1AR Discourse Ks

Strategy of the 1AR K

Word Links
Development, poor, poverty [solutions to], poverty sector, public assistance, terrorism,
terrorist, underclass,

Development
The revolutionary critic must always interrogate the institutions and structures that
reproduce the systemic oppressions of modern society; rejection of the roots of those
structures is a necessary prerequisite to unbiased critique
Landstreicher [Wolfi. Barbaric Thoughts: On a Revolutionary Critique of Civilization, the Anarchist Library. February 8, 2010]
Revolutionary critique is a critique that aims to challenge the present society at its roots in order to create a
rupture with what is and bring about radical social transformation. What else could revolutionary mean? But there are many implications here. First of all, revolutionary
critique is practical. It seeks a method for working itself out in the world, for practically challenging the present social order. In other words, it is part of a real struggle against the world that
exists. For this reason, it also begins from the present. A practical, revolutionary challenge to the present will make use of the past and the future, but will not be defined by them. Rather they are
tools to use in the attack against the present social order. Revolutionary critique is a practice that strives to grasp everything immediately here and now. It involves an ongoing, incisive
examination of the state, capitalist social relationships, class struggle and technological development as we encounter them. Since revolutionary critique aims at a rupture with the present order, it

It investigates their fundamental relationships to each other and

what these relationships mean. Thus, it is not so much interested in their excesses or the ways in which they may
contradict the values they proclaim, but in how at their best, even when they live up to their proclaimed values, they fail to meet
the basic needs and desires of human beings. This society is fundamentally anti-life, anti-human
and anti-individual, simply because its own reproduction requires the subjection of living human
individuals to its needs. Revolutionary critique starts from this realization. Revolutionary critique
also absolutely rejects moral critique. This may be the most important aspect in terms of my argument. Revolution, in practice, is amoral. Even if at times, in our
begins with an attack upon all the institutions of this society.

struggles, a few use the rhetoric of justice and rights, our revolutionary battle has nothing to do with justice or rights or any other value external to us. We want to overturn this reality not

because we want our lives back! Morality belongs to this social order. It has been used
to keep us in our place always backed up by the force of arms. Morality serves well for maintaining what
is, because its final word is always constraint. Since we want to destroy what is, we must also destroy morality especially that which exists within us
because it is unjust or evil or even unfree, but
over and over again

so that we can attack this society without constraint. At the same time, revolutionary critique does not reject principles.[1] Rather it helps us to determine a principled manner for acting

The lack of a revolutionary critique can lead us to face specific experiences

of domination, exploitation and oppression as isolated incidents, and to seek an immediate solution by
any means necessary. A revolutionary critique can expose the interconnections between these
experiences and show how the solutions offered by the institutions only serve to increase their
power over our lives. When we make a decision to take our lives back in revolt against the social order, we are choosing a way of encountering the world. It does not make sense for us to
use any means other than those that embody this end of taking back our lives. This is true on the personal level and on the level of social
revolution. Every time we compromise with power, that part of our life is lost to us. There are so many aspects of
concretely against the ruling order in our daily lives.

our lives where we are constrained to compromise against our will.

The evaluations of the negative are irrelevant in the face of social critique; the judge should
question the motivations and structures upon which the negative relies, and how those
politics affect the personal lives of the people involved in the round before assuming that
the argumentative assumptions upon which the hypothetical world of the NC rests are true.

No matter the context, the word development evokes the memory of what those
lower in society are not, constructing a form of society where the developing are
inferior
Esteva, (Mexican activist, "deprofessionalized intellectual" and founder of the Universidad de la Tierra in the Mexican city of Oaxaca - (Gustavo, The Development Dictionary A Guide
to Knowledge as Power, ed by Wolfgang Sachs, p. 10-11)

the meanings associated with

development

Throughout the century,

urban
and colonial development concurred with many others to transform the word
'development', step by step, into one with contours that are about as preciseas those of an amoeba. It is now a mere algorithm whose significance depends on the context in which it is employed.
It may allude to a housing project, to the logical sequence of a thought, to the awakening of a child's mind, to a chess game or to the budding of a teenager's breasts. But even though it lacks, on

is firmly seated in popular and intellectual perception. And it always appears as an

