not fuel the fire of narcissistic generosity, and the receiver
not assume a debt. As Caputo (1997) notes, the pure gift could take place only if everything happened
below the level of conscious intentionality, where no one intends to give anything to anyone and no one
is intentionally conscious of receiving anything (p. 147).

Hospitality is rooted in the idea of superiority
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
An etymological problem akin to that of the word community is also discernible with the word
hospitality. Caputo (1997) again provides insightful elucidation on Derrida: The word hospitality
derives from the Latin hospes, which is formed from hostis, which originally meant a stranger and
came to take on the meaning of the enemy or hostile stranger (hostilis), + pets (polis, pores,
potentia), to have power (pp. 110-111). The implications, then, of Derridas deconstructive analysis are
profound. The word hospitality and, thus, the function of hospitality becomes a display of power by
the host (hospes). Being hospitable is an effort to welcome the other while maintaining or fortifying
the mastery the host has over the domain. Thus, the host is someone who welcomes the other and
gives to the other while always sustaining control. The host is always someone who possesses the power
to welcome someone or something. If one did not enjoy some control, some dominance over the
situation, one would not be a host at all: One would be on equal terms with the other (actually, there
would be no other), and neither would constitute the host or guest. A display of hospitality, then, does
not endanger the inherent power that the host experiences. The power, control, and mastery of the
host and the alterity of the stranger or other are not disrupted by the display of hospitality. As Caputo
(1997) notes, there is an essential self-limitation built right into the idea of hospitality, which
preserves the distance between ones own and the stranger (p. 110). The notion of giving while
retaining power is embodied in the concept of hospitality: A host is only a host if he owns the place,
and only if he holds on to his ownership; *that is,+ if one limits the gift (Caputo, 1997, p. 111). The
welcoming of the other into and onto ones territory or domain does not constitute a submission of
preexisting power, control, mastery, or identity. It is simply, as Derrida (1997) describes, a limited gift.
The hopes, then, is the one engaged in an aporetic circumstance. The host must appear to be
hospitable, genuinely beneficent, and unbounded by avaricious narcissism while contemporaneously
defending mastery over the domain. The host must appeal to the pleasure of the other by giving or
temporarily entrusting (consigning) something owned to the care of the other while not giving so much
as to relinquish the dominance that he or she harbors. The host must feign to benefit the welfare of the
other but not jeopardize the welfare of the giver that is so underwritten by the existing
circumstances whether they be democratically and justly legitimated or not. Thus, hospitality is
never true hospitality, and it is never a true gift because it is always limited. Derrida (1997) refers to this
predicament as the impossibility of hospitality (p. 112, italics added). True hospitality can only be
realized by challenging this aporia, ascending the paralysis, and experiencing the (im)possible. The
inherent self-limitation of hospitality must be vanquished. Hospitality must become a gift beyond
hospitality (Caputo, 1997).

2nc Link Wall
Foreign assistance is built on the foundation of submission by target countries
Der Derian 87, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with Masters and PhD in international relations,
1987
[James, also has been a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California, MIT, Harvard, Oxford.
On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, p. 72]

The changing nature of the gift-exchange between leaders also had repercussions for the emergence of proto-
diplomacy. As available land grew scarcer, the `benefice' (grant of land) gradually became supplanted by
the `honour' (grant of public office and/or jurisdiction), adding a new set of obligations and privileges to
the relations of retinues which had developed from either the German comitatus or the Gallo-Roman
diente/a.12 Fused to the ecclesiastical notion of beneficium were the legal `immunities' acquired by the
church against inimical German codes. Together, they formed, sometime in the ninth century, the system of
vassalage which would be the foundation of feudalism. This system should be fairly familiar, so only a sketch
is needed. The vassal's territorial tenure (benefice) and juridical rights (honour) were recognized by the
lord, or seigneur, in exchange for military service and personal fealty. Mutual recognition of power was
displayed by a ritual act: the vassal placed his hands, joined as in prayer, between the hands of the lord and
swore fealty; they then kissed each other upon the mouth. The submissive enfolding of the hands, the oath, and
the kiss were symbolic of the reciprocal yet one-sided nature of the power relation. The mutual obligations and
privileges which bridged the space between the lord and the vassal would be transmitted, and indeed
embodied, in early proto-diplomacy by the missi.

Gifts in foreign policy are bad perpetuates the status of power
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
The gift of equality, procured through state legislative enactments as anemblem of democratic
justice, embodies true (legitimated) power that remains nervously secure in the hands of the
majority.3 The ostensible empowerment of minority groups is a facade; it is the ruse of the majority
gift. What exists, in fact, is a simulacrum (Baudrillard. 1981, 1983) of equality (and by extension,
democratic justice): a pseudo-sign image (a hypertext or simulation) of real sociopolitical progress. For
the future relationship between equality and the social to more fully embrace minority sensibilities,
calculated legal reform efforts in the name of equality must be displaced and the rule and authority of
the status quo must be decentered. Imaginable, calculable equality is self-limiting and self-referential.
Ultimately, it is always (at least) one step removed from true equality and, therefore, true justice. The
ruse of the majority gift currently operates under the assumption of a presumed empowerment,
which it confers on minority populations. Yet, the presented power is itself circumscribed by the stifling
horizons of majority rule with their effects. Thus, the gift can only be construed as falsely eudemonic:
An avaricious, although insatiable, pursuit of narcissistic legitimacy supporting majority directives. The
commission (bestowal) of power to minority groups or citizens through prevailing state reformatory
efforts underscores a polemic with implications for public affairs and civic life. We contend that the
avenir (i.e., the to come) of equality as an (in)calculablc. (un)rccognizable destination in search of
democratic justice is needed. However, we argue that this dis placement of equality is unattainable if
prevailing juridico-ethico-political conditions (and societal consciousness pertaining to them) remain
fixed, stagnant, and immutable. In this article, we will demonstrate how the gift of the majority is
problematic, producing, as it must, a narcissistic hegemony, that is, a sustained empowering of the
privileged, a constant relegitimation of the powerful. Relying on Derridas postmodern critique of
Eurocentric logic and thought, we will show how complicated and fragmented the question of
establishing democratic justice is in Western cultures, especially in American society. We will argue that
what is needed is a relocation of the debate about justice and difference from the circumscribed
boundaries of legal redistributive discourse on equality to the more encompassing context of alterity,
undecidability, cultural plurality, and affirmative postinodern thought.

