Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Overview
Second is our affective state phobia argument turns the caseunder conditions of affective
state phobia the population is effectively walled off from the government, as civil society
generates its appeal from being separated from the governmenteven if the aff can
momentarily produce some sense or concept of radical freedom, that sense stokes broader
cultural discourses that reproduce conservative fears of the state that are linked to broader
antipathies against different personsthe state is the entity that wants to socially engineer
racial equality, the state brings culture into politics by allowing for abortions, and so on
and so forth
Lilla 2010 (Mark, Professor of Philosophy at Princeton, The Tea Party jacobins in The new
York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-partyjacobins/?page=2)
the Jacobin spirit could shape our politics for some time, given how well it dovetails with
the spirits of Woodstock and Wall Street, and given the continuing influence of Fox News and talk radio. (Rush Limbaugh alone has
millions of daily listeners.) It is already transforming American conservatism. A wise man once summed up the history of
colonialism in a phrase: the colonized eventually colonize the colonizer. This is exactly what is happening on the right
today: the more it tries to exploit the energy of the Tea Party rebellion, the cruder the
conservative movement becomes in its thinking and rhetoric. Ronald Reagan was a master of populist rhetoric, but
Still,
he governed using the policy ideas of intellectuals he knew and admired (Milton Friedman, Irving Kristol, George Gilder, and Charles Murray among them). Todays
We are experiencing just one more aftershock from the libertarian eruption that we all,
whatever our partisan leanings, have willed into being. For half a century now Americans have been
rebelling in the name of individual freedom. Some wanted a more tolerant society with
greater private autonomy, and now we have it, which is a good thingthough it also brought us more out-of-wedlock births, a soft pornographic
alone.
Others
wanted to be free from taxes and regulations so they could get rich fast, and they
haveand its left the more vulnerable among us in financial ruin, holding
precarious jobs, and scrambling to find health care for their children . We wanted our
popular culture, and a drug trade that serves casual users while destroying poor American neighborhoods and destabilizing foreign nations.
two revolutions. Well, we have had them. Now an angry group of Americans wants to be
freer stillfree from government agencies that protect their health, wealth, and well-
being; free from problems and policies too difficult to understand; free from parties and
coalitions; free from experts who think they know better than they do; free from politicians
who dont talk or look like they do (and Barack Obama certainly doesnt). They want to say what they have to say without fear of
contradiction, and then hear someone on television tell them theyre right. They dont want the rule of the people, though thats what they say. They want to be people
without rulesand, who knows, they may succeed. This is America, where wishes come true. And where no one remembers the adage Beware what you wish for.
Race
Neoliberalism targets, removes, renders invisible, and eradicates Americas populations of
color
Henry A. Giroux, Professor at McMaster University in English and Cultural Studies
Department, Reading Hurricane Katrina: Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability,
College Literature 33.3 171-196 2006
The Bush administration was not simply unprepared for Hurricane Katrina as it denied that the federal government alone had the resources to
address catastrophic events; it actually felt no responsibility for the lives of poor blacks and others marginalized by poverty and relegated to the
outskirts of society. Increasingly,
structured around the intersection of race and class inequalities, on the one hand, and state violence, on the other, has long existed, the new version of biopolitics adds
benefits and education to a massive percentage of its population" (2006, 87). While the
social contract has been suspended in varying degrees since the 1970s, under the Bush
Administration it has been virtually abandoned. Under such circumstances, the state no
longer feels obligated to take measures that prevent hardship, suffering, and death. The
state no longer protects its own disadvantaged citizensthey are already seen as dead
within a transnational economic and political framework. Specific populations now occupy
a globalized space of ruthless politics in which the categories of "citizen" and "democratic
representation," once integral to national politics, are no longer recognized. In the past, people who were
marginalized by class and race could at least expect a modicum of support from the government, either because of the persistence of a drastically reduced social
Hurricane Katrina.