evocation of a net of significances in which the person who uses it is irremediably trapped.
Development cannot delink itself from the words with which it was formed - growth, evolution,
maturation. Just the same, those who now use the word cannot free themselves from a web of meanings
that impart a specific blindness to their language, thought and action. No matter the context in
its own, any precise denotation, it

which it is used. or the precise connotation that the person using it wants to give it, the expression becomes qualified and coloured by
meanings perhaps unwanted. The word always implies a favourable change, a step from the simple
to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better. The word indicates that one is doing well because one is
advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and toward a desirable goal. The word retains to this day the meaning given to it a century ago by the creator of ecology, Haeckel:

'Development is, from this moment on, the magic word with which we will solve all the mysteries that surround
us or. at least. that which will guide us toward their solution.' But for two-thirds of the people on earth, this positive meaning of the word 'development' - profoundly rooted after two centuries
of its social construction -is a reminder of what they are not. It is a reminder of an undesirable, undignified condition. To escape
from it, they need to be enslaved to others' experiences and dreams.

Use of the word developing confines those in emerging countries to positions of

inferiority and defines them a homogenous entity to molded to the ideals of the
developed world
Esteva [Gustavo, Board Member and Interim Chairman of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1992 (Development, Development Dictionary, pg. 6-7)]
At the end of World War II, the United States was a formidable and incessant productive machine, unprecedented in history. It was indisputably at the center of the world. It was the master. All
the institutions created in those years recognized that fact: even the United Nations Charter echoed the United States Constitution. But the Americans wanted something more. They needed to
make entirely self- explicit their new position in the world. And they wanted to consolidate that hegemony and make it permanent. For these purposes, they conceived political campaign on a
global scale that clearly bore their seal. They even conceived an appropriate emblem to identify the campaign. And they carefully chose the opportunity to launch both January 20, 1949. That
very clay, the day on which President Truman took office, a new era was opened for the world. We must embark [President Truman said] on a bold new program for making the benefits of our
scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. The old imperialism exploitation for foreign profit has no place in our plans.
What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing. By using for the first time in such context the word, 'underdeveloped', Truman changed the

. Never before had

a word been universally accepted on the very day of its political coinage. A new perception of one's own self, and of
the other, was, suddenly created. Two hundred years of social construction of the historically political meaning of the term, development, were
meaning of development and created the emblem, a euphemism, used ever since to allude either discreetly or inadvertently to the era oft American hegemony

successfully usurped and transmogrified. A political and philosophical proposition of Marx, packaged the era of development. American-style as a struggle against communism and at the service

succeeded in permeating both the popular and intellectual mind for the rest of the
century. Underdevelopment began, then, on January 20, 1949. On -that day,-two billion people became underdeveloped. In a real sense,
from that time on, they ceased being what they were, in all their diversity, and were transmogrified
into an inverted mirror of others' reality: a mirror that belittles them and sends them off to the end
of the queue, a mirror that defines their identity, which is really that of a heterogeneous and diverse majority, simply in the terms of
a homogenizing and narrow minority
of the hegemonic design of the United States,

Development discourse causes violence and suppression of identity

Escobar [Arturo 1995 (Ph.D. University of North Carolina; Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton University Press, p. 214]
development discourse, as this book has shown, has been the central and most ubiquitous operator of the
politics of representation and identity in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the postWorld War II period. Asia, Africa, and Latin America have
witnessed a succession of regimes of representationoriginating in colonialism and European modernity
but often appropriated as national projects in post-independence Latin America and postcolonial Africa and Asia each with its accompanying regime
of violence. As places of encounter and suppression of local cultures, women, identities, and
histories, these regimes of representation are originary sites of violence (Rojas de Ferro 1994). As a regime of
representation of this sort, development has been linked to an economy of production and desire,
but also of closure, difference, and violence. To be sure, this violence is also mimetic violence, a source of self-formation. Terror and violence circulate
and become, themselves, spaces of cultural production (Girard 1977 and Taussig 1987). But the modernized violence introduced with
colonialism and development is itself a source of identity . From the will to civilization in the nineteenth century to today, violence has been
The

We must debunk development discourse for any real change

Rist

Gilbert
, Professor of Political Science and teaches social and cultural anthropology, inter-cultural relations, and the history of development theories at the Graduate Institute of
Development Studies, 2010, Deconstructing Development Discourse, Buzzwords and Fuzzwords, p. 25

The time has come and it is indeed high time to debunk the development buzzword. To do so means that we
must define it properly relying on actual social practices, rather than wishful thinking. We must
be aware of its inclusion in a corpus of beliefs that are difficult to shatter, expose its mischievous
uses, and denounce its consequences. The most important thing, however, is to make it plain that
there is life after development certainly a different one from what we in the privileged regions are used to, but there is no evidence to suggest that we would lose
on such a deal.