Reforms count as gifts allowing gifts creates social injustice and causes guilt
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
The omnipotence of majority sensibilities in Western cultures, particularly in the United States, has produced an
exploitative and nongiving existence for under- and nonrepresented citizen groups. Despite the many rights-based
movements during the past several decades that have ostensibly conferred to minorities such abstract
gifts as liberty, equality, and freedom, there remains an enduring wall dividing the masses from those on whom such awards are
bestowed. This fortified separation is most prominent in the (silent) reverberations of state and federal
legislative reforms.3 Relying on Derridas (1991, 1992, 1997) critique, we can regard such statutory reform initiatives
as gifts; that is, they are something given to non-majority citizens by those in power; they are tokens
and emblems of empowerment in the process of equality and in the name of democratic justice. The
majority is presenting something to marginalized groups, something that the giver holds in its entirety: power.6 The giver or presenter of such
power will never, out of capitalistic conceit and greed, completely surrender that which it owns. It is preposterous to believe that
the narcissistic majority would give up so much as to threaten what they own; that is, to surrender
their hospice and community while authentically welcoming in the other as stranger. This form of open-
ended generosity has yet to occur in Western democratic societies and, perhaps, it never will. Thus, it is logical to assume that,
although unconscious in some respects, the efforts of the majority are parsimonious and intended to
secure (or accessorize) their own power.7 The following two means by which a gift enables self-empowerment were already
alluded to by Dernda (1997): (a) the giver (i.e., the sender or majority) either bestows to show off his or her power or (b) gives to mobilize a
cycle of reciprocation in which the receiver (i.e., the minority) will be indebted. It is for these reasons that the majority gives. This explanation is
not the same as authentically supporting the cause of equality in furtherance of a cultural politics of difference and recognition. To ground
these observations about gift sending and receiving, the analogous example of a loan may be helpful. Let us suppose that we have $100.00 and
that you have $1.00. If we were to give you some of our money (less than $49 so as not to produce pecuniary equality), we would be subtiely
engaged in a number of things. First, following Derrida (1997), we would be showing off our power (money) by exploiting the fact that we have
so much more money than you do that we can give some away and remain in good fiscal standing. Second, we would be expecting something
in returnmaybe not immediately, but eventually. This return could take several forms. Although we may not expect financial reciprocation, it
would be enough knowing that you know that we have given currency to you. Thus, you are now indebted to us and forever grateful, realizing
our good deed: our gift. Reciprocation on your part is impossible. Even if one day you are able to return our monetary
favor twofold, we will always know that it was us who first hosted you; extended to and entrusted in
you an opportunity given your time of need. As the initiators of such a charity, we are always in a position of power, and you
are always indebted to us. This is where the notion of egoism or conceit assumes a hegemonic role. By giving to you, a supposed act of
generosity in the name of furthering your cause, we have not empowered you. Rather, we have empowered ourselves. We have less than
subtiely let you know that we have more than you. We have so much more, in fact, that we can afford to give you some. Our giving becomes,
not an act of beneficence, but a show of power, that is, narcissistic hegemony! Thus, we see that the majority gift is a ruse:
simulacrum of movement toward aporetic equality and a simulation of democratic justice. By relying on the
legislature (representing the majority) when economic and social opportunities are availed to minority or underrepresented collectives, the
process takes on exactly the form of Derridas gift. The majority controls the political, economic, legal, and social arenas; that is, it is (and
always has been) in control of such communities as the employment sector and the educational system. The mandated opportunities
that under- or nonrepresented citizens receive as a result of this falsely eudemonic endeavor are gifts
and, thus, ultimately constitute an effort to make minority populations feel better. There is a sense of
movement toward equality in the name of democratic justice, albeit falsely manufactured. In return for this
effort, the majority shows off its long-standing authority (this provides a stark realization to minority groups that power elites are the forces
that critically fonn society as a community), forever indebts under- and nonrepresented classes to the generosity of the majority (after all,
minorities groups now have, presumably, a real chance to attain happiness), and, in a more general sense, furthers the narcissism of the
majority (its representatives have displayed power and have been generous). Thus, the ruse of the majority gift assumes the form and has the
hegemonical effect of empowering the empowered, relegitimating the privileged, and fueling the voracious conceit of the advantaged.



2nc Alt Wall
The alternative is to change our conception of the moral to a view of justice rooted in
contingent universalities
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
What we do suggest, however, is simply the following: That political and/or legislative attempts at
empowerment (as they currently stand) are insufficient to attain the deconstructive and discursive
condition of equality for minority citizen groups (Collins, 1993). More significant, we contend that
construction of these initiatives as Derridean gifts advance, at best, fleeting vertiginous moments of
inequality and injustice. Still further, we recommend the (im)possible; that which, at first blush,
admittedly delivers no pragmatic value for social analysts. Our invitation is for a fuller, more complete
displacement of equality and initiatives pertaining to it such that there would be no giving for its own
sake; that giving would not be construed as giving, but asthe way of democratic justice (i.e., its
foreseeability would be [un]conscious, its recognizability would be with[out] calculation). If we are able
to give without realizing that we have done so, the possibility of reciprocation, reappropriation, and
the economy of narcissism and representation are abruptly interrupted and perhaps indefinitely
stalled. This form of giving more closely embodies the truth of human existence; that which betters
life for all without regard for differential treatment, neither promoting nor limiting those who are
other in some respect or fashion. This re-presentation of equality, this justice both of and beyond the
calculable economy of the law (Derrida, 1997), requires a different set of principles by which equality is
conceived and justice is rendered. What would this difference entail? How would it be embodied in
civic life? In the paragraphs that remain, our intent is to suggest some protean guidelines as ways of
identifying the work that lies ahead for the (im)possibility of justice and the search for aporetic equality.
A cultural politics of difference grounded in an affirmative postmodern framework would necessarily
prevail (Arrigo, 1998a; Henry & Milovanovic, 1996). In this more emancipatory, more liberatory vision,
justice would be rooted in contingent universalities (Butler, 1992; McLaren, 1994). Provisional truths,
positional knowledge, and relational meanings would abound (Arrigo, 1995). New egalitarian social
relations, practices, and institutions would materialize, producing a different, more inclusive context
within which majority and minority sensibilities would interact (Mouffe, 1992). In other words, the
multiplicity of economic, cultural, racial, gender, and sexual identities that constitute our collective
society would interactively and mutually contribute to discourse on equality and our understanding of
justice.








The world post alt
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce Arrigo, professor of criminology and forensic psychology and the
director of the Institute of Psychology, Law, and Public Policy at the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno. Christopher Williams, doctorate from the California School of Professional
Psychology in Fresno, The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority: On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality, Sage journals, Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice 16.321//JG)
Linking both action and reflection, gift givers and receivers would repre sent active agents in the
process of becoming equitable citizens (Freire, 1972).22 For minority groups, the goal would be
conscientization, that is, exercising their right to participate consciously in the socio-historical trans
formation of their society (Freire, 1972, p. 50). This right is rooted in concrete historical struggles of
injustice wherein the multiple, contradictory, and complex subject-positions people occupy within
different social, cultural, and economic relations are spoken (Giroux, 1992, p. 21). This is meant to be
both a politics and a pedagogy for change. It is in this context that the gift, as an emblem of
eudemonic justice and aporetic equality, is decoded as a ruse. Consistent with this radical pedagogical
practice, citizen activism would require border crossings (Giroux, 1992; see also JanMohamed, 1994;
Lippens, 1997). Border crossings are a deliberate attempt to displace established parameters of
meaning, forms of consciousness, sites of knowledge, and loci of truth. Conventional boundaries are
transgressed, resisted, debunked, and decentered. Border crossings would require that one embrace
the confluence of multiple languages, experiences, and desires as folded into the polyvocal,
multilayered, and transhistorical narratives that are reflective of a society of difference (Giroux, 1992;
Irigaray, 1 993) Thus, the gift of equality would be imbued with plurisignificant, contradictory,
incomplete, effusive, fragmented, and multiaccentuated expressions of giving and receiving. These
borderlands, as languages of possibility rather than as technologies of discipline (Henry & Milovanovic,
1996), would be seen as sites for both critical analysis and. . . a*s+ potential source*s+ of
experimentation *and+ creativity (Giroux, 1992, P. 34). The (im)possbility of democratic justice would
acknowledge that minority citizens themselves (and others supportive of meaningful social change),
are constituted by difference, struggle, and discontinuities. Furthermore, such collectives would be
understood to exhibit an inexorable connection to the very systems (e.g., legal, political, and economic
spheres of influence) of which such citizens are a part (Henry & Milovanovic, 1996). In this constitutive
arrangement, both agency and structure would be regarded as fused. As a result, a coproduction of
meaning, truth, knowledge, power, desire, identity, and so forth would unfold, giving rise to only
circumscribed expressions of justice. To emancipate both agency and structure, an affirmative
postmodern perspective would require that subjects themselves be deconstructed and reconstructed,
that is, function as subjects-in-process or as emergent subjects (JanMohamed, 1994; Kristeva, 1986).
Under- and nonrepresented groups would actively engage in the task of uncovering, recovering, and
recoding their identities (e.g., Collins, 1990; hooks, 1989) in ways that are less encumbered by
prevailing (majority) sensibilities regarding their given constitutions. The economy of narcissism would,
more likely, be suspended, and the culture of difference would, more likely, be positionally and
provisionally realized.