An attack on the postcolonial state as the author of violence73 and its drive to produce a modern citizenry may
seem cathartic, without producing the semblance of an alternative vision of a new political
community or fresh forms of life among existing political communi- ties. Central to this critique is an assault on the
state and other modern institutions said to disrupt some putatively natural flow of history. Tradition, on this logic, is uprooted
to make room for grafted social forms; modernity gives birth to an intolerant and insolent Leviathan, a
repository of violence and instrumental rationality's finest speci- men. Civil society - a realm of humaneness, vitality, creativity, and harmony - is
superseded, then torn asunder through the tyranny of state-building. The
however,
has also grown to become more heterodox - to become more than simply modernity's
reckless agent against hapless nativism. The state is also seen as an expression of greater
capacities against want, hunger, and injustice; as an escape from the arbitrariness of
communities established on narrower rules of inclusion/exclusion; as identity removed somewhat from
doubt, the modern state has undermined tra- ditional values of tolerance and
pluralism, subjecting indigenous so- ciety to Western-centered rationality. But tradition can also conceal particularism
and oppression of another kind. Even the most elastic interpretation of universality cannot find virtue in attachments re- furbished by
hatred, exclusivity, or religious bigotry. A negation of the state is no guarantee that a bridge to
universality can be built. Perhaps the task is to rethink modernity, not to seek refuge in a blind celebration of tradition. Outside, the
state continues to inflict a self-producing "security dilemma"; inside, it has stunted the emergence of more humane forms of political expres- sion.
But there
are always sites of resistance that can be recovered and sustained. A rejection of
the state as a superfluous leftover of modernity that continues to straitjacket the South Asian imagination must be
linked to the project of creating an ethical and humane order based on a restructuring of the state system that privileges the mighty and the rich
over the weak and the poor.74 Recognizing the constrictions of the modern Third World state, a
reconstruction of state-society
re- lations inside the state appears to be a more fruitful avenue than wishing the
make social change . The Act established new rules of law, but it accomplished much more, and its full effects are still being felt-and I do mean "felt"--throughout the society. The new rules were simply stated. The Act banned "discrimination or segregation" in the provision
of goods and services, even by private entities, on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin," and outlawed discrimination or
segregation in employment because of a person's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." It also forbade discrimination by the federal
government on the ground of "race, color, or national origin" in any of its programs and activities. The
represent a simple recrafting of the applicable rules and remedies. It did not merely rewrite the canons of
employment law. It did not mean only that in the future, employers, merchants, and the government (if law-abiding) would have to adhere to a
The Act brought into being a whole new model of conduct that,
consciously and deliberately, overturned doctrines embedded in American culture-and, more widely speaking, European culture--for several centuries. These
doctrines carried different articulations and emphases over time--black inferiority,
"separate but equal," and "states' rights" are but three--but, when reduced to their
essentials, they resulted in the basic notion of white privilege . Enactment of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 constituted a formal, national rebuke of this detestable, but timehonored concept . The Act was, as already stated, far more than an employment manual or sales guide. It put forward new ideas
about everyday relations between individuals-- not only in the workplace or in stores, but, implicitly, in all aspects of human interaction. The
ideas were essentially two: (1) that each human being has rights equal to any other, at least in the public realm, and (2) that segregation by race is
The Act, put into its full historical context, constituted "culture-shifting" as
well as "rule-shifting," attaining simultaneously all five aims of legal reform. It gave
victims of discrimination new rights and remedies. It instructed the government to
wrong.