Poverty
Using the word poor to refer to a group of people creates a dualism between the
normal and abnormal between the good and evil. This degenerates to violent
hatred of the target of their NC.
Ross 91 [Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Georgetown Law Journal, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, p. 1513-1528, AD: 5/27/09) JL]
The first rhetorical step, the creation of the abstraction the "poor," is an easily overlooked yet
powerful part of the rhetoric of poverty . We are so used to speaking of the poor as a distinct class that
we overlook the rhetorical significance of speaking this way. By focusing on the single variable of economic
wealth and then drawing a line on the wealth continuum, we create a class of people who are them,
not us. Creating this abstraction is, in one sense, merely a way of speaking. We do this because to speak of the world
in sensible ways we must resort to categories and abstractions. There are meaningful differences
between the circumstances of people below the poverty line and the circumstances of middle class
people, and to ignore these real differences can lead to injustice . n2 Thus, to speak of the "poor" is a sensible way to [*1500] talk. In
the rhetorical context, however, it is also much more. The creation of the category of the "poor", also makes possible the
assertion of their moral weakness. To assert their moral weakness, "they" must exist as a
conceptually distinct group. There is a long history of speaking of the poor as morally weak, or even
degenerate. n3 Thus, when we hear legal rhetoric about the poor, we often hear an underlying message of
deviance: we are normal, they are deviant. Our feelings about their deviance range [*1501] from empathy to violent hatred. Still, even in the
most benevolent view, they are not normal . Their deviance is a product of a single aspect of their lives, their relative wealth position. All other
aspects of their lives are either distorted by the label of deviance or ignored. By creating this class of
people, we are able at once to distinguish us from them and to appropriate normalcy to our lives
and circumstances. The rhetorical assertion of judicial helplessness is also connected to widely shared
and long-standing cultural assumptions about the nature of poverty . This rhetoric depends on the assumption that poverty is
somehow built into the basic structure of our society and system of law. We assume that the eradication of poverty, even if possible in theory, would require the radical transformation of our

The causes of poverty, we assume, are a product of a complex set of factors tied to politics,
culture, history, psychology, and philosophy. Thus, only in a radically different world might poverty
cease to exist. And, whatever the extent of the powers of the Court, radically remaking the world is not one of them. n4
society.

The role of the intellectual is to critically engage and question the negatives method
of knowledge production surrounding poverty. By discussing who the poor are and
what we should do about them, we construct a system of discursive violence that
strips the identified poor of their ability to act and defines their identity. Rejection
is key.
Yapa
[Lakshman, Prof of Geography @ Pennsylvania State, What Causes Poverty? A Post-Modern View, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Dec., 1996), pp. 707728, AD: 5/27/09) JL]

"development as discourse" differs radically from other perspectives

My view of
on developmentfree-market, socialist,
environmentally sustainable, grassroots development, and so on. "[S]uch analyses have generated proposals to modify the current regime of development: ways to improve upon this or that

In the conventional paradigms of development the object of study

is the poor themselves; strange as it may seem, the poor are not the object of study in this paper, at least not directly. My object of inquiry is
discourse: it is about the academic business of studying, defining, analyzing, writing, and speaking about the
poor. This shift of focus is not simply a matter of linguistic and discursive convention; it is because
the material conditions of the poor are causatively linked to the discourse about them. "Location of the author"
aspect, revised theories or conceptualizations" (Escobar 1992:25).