**2nc Blocks
2nc AT: Say Yes
Not a question of if dialogue is justified, its whether the system is your system of
power historically produces the worst forms of warfare
Der Derian 87, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with Masters and PhD in international relations,
[James, also has been a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California, MIT, Harvard, Oxford.
On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, p. 86-87]

This is, admittedly, a rather simplified version of events, and Marx's claim that nomads first invented
money is, to say the least, questionable. But the gist of it is accurate. Max Weber concurs, saying in his
General Economic History that the 'oldest commerce is an exchange relation between alien tribes', and that
everywhere the 'alien trader' preceded the 'resident trader'.57 And it is certainly more satisfactory than
Nicolson's ahistorical, descriptive account of the 'mercantile tendency', because without a trader in situ,
we are unable to surmise what strategies were employed on which battlefield in his confrontations with
the symbolic warrior and cleric, for it was from these specific encounters that proto-diplomacy emerged
and as I shall argue non-belligerent, juridical means of alienating power were developed for new
diplomatic forms.
But if we are to make more than a metaphorical, or Nicolsonian, sense of this triad, it must be fleshed out. One
method is to pinpoint the nature of the estrangement between them which generates proto-diplomatic
obligations and privileges. My intention is to emphasize that it is not necessarily the preponderant
accumulation of power be it material or spiritual which will determine diplomatic forms; rather, it is the
circulation, exchange and exercise of alienated power which generates the rules of diplomacy which dominant
power(s) might impose, especially if the military production of intended effects prove inappropriate or just
impossible. This can be made clearer by three historical examples of how encounters within the triad
engendered proto-diplomatic rules. They are the formation and negotiated dissolution of the droit d'aubaine;
the sometimes codified but usually tacitly enforced rules of courtoisie; and the injunctions of the church against
forms of warfare new to the Middle Ages.

2nc AT: Perm
Discourse negotiations shape meaning the knowledge produced by the plan is
framed by threats and coercion
Howard, 5
(Peter, Constructivism and Foreign Policy, American University School of International Service, November 17,
http://nw08.american.edu/~phoward/isa ne_05.doc)
One of the central constructivist insights is that the international system is not a fixed, external,
material structureit is instead a socially produced structure of shared meanings (rules or norms)
(Onuf 1989; Wendt 1999). The rules of the system are produced by the interactions of states and in
turn shape state practice. Security is not a favorable distribution of material capabilities (Mearsheimer
2001; Waltz 1979), but rather a particular regime of rules (Howard 2002; Kratochwil 1989). Kratochwil
argues that even the most basic of security agreements constitute a regime. Any foreign policy move
negotiation, appeasement, threat, commitment, or challengerequires a shared framework to make
the action understandable to all participants. Actors rely on background knowledge as a basis for
interpreting others moves (Kratochwil 1978). For a foreign policy to produce security, it must be able to
somehow contribute to the shared understandings that constitute a security regime.
Language is the key to unlocking this process, for it is how actors share meaning. Language is not just a
medium for communication through which ideas flow. Language is not just a pictorial representation
of reality. Language is itself the set of shared understandings that produce the social world (Fierke
2002; Howard 2004b; Onuf 1989; Wittgenstein 1953). The central insight of language based
constructivist is that we cannot get beyond our language to a more objective realitylanguage
constitutes our reality. This does not mean that any actor can talk any reality into existence.
Language only has any meaning as a shared set of rulesthe more who speak a language, the more
who understand and follow the rules, the more powerful the language. Moreover, a speaker cannot
randomly string words togetherhe must follow the understood rules of speech in order to make
sense. There is no way to determine what a speaker will sayagency is preserved because each actor
retains creative control over his own actions. However, an analyst can determine what is possible for an
actor to say in order to be understood. As this realm of possibility becomes constricting, actors find
themselves entangled in the rules of a language (Howard 2002). The material reality of security studies
is given meaning and purpose by the language that enables its use. Here is the key to reconnecting the
unit level of analysis of FPA and systemic level of analysis of security studies (Kublkov 2001). The link
is the practice of speaking so as to be understood, the sharing of meaning. An actor has a range of
possible things to say and must come up with a speech act. There are decisions to be made and
opportunities for agency and creativity in how it is done. But there are also structural constraintsan
actor cannot just say whatever they want and expect the world to order itself accordingly. Actors
need to say things in a certain way to be understood. Language instantiates meaning and meaning is
contextual and shared. This shared meaning comes to be called rules. Thus, regimes as rule-sets are
sets of shared understandings. Security regimes are sets of shared understandings about what security
is and how states can act to realize that security. Regimes enable and give meaning to the material
practices of the world. This meaning evolves and changes through practice. Some are robust, some fall
by the wayside.

Co-option the perm cannot understand the nature of estrangement.
Der Derian 87, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with Masters and PhD in international relations
[James, also has been a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California, MIT, Harvard, Oxford.
On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, p. 10-12]
Are these sufficient reasons to take another path, straw constructions to blow away, or just worthy
criticisms to keep in mind? Some of each, but all, I would argue, overridden by the fact that theorizing
itself is a process of alienation: we must 'make strange', as did the Russian formalists with
literature, our habitual ways of seeing diplomacy. The process takes different forms: it can
involve a distancing of ourselves from the events or a defamiliarization of the evidence in
order to present it to ourselves and to others in new and edifying ways. For Hegel,
rationality requires that this distancing step be taken: 'Quite generally, the familiar, just because it is familiar, is
not cognitively understood. The commonest way in which we deceive either ourselves or others about understanding is by assuming something
as familiar, and accepting it on that account; with all its pros and cons, such knowing never gets anywhere, and it knows not why."
Although Marx offers his thoughts on alienation as a critique of Hegel, there are noted similarities in his view of its relationship to theory, as
demonstrated by his often quoted remark: 'The philosopher, himself an abstract form of alienated man, sets himself up as the measure of the
alienated world.'' Similarly, the type of theorization I am suggesting entails the scrutiny of a form of alienation, that is, the alienation immanent
in diplomacy. In effect, then, we are in diplomatic theory prepared to alienate ourselves from a form of alienation. We shall see in our study of
the alienation theories of Marx and Hegel how they considered this process, which they called the 'alienation
of the alienation', an essential step in making the real philosophically intelligible. For the moment, I
shall suggest that alienation theories can provide a better understanding of diplomatic theory, or if you wish (and I am sure some do not), a
meta-theory of diplomacy.6
At a less abstract or at least more conventional level, we can find evidence of alienation to
justify a meta-theoretical approach. First, there is the nature of the discipline of international
relations. It is relatively young, and estrangement is an essential part of growing up. In other words,
developing a self-identity involves a willed detachment from one's environment (that is, the other
social sciences). When it comes to the specific state of theory in the discipline of international relations, there is probably little agreement on
this point, except to say that the differing views would probably line up with the differing infra-disciplinary schools of thought. I am divided on
the question, finding it difficult to judge from the amount of debris on the battlefield of international relations theory, and from the nature of
the behaviouralist and classicist schools, whether the theoretical side of the discipline is emerging from adolescence or passing into
obsolescence. To be optimistic, one could say that behaviouralism, especially in the area of international communication studies, shows signs of
coming of age; and that classicism is being rejuvenated under the rubric of neo-realism. To be honest, I would say that events on the battlefield
of international relations practice have accelerated so far beyond the capacities of the theories of both schools that a symbiosis for canonical
damage control is much more likely than some final triumph, renewal, or syncretic unity of the schools of thought within the discipline.
On a second, perhaps safer level, we can find a second attribute of alienation: the
etymological nature of theory itself. It comes from the Greek thea, meaing 'outward look' and horao, that is, 'to look at
something attentively'. Originally an Orphic word, it has been interpreted by Cornford to signify a 'passionate sympathetic contemplation', in
which 'the spectator is identified with the suffering god, dies in his death, and rises again in his new birth'? In this early use of theory it
expresses man's primal alienation from nature. As we shall see below, it represents a Feuerbachian alienation, in which man seeks in heaven
what he cannot find or understand on earth. This view is supported by Walter Kaufmann, who believes the
alienation of theory goes back to the great classical thinkers: 'Plato and Aristotle remarked that
philosophy begins in wonder or perplexity. We could also say that it begins when something
suddenly strikes us as strange or that philosophy is born of estrangement.'