promulgate and enforce new rules of conduct for itself. It altered the conduct of
private entities and citizens--dramatically, in the South . It expressed a new moral standard. And--I
believe, although I cannot easily document my belief--it
see signs
of the change all around me. Perhaps the most credible monitor is television--the cultural medium that binds together more
Americans than any other. On the American television screen of 1996, black and brown faces [FN15] are everywhere: on situation comedies, in
dramas, on talk shows, on sports programs, at news desks, and in advertisements; in 1966--when I was in high school-- integrated depictions on
television were exceedingly rare. Many forces have helped to integrate the world of television--and the world of television is admittedly not an
imitation or reflection of the day to day experiences of Americans off the screen--but the
never contend that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even three
decades after its passage, ended discrimination or racism. (I am also, admittedly, neither a sociologist nor an
historian.) But this point seems instinctively right, at least to someone who has seen the evolution of American culture over the past fifty years:
cultural ideals have changed, even if cultural realities still lag . At least in part because of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 [FN16]--the most important statutory embodiment of the ideal of racial justice--American culture, American government, and
the American people have absorbed the concepts of equality and integration embodied in the Act as the proper ethical framework for the
resolution of issues of race. Outright segregationists like David Duke, and genetic supremacists like William Shockley, are remarkable for their
contemporary scarcity; in 1954, views similar to theirs were widely held and admired, both within and without government. [FN17]
an explicit
challenge to the state phobia that regarded state power as a phenomenon with its own
essential characteristics and dynamics. At the heart of this state phobia is an essentialist
conception of the state that enables administrative, welfare, bureaucratic, fascist and
totalitarian forms of state all to be regarded as expressions of the same underlying form, such
that there is a kinship, a sort of genetic continuity or evolutionary implication between different forms of state (Birth of Biopolitics, p187). Foucault
objects, firstly, that this essentialist conception of the state allows its protagonists to deduce
a political analysis from first principles and to avoid altogether the need for empirical and
historical knowledge of contemporary political reality. Secondly, he points out that state
phobia is not confined to the left and that the versions current in his intellectual milieu
overlook the long tradition of suspicion of the state from within twentieth century liberalism. His analysis of the origins and
relates to the intellectual and political context in which these lectures were written (Birth of Biopolitics, p186). The lectures included
emergence of German neoliberalism seeks to show how this kind of critique of the state and its intrinsic and irrepressible dynamism was already formulated during
the period from 1930 to 1945 in the context of efforts to criticise the whole range of interventionist policies from Keynesianism to National Socialism and Soviet state
He was not an anarchist. On the contrary, during the period in which these lectures were written, Foucault was at the very least a willing observer of efforts to rethink
the political orientation and strategies of the French left. Recent commentators have made much of his association with elements of the so-called Second Left, a
minority current within the Socialist Party with links to the CFDT.11 The anti-statist self-management approach of the latter shared some of the concerns of
neoliberals. It may or may not be true, as Behrent claims, that Foucaults interest in neoliberalism appears to owe much to his attraction to the Second Left.12
However, it is against the background of such debates, and electoral failure of the Left in 1978, that he raised a question about the nature of socialist governmentality
at the end of the fourth lecture: What would really be the governmentality appropriate to socialism? Is there a governmentality appropriate to socialism? (Birth of
Biopolitics, p94) His answer was that if there is such a thing as socialist governmentality, it remained to be invented
Dont conflate all statism with tyrannythe task is not to decenter the state
Villadsen and Dean 2012 (Kaspar and Mitchell, Associate Professor of Sociology at
Copenhagen Business School and Research Professo or Sociology at Newcastle University,
State-Phobia, Civil Society, and a Certain Vitalism, Constellations 19.3)
While there undoubtedly are many other aspects to the political context of these lectures including Foucaults growing involvement with the events in Iran and his
intellectual practice of the exegesis of primary texts (and the use of secondary sources) that forms the main body of the lectures; the occasional methodological and
heuristic statements that often appear as a summing up and as an attempt to define the possible analytical path Foucault proposes to take; and those statements that
Framework
2NC Overview
Limits Good
Our version of debate centers on A STABLE point of discussion two internal links to
advocacy and decision-making