has at least two meanings: one is the sense of author as subjectas in the academic triangle of subject, object, and discourse. The other sense is more personal: if I were to discuss "poverty" at a
particular place and time, what topics will I choose to examine, what techniques of investigation will I use, what political and moral values will I bring to bear on the research? Important as it is, I

the author as subject of the

discourse on poverty and development is deeply implicated in the social construction of scarcity . I
have chosen not to locate the author (myself) in this personal sense. This is because the primary object of the paper was to show how

The power of an author has two dimensions: one is

derived from the discursive network extending from the theoretical selection of causes to actions, agency, and power; the other springs from institutional
identities of the author, as for example, a university president, a politician, a business executive, and so on. In my case the power that I wield as author is primarily
discursive; likewise, my institutional identity as a university teacher puts me even closer to the discursive realm. Although this paper is about poverty, the object of inquiry is not the
poor but the academics who teach and write about the poor. I have chosen academic discourse as object for two important reasons. First, discourse is, in my opinion, a part of
the problem of poverty. Second, my ability to act in the world, to exercise power, has to be
commensurate with my power as a teacher and author. I now return to the perennial question posed by my students, "What is your solution to
the problem?" My response is that I wish to shift the focus from the notion of a "solution in the world" (which is the intent of the question) to the notion of "your/my solution." The
"academic" work that I do on poverty is "my solution;" it is the "practice" of my politics. My "solution"
conclude by locating my authorship in the context of discourse and the resolution of the poverty problem.

does not treat the poor as a target group; in that sense, this particular academic work will not make any immediate material difference to the lives of the poor, although there is nothing to prevent

"My solution" is aimed

at fellow academics who, like myself, are deeply implicated in the problem and whose power lies
primarily in our capacity to engage the discourse critically. because of the stigma (the social taint) of being a claimant. Once
people place themselves within the discourse of poverty, their identity is defined in its terms. They
are positioned as subjects within it that is, they are themselves subjects of the discourse and understand
their own position through it. Poor people have things done to them. Being poor is to be placed in a position where other people have rights over you. Society's
academics (and many do) from playing interventionist roles. Nor is this work aimed at state bureaucrats whose role it is to design poverty policies.

institutional arrangements have sometimes focused on segregating the poor putting them in workhouses, for example to keep them away from the rest of us. Sometimes they have been
concerned to normalise the poor giving lessons in budgetary management, good housekeeping, or parenting with the aim of making them more like us. At other times the emphasis has

Although different policies on poverty

aim to do different things, they are framed by the discourse of poverty in that they see poor people
as the objects of policy people to whom things are done (often in their own best interests). Discourses in this sense
are also about relations of power. They organise positions and places in a field of power. So, in relation to poverty, they
empower (give power to) state agencies to monitor, assess or intervene in the lives of poor people. They empower some
agencies (both state and voluntary agencies) to evaluate the worth or desert of poor people before benefits or services are provided.
been on maintaining surveillance on the poor monitoring their behaviour to make sure that they behave properly.

Discourses may also conditionally empower or give power to poor people. Poor people may be enabled to look for work, to take courses, to receive extra benefits, to keep their children, so
long as they prove that they are the right sort of poor people.

Other Framework Cards

Its our ethical responsibility to criticize the Negs representations of violence Once
we hear the plight of those in poverty we must not be complicit in silence.
Ross 91 [Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Georgetown Law Journal, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, p. 1513-1528, AD: 5/29/09) JL]
This pattern of choice and rhetoric provides a structure for understanding the power of rhetoric. Out of an
understanding of the nature of the rhetoric of poverty emerges a responsibility, an ethic, incumbent on the
reader. As we read the Court's opinions embodying the rhetoric of poverty we are engaged in an activity with moral connotations. Once we have read the
opinions, there is no morally neutral position available--we must act as critics . Here, even silence is a
morally charged position. We, as readers, have a responsibility to resist the rhetorician's magic and
to see the subject of our inquiry as clearly and fully as possible . The essential points of this part of the article have relevance beyond the
bounds of the poverty cases. Each case we read, whatever its subject, represents a choice imposed on other people backed by the
threat or actuality of violence. n192 It may be a choice to terminate a woman's relationship with her
son, to send a man to death or to a cage for the rest of his life, or to allow the carnage of an
undeclared war to continue. Whatever the subject of the case, we cannot escape our responsibility
as readers. The Court's jurisprudence of poverty is nevertheless a sensible place to begin for two reasons. First, there is so much at stake in this area.
Critical inquiry into the constitutional status of poverty is needed from as many thoughtful and responsible vantage points as possible. These
cases are about our obligation to those members of our society who lack the very means of
subsistence. Second, the rhetoric of poverty is an especially illuminating example of the complex and
indirect power of rhetoric. These cases provide a great lesson in reading.