No Solvency: The perm includes the logic of exchange.
Vaughan 3
(Genevieve, Why we need the gift economy, TALK PRESENTED AT THE WORLD womens social forum, September, http://www.awakenedw
oman.com/gen_femattac.htm)
In order to make this analysis we make a basic distinction between gift giving on the one hand and exchange on the other as two distinct logics.
In the logic of exchange a good is given in order to receive its equivalent in return. There is an equation of value, quantification and
measurement. In gift giving, one gives to satisfy the need of another and the creativity of the receiver in using the gifts is as important as the
creativity of the giver. The gift interaction is transitive and the product passes from one person to the other, creating a relation of inclusion
between the giver and the receiver with regard to what is given. Gift giving implies the value of the other while the
exchange transaction which is made to satisfy one's own need is reflexive and implies the value only
of oneself. Gift giving is qualitative rather than quantitative, other- oriented rather than ego oriented,
inclusive rather than exclusive. Gift giving can be used for many purposes . Its relation-creating capacity creates community, while
exchange is an adversarial interaction that creates atomistic individuals. Our society has based distribution upon exchange, and the ideology of
exchange permeates our thinking. For example we consider ourselves human 'capital', choose our mates on the 'marriage market', base justice
on 'paying for crimes, motivate wars through 'reprisal' and teeter on the brink of nuclear 'exchanges'. Indigenous cultures, based more on gift
giving, had very different world views. Exchange now determines the context in which gifts are given, and
therefore distorts the character of gift giving, making it appear dysfunctional of itself. Exchange and
gift giving are the basis of two world views or paradigms that are locked together in competition and
conflict but are also complementary. Since competition is one of the values of the exchange paradigm while cooperation is a
result of coordinated gift giving, the exchange paradigm 'wins' the struggle. However gift giving is much more life enhancing and practical than
is exchange, and it is therefore necessary for exchange to create scarcity so that gift giving will be difficult. The abundance provided by the gifts
of nature and culture would allow the gift paradigm to become generalized and the practice of the gift logic to provide creatively for everyone.
It is therefore necessary for the exchange paradigm to create a context of scarcity whereby some exchangers maintain a leverage over the gifts
of all. This is the basis of the parasitism of the few upon the many. By over priveleging a few the market is able to drain the resources which
would allow an alternative to its domination. The globalizing market finds more and more areas of previously free resources which it can make
scarse. To this we can add the waste of wealth on (phallic symbolic) armaments and wars, waste caused by over-consumption and the draining
away of the gift capacity especially of women under control of their husbands, their religions, their bosses and local and international
capitalism. In fact because women are socially assigned the job of mothering they usually have to practice the gift logic for some years as
adults, even when the society they live in is dominated by exchange. In fact young children cannot exchange by giving back an equivalent of
what has been given to them and they must be cared for by adults who are giving unilaterally. It is not a biological mandate that women
nurture children, but a biological dependence of the children that makes unilateral gift giving towards them necessary. Because the two
paradigms are locked in conflict, exchange tries to discredit and conceal the gift whenever possible. It
also infects gift giving and givers with its own values, so that gift giving can become manipulative and
ego oriented. There is a spectrum of gifts at different levels , from unilateral gift giving, to substitute and symbolic gift giving to the gift
constrained and doubled back upon itself in exchange. Even after exchange holds sway, gifts can arise again as in giving a job or a loan or
supporting a family through waged labor. The exchange mode is parasitic upon the gift mode, and the market is
parasitic upon the gifts of all for its motivation and its raison d'etre. Profit coming from surplus value is that part of
the value of labor not covered by the salary and thus can be seen as a leveraged gift given by the worker to the capitalist. The scarcity in the
context - the lack of means of giving available to the worker in non monetized resources, creates the leverage by which surplus value is
extracted. Housework also passes through the gift of the male or female worker to the capitalist. The less the cost of labor and raw materials to
the capitalist, the greater the portion of leveraged gifts they contain. Now with housewifization women have become the hosts of the
patriarchal capitalistic parasite directly and on a broad scale the countries of the South have become the femized gift givers, whose gifts of
cheap ( mostly gift) labor and raw materials flow to to the North. Gifts of nature, water, species, life forms, and genes are being commodified,
that is, assimilated into the market category as objects of exchange. The market is taking over the resources that were
available to be given as gifts to sustain life and which were used in the formation of the relations
which are the basis of community.
The QPQ contaminates the gift becomes hegemonic
Vaughan 97
(Genevieve, For-Giving a Feminist criticism of exchange, CH 11http://www.for-giving.com/forgiving_chapter8to11.pdf)