1. Clash we force students to argue over points of action their interpretation kills a stable
point of clash because there is not equal starting ground that is functionally the same as
playing tennis with no opponent means we hit the ball into their court and nobody can hit it
back which means we cant process info or go in depth on issues
Real world politics proves we are right if there is a general agreement and a lack of specific
proposal to remedy the problem, it causes political gridlock this is proven by the immigration
debates everyone agrees about the state of the problem and that it needs to be changed, but a
lack of specific proposals eliminates the possibility for change only a stable point of clash
allows for specific proposals which resolve gridlock and violence that occurs due to it
2. Creativity We agree that a debate where the aff has to say the exact same thing every time
would be bad what makes debate with a resolution awesome is that the aff can take a variety
of creative perspectives toward defending a topical plan without leaving the negative in the
dark they go too far and allow the aff to talk about anything which eliminates the value of
debate because it becomes 2 ships passing in the night explained above by the tennis example
Finding a way to be topical increases creativity and problem-solving ability finding a way to
be creative within the resolution is more real world whenever you face a problem in life there
will be certain constraints that you have to operate within
Good organizational judgment is often created by leaders--not as great "deciders" themselves, but as more egoless
developers of the right context and structures to allow their organizations to nd solutions more
collectively. Organizational judgment usually involves reframing decisions as a participative
process of problem solving . It takes advantage--and often considerable advantage--of the widening array of
data now available in the world, and the advancing technological and analytical tools to interpret it. It is shaped by, and often itself
shapes, powerful organizational culture based on values such as participation, deliberation, diversity of thought, constructive
challenge and debate, and the like. But armed with more and better information, decision makers in
turn face even more choices and nuances about what they must decide and why. Another aspect of the new complexity
is the ongoing knowledge revolution. More than just information, knowledge--in the heads and hands of professionals--is increasingly
appreciated as the source of value creation for businesses and enterprises. How can organizations mobilize that in order to make better decisions?
Part of this same revolution is that organizations are (to use the now popular vernacular) "getting atter"--meaning, in varying ways, leaders have
broader spans of managerial control, and structures
that had or was developing this kind of judging capability by accident. The capability for an organization to perform
in this way is invested in, built, and earned, rather than resulting from luck or a little bit of tinkering here or there. Even the ancient Athenians and
McKinsey & Company, which had well-established processes and values within which decisions developed, reect organizations in which the
capability was deliberately built over time. Consider the "Architectural Elements" Within the Cultural and Market Context
Whether using analytical software, blogging across the enterprise, embracing more democratic approaches to employee or managerial
participation, employing a new problem-solving process, changing how to engage a leadership team, or using a different organizational design,
our cases show enterprises that built judgment by assembling and combining different pieces of infrastructure and process into a new kind of
"system" to better nd solutions to problems. Though not always done consciously, in the end they all created a mechanism that embraced more
collective intelligence and understanding. If perhaps too fancy a word, an architecture can still be seen among the different dimensions of people
working together that, as constructed and operated, provided a better way of coming to a decision. That architecture, however, varies from
organization to organization based on a variety of variables. These might include the cultural traditions of the enterprise, the particular market
conditions in which it operates, and the stage of development and sophistication about decision making it aspires to. Context must guide which
pieces are assembled and how. There is no one-size-ts-all blueprint, but some kind of blueprint (implicit or explicit) is nonetheless visible in
every case. Be Ready for Change As the previous themes would naturally suggest, taking
"bolted on" to the old way of working. And, as mentioned already, it will be transformational not just for your organization, but also very likely
for you as a leader. Understand That, Like Health, Organizational
Continuous Maintenance We would argue that organizational judgment is, in fact, one other dimension of
organizational health--as a capability, it offers
exercised and maintained . Organizations that build judgment do so with a journey of continuous
improvement, and are constantly learning through practice , both how to improve it and how to
maintain it for the future. In every case of our study, we see judgment that has been built to be sustainable, and used
repeatedly to improve decisions on the horizon beyond the challenge of the immediate
moment .