Links

Words
Speaking of a poverty sector as a thing we can locate creates an inauthentic
understanding of poverty.
Pacchioli 96 [David, Editor for researchers at Penn State, Deconstructing Poverty, June, research/penn state, http://www.rps.psu.edu/jun96/poverty.html, AD: 5/28/09) JL]
Speaking of a "poverty sector," Yapa suggests, creates a simplistic understanding in which the problem -as well as the poor themselves -- can be located (and separated) in physical space. In order to attack poverty
effectively, he argues, we must first "unpack" this kind of language. Thus, he has devoted some of his efforts to debunking basic geographic tools like the
GNP-per-capita map, whose widespread use in classrooms and textbooks "contributes to the myths of poverty and development." Yapa's objections to the GNP-per-capita map are manifold. First,

Treating [each] nation as a homogenous unit conceals the destructive aspects of

development," and sets up a dualistic view of the world, with "poor" and "non-poor" as mutually
exclusive territories. "Through the 'silence of omission' we are not taught to see poverty as a 'relation' -- between First and Third World nations, and between classes within a
he writes, "

Third World nation."

The term Public Assistance Implies Weakness Social Insurance is a better

alternative.
Ross 91 [Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Georgetown Law Journal, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, p. 1513-1528, AD: 5/28/09) JL]
the distinction between those
receiving "public assistance" and "social insurance." n22 Social insurance, exemplified by the Social Security benefit
programs for the aged and the disabled, was thought of as a form of insurance against the "natural"
events that impose financial hardships on all of us. People who were merely poor , on the other hand,
depended instead on "public assistance." This distinction ignored the fortuities that might have
forced the poor person into her current status, and did not bother with the fact that the benefits
paid out to the aged and the disabled under Social Security may exceed the value of the private
contributions made. These new categories served to underscore the undeserved quality of the
benefits extended to recipients of public assistance. n23
A special and enduring legacy of the Depression and the New Deal was yet another line drawn through the ranks of the poor --

Discourse of the underclass coaxes violent imagery that is backlashed against.

Ross 91 [Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Georgetown Law Journal, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, p. 1513-1528, AD: 5/28/09) JL]
The rhetoric of poverty in the 1980s was exemplified by the myth of the welfare mother with a Cadillac and by the rise of yet another category of the poor,
the "underclass." n27 This new category of the poor included: (a) the passive poor, usually long-term welfare recipients; (b) the hostile
street criminals who terrorize most cities, and who are often school dropouts and drug addicts; (c) the hustlers, who, like street criminals, may not be poor and
who earn their livelihood in an underground economy, but rarely commit violent crimes; (d) the traumatized drunks, drifters, homeless shopping-bag ladies and
released mental patients who frequently roam or collapse on city streets. n28 Membership in the underclass was determined by behavior which was either
patently immoral or socially deviant. The Concept of the underclass etched deeper the division
between us and them. It also connected perfectly with the rhetorical theme of moral weakness . Except for
some examples of the "traumatized" members of the underclass, the behavior that characterized the underclass was criminal, deviant, or that of a person without hope or dignity. The idea
of the "passive" poor, people beyond hope and without any sense of initiative, expressed the
pervasive notion that poor people were unwilling to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and were
instead happy to feed at the public trough. n29

Public discourse on the underclass glosses over the real causes of poverty,
constructing an image that represented that status as morally reprehensible
Ross 91 [Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh, Georgetown Law Journal, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, p. 1513-1528, AD: 5/28/09) JL]
The "underclass" thus was a late twentieth century form of the historically [*1508] persistent category, the undeserving poor. And like its historical
antecedents, the idea of the "underclass" seemed to be driven more by ideology than by any attempt accurately to generalize about
the circumstances and nature of poverty in America. Michael Katz contrasted the idea of the underclass and the
reality: [A]s a metaphor, the underclass obscures more than it reveals. It glosses over differences in
condition that require varied forms of help, and it passes lightly over two salient features of poverty
and welfare in America: their widespread and transient character . In the Michigan study, which followed a large sample of