We know unconsciously how the fine-grained micro level works, because we are using that substitution
process all the time when we learn language and define things. We did shift to a new level when we
gained language, and having language has mediated everything we are. The similarity to masculation of
receiving a new 'name' in the price, of being given away by the 'producer' and out of giftgiving into the
new logic of We know unconsciously how the fine-grained micro level works, because we are using that
substitution process all the time when we learn language and define things. We did shift to a new level
when we gained language, and having language has mediated everything we are. The similarity to
masculation of receiving a new 'name' in the price, of being given away by the 'producer' and out of
giftgiving into the new logic of We know unconsciously how the fine-grained micro level works, because
we are using that substitution process all the time when we learn language and define things. We did
shift to a new level when we gained language, and having language has mediated everything we are.
The similarity to masculation of receiving a new 'name' in the price, of being given away by the
'producer' and out of giftgiving into the new logic of We know unconsciously how the fine-grained
micro level works, because we are using that substitution process all the time when we learn
language and define things. We did shift to a new level when we gained language, and having language
has mediated everything we are. The similarity to masculation of receiving a new 'name' in the price, of
being given away by the 'producer' and out of giftgiving into the new logic of substitution, again sets up
reciprocal confirmations. Exchange draws us in, and the exchange paradigm takes over, taking the
place of other possible models for our concepts of human interactions.2 If superior value were not
being continually attributed to exchange, it would not continue to exist as such. Nor would the
masculated male continue to exist as such if superior value were not attributed to him. Giftgiving, and
the extension and valuing of the gift paradigm, would make exchange unnecessary. So actually, at
present, giftgiving is sustaining its 'competitor' (competition is of course an aspect of the exchange, not
of the gift paradigm). The logic and the practice of exchange need this attribution of value, and
everyone satisfies this need, even those practicing the gift paradigm. Having been given superior value, exchange
becomes the only way to achieve survival--occupying the field, pervading our lives, and marginalizing or excluding its alternatives. The social
institution of exchange for money lets us shift paradigms every time we buy and sell. The shift itself becomes so common we do not notice it; it
permeates our lives. Both the 'new' paradigm and the shift become natural and normal for us. The 'old' paradigm of free goods and services is
dis-counted and valueless by contrast, though it continues to function. Ego-oriented people attribute value to exchange, not only because they
need it to survive, but also because by engaging in it they can individually deserve and receive extra value, appearing to be self-made (the
source of their own superiority). Moreover, the masculated pattern of exchange repeats their own over-coming. Other-oriented people also
attribute value to exchange by logical consequence, because they attribute value not only to themselves but to others who need exchange to
survive. Exchange occupies center stage, and it also attracts attention, because it promotes competition to which visibility is useful. The seller
must elicit the choice of the buyer through the visibility and attractiveness of the product-in-exchange. The substitution of giving--precluding it-
-makes the transaction of exchange adversarial. Since the other person is doing the same thing in a different phase of the process (giving
money while we are giving a product, for example), she is our delayed or anticipated reflection and like ourselves, in scarcity is always ready to
get our product for less or sell her product to us for more--even to cheat us. In exchange, when we 'put ourselves in the other's place,' we
recognize our adversarial interests. A mechanism of our altruism thwarts itself by the realization that the other person needs to cheat us, as we
need to cheat her. It would be in each of our mutually exclusive 'interests.' The shift into exchange cross-validates with
masculation, so it attracts some of the value which is given to masculation and vice versa. Like
masculation, it cancels and invalidates the giftgiving source, making its practicer appear to stand
alone. It sets the standard for the economic field and often even for 'reality' itself. What is similar to
exchange appears to be not only more valuable but real and normal, while everything else is
unconfirmed and uncertain (another way women and giftgiving are discounted). Exchange deals with
evident value overtly, names it, accumulates and stores it as money, foresees its social fluctuations. It
seems to be the crux of the matter. In other words, at this level the exchange process attracts the gift
of value. We move back and forth from appreciating it to attributing value to it, contradictorily
receiving from it--from the process--and giving to it. We breathe the living breath of value into the
exchange process, like God breathing the breath of life into Adam. The value given to exchange by those
who participate in it, substitution, again sets up reciprocal confirmations. Exchange draws us in, and the
exchange paradigm takes over, taking the place of other possible models for our concepts of human
interactions.2 If superior value were not being continually attributed to exchange, it would not continue
to exist as such. Nor would the masculated male continue to exist as such if superior value were not
attributed to him. Giftgiving, and the extension and valuing of the gift paradigm, would make exchange
unnecessary. So actually, at present, giftgiving is sustaining its 'competitor' (competition is of course an
aspect of the exchange, not of the gift paradigm). The logic and the practice of exchange need this
attribution of value, and everyone satisfies this need, even those practicing the gift paradigm. Having
been given superior value, exchange becomes the only way to achieve survival--occupying the field,
pervading our lives, and marginalizing or excluding its alternatives. The social institution of exchange for
money lets us shift paradigms every time we buy and sell. The shift itself becomes so common we do
not notice it; it permeates our lives. Both the 'new' paradigm and the shift become natural and normal
for us. The 'old' paradigm of free goods and services is dis-counted and valueless by contrast, though it
continues to function. Ego-oriented people attribute value to exchange, not only because they need it to
survive, but also because by engaging in it they can individually deserve and receive extra value,
appearing to be self-made (the source of their own superiority). Moreover, the masculated pattern of
exchange repeats their own over-coming. Other-oriented people also attribute value to exchange by
logical consequence, because they attribute value not only to themselves but to others who need
exchange to survive. Exchange occupies center stage, and it also attracts attention, because it
promotes competition to which visibility is useful. The seller must elicit the choice of the buyer through the visibility and
attractiveness of the product-in-exchange. The substitution of giving--precluding it--makes the transaction of exchange adversarial. Since the
other person is doing the same thing in a different phase of the process (giving money while we are giving a product, for example), she is our
delayed or anticipated reflection and like ourselves, in scarcity is always ready to get our product for less or sell her product to us for more--
even to cheat us. In exchange, when we 'put ourselves in the other's place,' we recognize our adversarial interests. A mechanism of our altruism
thwarts itself by the realization that the other person needs to cheat us, as we need to cheat her. It would be in each of our mutually exclusive
'interests.' The shift into exchange cross-validates with masculation, so it attracts some of the value which is given to masculation and vice
versa. Like masculation, it cancels and invalidates the giftgiving source, making its practicer appear to stand alone. It sets the standard for the
economic field and often even for 'reality' itself. What is similar to exchange appears to be not only more valuable but real and normal, while
everything else is unconfirmed and uncertain (another way women and giftgiving are discounted). Exchange deals with evident value overtly,
names it, accumulates and stores it as money, foresees its social fluctuations. It seems to be the crux of the matter. In other words, at this level
the exchange process attracts the gift of value. We move back and forth from appreciating it to attributing value to it, contradictorily receiving
from it--from the process--and giving to it. We breathe the living breath of value into the exchange process, like God breathing the breath of life
into Adam. The value given to exchange by those who participate in it, substitution, again sets up reciprocal confirmations. Exchange draws us
in, and the exchange paradigm takes over, taking the place of other possible models for our concepts of human interactions.2 If superior value
were not being continually attributed to exchange, it would not continue to exist as such. Nor would the masculated male continue to exist as
such if superior value were not attributed to him. Giftgiving, and the extension and valuing of the gift paradigm, would make exchange
unnecessary. So actually, at present, giftgiving is sustaining its 'competitor' (competition is of course an aspect of the exchange, not of the gift
paradigm). The logic and the practice of exchange need this attribution of value, and everyone satisfies this need, even those practicing the gift
paradigm. Having been given superior value, exchange becomes the only way to achieve survival--occupying the field, pervading our lives, and
marginalizing or excluding its alternatives. The social institution of exchange for money lets us shift paradigms every time we buy and sell. The
shift itself becomes so common we do not notice it; it permeates our lives. Both the 'new' paradigm and the shift become natural and normal
for us. The 'old' paradigm of free goods and services is dis-counted and valueless by contrast, though it continues to function. Ego-oriented
people attribute value to exchange, not only because they need it to survive, but also because by engaging in it they can individually deserve
and receive extra value, appearing to be self-made (the source of their own superiority). Moreover, the masculated pattern of exchange
repeats their own over-coming. Other-oriented people also attribute value to exchange by logical consequence, because they attribute value
not only to themselves but to others who need exchange to survive. Exchange occupies center stage, and it also attracts attention, because it
promotes competition to which visibility is useful. The seller must elicit the choice of the buyer through the visibility and attractiveness of the
product-in-exchange. The substitution of giving--precluding it--makes the transaction of exchange adversarial. Since the other person is doing
the same thing in a different phase of the process (giving money while we are giving a product, for example), she is our delayed or anticipated
reflection and like ourselves, in scarcity is always ready to get our product for less or sell her product to us for more--even to cheat us. In
exchange, when we 'put ourselves in the other's place,' we recognize our adversarial interests. A mechanism of our altruism thwarts itself by
the realization that the other person needs to cheat us, as we need to cheat her. It would be in each of our mutually exclusive 'interests.' The
shift into exchange cross-validates with masculation, so it attracts some of the value which is given to
masculation and vice versa. Like masculation, it cancels and invalidates the giftgiving source, making its
practicer appear to stand alone. It sets the standard for the economic field and often even for 'reality'
itself. What is similar to exchange appears to be not only more valuable but real and normal, while
everything else is unconfirmed and uncertain (another way women and giftgiving are discounted).
Exchange deals with evident value overtly, names it, accumulates and stores it as money, foresees its
social fluctuations. It seems to be the crux of the matter. In other words, at this level the exchange
process attracts the gift of value. We move back and forth from appreciating it to attributing value to it,
contradictorily receiving from it--from the process--and giving to it. We breathe the living breath of
value into the exchange process, like God breathing the breath of life into Adam.

2nc AT: Realism
Aff arguments assume that the international arena is made up of conflicting actors
ensures nuclear conflict
Fierke, 98
[K.M. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: critical investigations in security. Manchester University
Press. page below in <brackets>]
Negotiation and dialogue
Taylor (in Dallmayr and McCarthy, 1977: 116) and Pitkin (1972) have respectively made arguments that 'negotiation' and 'dialogue'
are distinct forms of life. Each is constituted by particular language games and rules. Taylor points out that
'negotiation' is inseparable from 'the distinct identity and autonomy of the parties, with the willed nature of their relations: it is a very
contractual notion'. Pitkin argues that dialogue belongs to the realm of 'moral discourse', which also relies on a vocabulary with rules. This
tradition focuses more on a context in which one party has been injured and seeks redress as well as the healing of a relationship. She quotes
Cavell (Pitken, 1972: 150-2), who says of dialogue and moral discourse:
It provides one possibility of settling conflict, a way of encompassing conflict which allows the
continuance of personal relationships against the hard and apparently inevitable fact of
misunderstanding, mutually incompatible wishes, commitments, loyalties, interests and needs, a way of healing tears in the fabric of
relationships and maintaining the self in opposition to itself and others.
Each language game had its own logic. Each took place within a different spatial field, involving different types of identity. following different
rules in relation to one another. A few distinctions between the two types of game as played in this context may make the significance of the
following description more clear.
First, negotiations reinforced the distinctions between `us' and 'them', so that each could speak with a
single voice. By contrast. an initial act in the cross-bloc dialogue was a renaming of self and other. In his
essay, Protest and Survive, E. P. Thompson (1980) discussed the relationship between the naming of the other and
the 'thinkability' of nuclear war. The thinkability of nuclear war, he argued, relies on a language that makes
possible the `disjunction between the rationality and the moral sensibility of individual men and women and the
effective military process' (Thompson, 1980: 26). In Thompson's argument, a particular vocabulary effects a closure which habituates
the mind to nuclear holocaust by reducing everything to the level of normality. This reduction makes it possible to 'kill each
other in euphemisms and abstractions long before the first missiles have been launched' (Thompson, 1980:
26). Nuclear war was unthinkable for the West, but the idea came quite easily as long as it was to be
inflicted on the enemy, defined as an 'other', as Asians, Marxists, non-people. Moving beyond the logic
of deterrence or the logic of nuclear arms required an act of renaming, of giving an identity to the
people of Eastern Europe.
Second, the negotiations consolidated two family spaces whose boundaries cut through the middle of
Europe; by contrast, the dialogue began with commencing `to act as if a united, neutral and pacific Europe already exists' (emphasis added)."
Commencing to act as citizens of Europe, no longer distinguished by East and West, involved challenging the dichotomies of the Cold War. The
barriers separating the two halves of the continent would be overcome through a process of meeting. A first step in eliminating the division of
Europe was dismantling a range of conceptual categories into which all had been socialised.
Third, negotiation involved proposing and rejecting, and attempting to reach a formal compromise. The hope of dialogue, by contrast, was that
the identity of each side would grow and be transformed as they confronted an 'other' whose views were not their own. In the process of
dialogue, the weakness of one's own reasoning is exposed. As Andrew Linklater (in Smith, Booth and Zalewski. 1996: 286) has said, 'true
dialogue exists when moral agents accept that there is no a priori certainty about who will learn from whom and when they are willing to
engage in a process of reciprocal critique.' Dialogue is a reciprocal exchange through which both parties grow and change. While weapons are
subject and object of speech at the negotiator's table, it is the meaning of words, knowledge of one another's position and the stakes of the
relationship itself that constitute dialogue. Negotiating and entering into dialogue, in this context, represented the juxtaposition of two
contrasting forms of self/other relationship: the one secured two mutually exclusive spaces of secrecy and militarism: the other involved an
engagement with the other in a process of making public and opening spaces.'2
After decades of having been enclosed within two bloc spaces, each side in the dialogue brought a
different understanding of the world to their interactions. For Eastern Europeans, 'peace' and 'disarmament' were slogans
that had lost their meaning and were at best a tool of government propaganda. For Western peace activists, human rights were often
subordinated to the goal of disarmament. Overcoming the division of Europe and constituting a Europe free and whole meant dismantling the
mutually exclusive terms in which peace and human rights were defined in the Cold War. In the beginning, this tension was no
less evident in the political positions of the movements than those of their governments.
A final difference between these two games relates to the means-end strategy of negotiating with weapons. The notion of acting 'as if' one
were a citizen of a whole Europe began with a very different principle. Acting 'as if is the process of constructing the future by acting as one
would act in such a future. In acting 'as if' dialogue were possible, the means and the end of the act are simultaneously realised. The point
is to demonstrate a form of life that belongs to the realm of human possibility but which is not yet a
defining feature of a particular context. The power of acting 'as if is in disrupting and politicising the
injustice underlying the constitutive categories of the dominant game.


TURN self-fulfilling prophecy by defining human nature as inherently violent they
make securitization and competition inevitable
Der Derian 95, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with Masters and PhD in international relations,
1995
[James, also has been a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California, MIT, Harvard, Oxford.
On security, edited by Ronnie D. Lipschutz, p. 29-30]

The implications for interpersonal and interstate relations are obvious. Without a common power to
constrain this perpetual struggle there can be no common law: "And Convenants, without the
Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all."25 In the state of nature there exists a
fundamental imbalance between man's needs and his capacity to satisfy them--with the most basic
need being security from a violent and sudden death. To avoid injury from one another and from foreign
invasion, men "conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that
man reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, into one Will."26 The constitution of the Leviathan, the
sovereign state, provides for a domestic peace, but at a price. Hobbes's solution for civil war displaces
the disposition for a "warre of every man against every man" to the international arena.27 Out of fear,
for gain, or in the pursuit of glory, states will go to war because they can. Like men in the precontractual
state of nature, they seek the margin of power that will secure their right of self-preservationand run
up against states acting out of similar needs and desires.
In these passages we can discern the ontotheological foundations of an epistemic realism, in
the sense of an ethico-political imperative embedded in the nature of things.28 The sovereign
state and territoriality become the necessary effects of anarchy, contingency, disorder that
are assumed to exist independent of and prior to any rational or linguistic conception of
them. In epistemic realism, the search for security through sovereignty is not a political
choice but the necessary reaction to an anarchical condition: Order is man-made and good; chaos
is natural and evil. Out of self-interest, men must pursue this good and constrain the evil of excessive
will through an alienation of individual powers to a superior, indeed supreme, collective power. In
short, the security of epistemic realism is ontological, theological and teleological: that is,
metaphysical. We shall see, from Marx's and Nietzsche's critiques, the extent to which Hobbesian
security and epistemic realism rely on social constructions posing as apodictic truths for their
power effects. There is not and never was a "state of nature" or a purely "self-interested
man"; there is, however, clearly an abiding fear of violent and premature death that compels
men to seek the security found in solidarity. The irony, perhaps even tragedy, is that by
constituting the first science of security; Hobbes made a singular contribution to the eventual
subversion of the metaphysical foundations of solidarity.

The AFF assumes a mechanical notion of the international system it is inaccurate
Forsburg 2K5
(Tumas, Economic Incentives, ideas, and the End of the Cold War; Gorbachev and German Unification journal of cold war studies 7.2,
http://muse.jhu.edu/jou rnals/journal_of_cold_war_studies/v007/7.2forsberg.pdf)

No doubt, many exchanges between states are characterized in these terms. According to Robert
Keohane, for example, specific reciprocity, which refers to situations in which certain partners exchange
items of equivalent value specific in terms of the rights and duties of particular actors, plays an
important role in world politics. 20 Yet, the international system is not a market in which political
issues can be traded the way equities are on the stock exchange. As Keohane notes, the problem for
specific reciprocity is that the measurement of equivalence is often impossible to carry out without
market prices that would show whether an exchange involves equivalent values. Therefore, specific
reciprocity is not a sure fire recipe for promoting cooperation. 21 This limitation decreases the scope of
exchange despite the existence of mutual benefit.


**Aff Answers**

QPQ K 2ac

1. Theres no impact to this K the Vaughan evidence doesnt say extinction its
really hyper-tagged.

2. Solving corruption via quid pro quo equalizes the donors and receivers.
IRIN 07 [Oct. 4, http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74635]

One of the main conclusions of the study was that there should be increased awareness of the
risks of aid mismanagement and corruption among those delivering and receiving humanitarian
assistance in Afghanistan, said Delesgues, one of the report's authors. "There are two people
to whom aid workers should be accountable: people who give the money, the taxpayers in donor
countries; and the people who receive it, the beneficiaries in Afghanistan," Delesgues said.

3. Perm do the plan through a gift-giving paradigm.
a. Not severance doesnt exclude anything from the plan.
b. perm solves Vaughan concedes embrace the contradiction.
Hume 02 [Valerie, Ministry of Social Affairs & Health, Aug 3, Conference on Gender Equality
and Women in the Arctic]

Vaughan argues that two basic economic paradigms coexist in the world today, the exchange
paradigm based on short-sighted and divisive self-interest and the unconditional gift giving
paradigm gift economy which seeks to satisfy needs and consolidate
communal life. These paradigms are logically contradictory, but also
complementary. One is visible, the other invisible; one highly valued, the other undervalued
(Vaughan 1991, 84). The economic invisibility and the subtle, manipulative appropriation of the
gift economy provides the context for the parasitical gender relations that allow men to
dominate women. The former is essentially connected with elite white men; the latter with
women and indigenous cultures based on traditional gift economies. For Vaughan, women have
been assigned the role of caring unilaterally for children which is why they are more likely to
develop the logic of the gift (2002, 3, 7). Adopting such a world view does not require one to be a
mother, however, but refers to the need to adopt mothering as a logic of social interaction,
displacing the abstract male model of doing business as the heart of social action. We must
remember that it is not logical, rational or honorable to adopt the masculinist dog eat dog-code
of global ethics; blaming dogs for mans insatiable greed to be on the top is not only immature
and irrational, but the mothering logic is an unquestionably rational and sustainable politics of
wellbeing and peace.

4. they only reject our quid-pro-quo meaning other qpq exists post-plan their
impacts inevitable.
a. iran.
Dagher 07 [Sam, CSM Correspondent, Nov 7,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1107/p07s03-wome.html]

The US has accused Iran of providing insurgents weaponry to target US forces, something Iran has denied. But Rear Adm. Greg
Smith said Tuesday that recent weapons and ammunition finds provide "evidence" that Iran has decreased its shipments to Iraq of
rockets and sophisticated roadside bombs, which have taken a heavy toll on US forces this year. US Defense Secretary Robert
Gates said last week that it was "too early to tell" if the drop in attacks was due to any Iranian
effort. But he and US commanders noted a nearly 50 percent drop in attacks using explosively
formed penetrators (EFPs) from July to October. In Tehran, analysts say the release, long
sought by Iran, may be a quid pro quo. "Maybe this is reciprocity for the reduction of violence in
Iraq," says Mohammad Hadi Semati, of Tehran University. "It is definitely a sign from both
sides that they are trying to send signals to each other, to disengage, to calm things down."

b. Syria.
Blanford 07 [Nicholas, Dec, TIME,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690032,00.html]

The recent decision by March 14 to opt for Suleiman who is seen as having close ties to the
militant Shi'ite Hizballah, which spearheads the pro-Syrian opposition to the Western-backed
government in Beirut apparently caught the opposition by surprise, not having expected the
general's candidacy to be promoted by its political foes. "The Syrians are very happy," says Sami
Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst. "I think this is what the Syrians always wanted
Suleiman." Parliament is scheduled to reconvene on December 7, when Suleiman is expected to
be elected President. With the announcement of Suleiman's candidacy immediately following
Annapolis, it was widely assumed that Syria and the U.S. had brokered a deal to fill the Lebanese
presidency as a way to help ease months of tension between their respective allies in Lebanon.

c. prefer our specific evidence over their generic gift-giving not inevitable 2nc crap.
5. turn gift-giving trickles down to exchange paradigm in a worse form.
Fournier 05 [Valerie, Ephemera Theory & Politics in Review,
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/5-4/5-4fournier.pdf]

So, the volume provides a conceptual framework for envisaging an alternative economy
to global capitalism, and provides evidence that the bases of the gift economy are
already with us, and have always been. The gift economy may have been hidden and
trivialised by capitalism and the exchange paradigm on which it relies, but it is
manifested in the generosity of nature, of motherly care, of communication. The task is
to bring these everyday acts of giving to visibility and build upon them. However, as
several of the authors recognise, there is a danger in seeking to revalorise gift giving;
that is, it could easily be reduced to relationships of exchange, as has been done in much
anthropological research. Rauna Kuokkanen develops this point particularly well in her
essay on The gift as a world view in indigenous thought. She argues that from Mauss
classical essay on the gift, anthropological studies have re-inscribed giving within
economic relations of exchange; indeed, Mauss talked of gift exchange, of contracts and
purchases. He accounted for indigenous gifts to gods or nature in terms of sacrifices
through which people exchanged contracts with the spirits of the dead and the gods.
This view of the gift as a mode of exchange characterised by obligations, countergifts,
paybacks, forced reciprocity, and even violence has informed most anthropological
studies and modern studies of the gift. For example, Bourdieu sees the gift as a mark of
symbolic violence which is the most economic mode of domination. From this
perspective, gifts give power to the giver and work through the accumulation of social
capital in the form of debt, homage, respect, loyalty. To counter this classical view of
the gift, Kuokkanen provides the example of the Sami peoples grave gifts and gifts to
nature. She argues that these gifts have no economic function of expected return, but
serve to establish continuity between the living and the dead, connectedness between
humans and the land on which they depend not only for survival but also as a
repository of traditions, culture, and knowledge. These gifts should not be seen as
sacrifice, as suggested by Mauss, as this would imply some forced giving in the hope
of receiving something back, in other words it would re-inscribe the gift within a
relationships of exchange based on forced reciprocity.
6. turn Vaughans gift-giving paradigm is essentialist this causes the impact.
Fournier 05 [Valerie, Ephemera Theory & Politics in Review,
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/5-4/5-4fournier.pdf]

One of the fundamental problems of Vaughans thesis is its incoherent position on
gender essentialism. One the one hand, Vaughan refutes biological essentialism by
suggesting that womens commonality comes from what they do rather than what they
are. Vaughan insists that gender is a relational quality, a process rather than a
biological property. On the other hand, essentialism seems to creep back in two forms in
various parts of her account of the gift economy: firstly there are sometimes strong hints
of biological essentialism, and secondly essentialism points its head in terms of
universalist claims about womanhood. On the first point, Vaughans position against
biological essentialism in her analysis of womanhood is difficult to reconcile with the
connections she draws between male competitive and aggressive behaviour
characteristic of capitalism and war, and the possession of a penis:
Since the penis is the identifying property of those in the non nurturing category, male, it is not
surprising that the individuals and the groups that are competing for dominance provide
themselves with even larger and more dangerous category markers. From sticks to swords and
from guns to missiles. (p. 21-22)
Thus whilst womanhood is not grounded in biology, manhood seems to be so. In
addition, whilst Vaughan refutes (albeit inconsistently) biological essentialism, she
resorts to another form of essentialism: universalism. Whilst she denies that women
commonality is rooted in biology, she still assumes that there are some universal
patterns, traits, characteristics that make up womanhood (and manhood) and provide the
bases for the development of gendered economic identities. Thus for Vaughan, women
are similar because they make themselves by making others through satisfying their
needs unliterary, beyond the exchange process (p. 32). This other orientation means
that womens identities are strongly anchored in the gift economy, even if they come to
participate in the exchange economy by entering the labour market. Women remain in
the gift logic in many parts of their lives, even when they have been absorbed into the
market and see the world mainly through the eye glasses of the exchange paradigm (p.
23). This simultaneous denial of biological essentialism and reliance on universalist forms of
essentialism is reproduced in many of the other contributions in the book. For example,
Kaarina Kailo, having stressed the non-essentialist position of Vaughan goes on to
suggest that girls as a group are more sensitive to the environment, they are less racist
and also more collaborative in their working lives (p. 60). This connection between
womanhood and the environment could have been grounded in a material analysis of
the sexual division of labour; thus, for example, some ecofeminist such as Plumwood
(1993) or Warren (1997) see womens predominant role in traditional agriculture and
household management (cooking, food production, child care, health care) as providing
the basis for their close understanding of, and sympathy towards, the environment.
However, no such explanation is offered here. In addition, some contributions seem to
re-introduce biological essentialism. For example, Hildur Ve claims that without
arguing for a special womens essence, I find it important to take as a point of departure
the experience and learning that result from the bearing of, giving birth to and nurturing
of children (p. 119). This begs the question of how this position that foregrounds
childbearing differs from a biologically essentialist one, and what this means for women
who do not bear children. In sum, the position of Vaughan and her fellow contributors on essentialism is
problematic on several counts: firstly it is inconsistent by on the one hand explicitly
rejecting biological essentialism, on the other hand sometimes resorting to claims that
come close to biological determinism. Secondly, it relies on universalist claims about
womanhood, thus womens commonality may be grounded in what they do rather than
in their biology, but it remains that women are assumed to share something that clearly
inscribes them within the gift economy. The articulation of a common experience giving
women a common voice has long been considered problematic within feminism (e.g.
Butler, 1992; hooks, 1990; Rich, 1980) since it is based on representations of women
that privilege certain experiences (e.g. white, middle class, heterosexual) and tend to
exclude and silence others (e.g. black, working class, lesbian).
7. gift-giving exchange leads to totalitarianism and primordalism circumvents
solvency.
Fournier 05 [Valerie, Ephemera Theory & Politics in Review,
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/5-4/5-4fournier.pdf]

Another problem in Vaughans thesis, also reproduced in some of the other contributions, is
the assumed primordial nature of the gift over exchange. For example, Vaughan asserts that
gifts are prior to exchange (p. 26). Such assertions are
problematic on several counts. Firstly no explanation is provided as to why we should be
convinced that this is the case. Secondly, it has a jarring moralistic tone that not only fails to
convince but is also dangerous. Just like invoking some divine law, or law of
nature, invoking the primordial nature of the gift presents the potential danger of
totalitarianism. Does it mean that we should simply and uncritically accept the superiority of the
gift economy over other economic models because of its presumed
pre-existence? Even if we accept that gift preceded exchange, why should this make it
better? This primordialism appears in many of the other contributions. For example,
for Lee Ann Labar, in the gift economy, we are all able to be our natural selves (p.
299); for Kaarina Kailo patriarchy is a societal disease, while gift giving creates an
alignment with nature (p. 61). Both Heide Gotter-Abendroth and Hildur Ve make a
similar move in relation to matriarchy that is taken to be an originary system (p. 124)
whilst patriarchy is derivative. Throughout these arguments, it is as if invoking the connection
between gift and nature (a connection that is simply asserted) was proof enough of the goodness
and moral superiority of the gift. However, we could ask why give such prominence and moral
weight to nature (especially, if the authors also profess to adopt an anti-essentialist view)? Why
should nature be assumed to be good? And how would the author adjudicate on what is / isn't
nature? Moreover, this primordialism is not only problematic but also unnecessary to the stance
the authors of this volume want to take: if the aim is to offer the gift economy as an alternative
to global capitalism, the contributors to this volume could have relied on ethical arguments,
arguments that would of course not be grounded in the certainty or superiority of nature but in
uncertain ethical choices.

8. reject their claims Vaughan conflates terms that all need to be assessed
individually.
Fournier 05 [Valerie, Ephemera Theory & Politics in Review,
http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/5-4/5-4fournier.pdf]

A third problem with Vaughans thesis is that it tends to collapse patriarchy, capitalism,
exchange economy, neoliberalism as if we could all agree that all these terms indexed
the same thing. Whilst equating neoliberalism, capitalism and exchange might be less
problematic; conflating (without much discussion) capitalism and patriarchy is more
problematic. Vaughan talks of patriarchal capitalism, this system is allegedly based on
a world view that sees everything in terms of exchange; but does that mean that there is
a non-patriarchal form of capitalism? Are patriarchy and capitalism the same thing? If
so, how did it come to be so? These questions are unfortunately not considered. This
conflation and loose usage of concepts is again reproduced in other chapters in the
volume; for example, Bhanumati Natarajan claims that: Patriarchal institutions of
capitalism have expanded more than ever due to the mantra of globalisation, which goes
beyond privatisation, taking control of biodiversity and knowledge for control of
peoples lives, just as colonisation did 500 years ago (p. 113). I certainly do not wish to
defend capitalism, patriarchy, or globalisation from the critique to which they are
subjected, but simply would suggest that the critique could have been more powerful
had its terms (globalisation, capitalism, patriarchy) be used and connected more sharply.
9. the motherly nurturing claim is false its an exchange.
Estola 03 [Estola, Dept of Education Sciences at U Oulu,
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514269713/isbn9514269713.pdf]

Vaughan (1998) also seems to avoid talking about the body, although she points out
that mothering begins with concrete, material gifts in the world of nurturing. Vaughan
(1998, 37), however, emphasizes the meaning of words and considers words the infants
first gifts to its mother: The mother first nurtures her child with goods and services, but
she also nurtures her with words. The child is actually able to participate in turn-taking
with the mother, verbally giving her communicative gifts before she is able to give her
material gifts. Vaughan fails to point out, however, that the mother receives gifts
from
her baby long before the baby utters its first word, namely gifts of embodied
communication, especially touch and eye contact.