American families for 10 years, . . . [b]oth poverty and welfare use . . . lasted relatively briefly, and children whose parents relied on welfare were no more likely to need public assistance as
adults than were others in the sample. What the study shows, in short, is that poverty is more accurately perceived now, as before in American history, as a point on a continuum rather than a
sharp, clearly demarcated category of social experience. In truth, the forces that push individuals and families into poverty originate in the structure of America's political economy. Some of us

As a metaphor, the underclass is the perfect expression of the rhetorical themes of

difference and deviance. Perhaps because it so perfectly expresses these persistent historical themes,
it has remained as part of the public discourse on poverty notwithstanding its metaphoric and
distorting quality.
are lucky, not different. n30

The word poverty carries with it the discursive construction of a way to separate
the rich from the poor. It only helps to stabilize the system of oppression.
Bendix 5 [Daniel, student of political science at the Free University of Berlin/Germany, Development as Discourse, 8/25, http://www.africavenir.com/publications/studentpapers/BendixDevelopmentasDiscourse.pdf, AD: 5/30/09) JL]

Western/Northern domination is not so much based on military or economic might, but on what with Foucault can be called the
economy of truth production. Thus a specific way of looking at poverty and therefore a specific way
of dealing with poverty have emerged in the discourse on development, splitting the complex world
into a poor/underdeveloped and a rich/developed half. This serves the interests of international organisations like the World Bank who can
I have to conclude that

pursue their principles, the moneywise rich people of the world in general, who thus do not have to question their richness and destructing way of life and, of course, international companies who

this discourse on poverty serves to stabilise the established system

profit from the liberalisation of the global market. All in all,

,
including the WB as one of the main actors of development. Regarding the method of critical discourse analysis I can state that it helped me a great deal in analysing this specific text. I believe
that I managed to lay open the fundamental premises and convictions concerning poverty and development in general as propagated by the World Bank in this report. However, I could only really
analyse a minute fragment of the huge discourse on development. There is still a lot of confusion in the field of political science as to how to go about the endeavour of analysing discourses (see

it would be of great value to connect a critical discourse analysis including a

historical dimension, to an analysis of material practices and concrete work of institutions, in order
to gain a deeper understanding of how ideas of development have evolved and how they effect
people, both in the West/North and in the South. This would however be a very difficult task and, necessarily, an undertaking requiring a great deal
of research. As Comeliau rightly points out, it does not suffice to just reveal the hypochrisy of the discourse and rhetoric on development (2002: 168). Problems are real,
even if they have been constructed and created. To Comeliau, language is important for analysis, but to
tackle the vraies questions, one has to overcome language (2002: 171). I myself believe to have shown that language itself is a
vraie question, because it has real effects on how people perceive the world and thus on their actions . In my opinion, it
is an objective in itself to become conscious of the complexity of the world, the impurity of concepts
and the implications that the use of language and concepts has on the world and the human beings
inhabiting it. This however should not lead to a passivity and non-action. It is already an achievement not to use terms like poor,
developed, aid etc. uncritically but to be conscious of their history and their effects . Nonetheless, decisions have to
be taken, with all the due responsibility. This, however, does not imply that one should see ones decisions as the only true way. Awareness of ones own limits,
due to the fact that we are inhabited by another, language, and to ones lack of intellectual an
emotional capacity. With regard to possible changes to the dilemma of the discourse on development, one suggestion would be to abandon the
terms of this discourse. Once using the word poverty, one is already part of this specific
discourse. In official discussion, one could thus evade using the termini of the discourse on development or if using them, one could point out their danger. Otherwise, I find it an
interesting thought, which has yet to be developped, to transplant Judith Butlers (1990) idea of gender trouble on the linguistic level to the discourse on development. By using
terms like poor and developed in new, unusual contexts, one could create concept trouble and
thus give these concepts new meaning and in a way steal them from the normalising discourse .
Kerchner, 2002). In my opinion

Claims/Actions
The idea of a solution to end poverty only feeds into the trap of development
which reproduces the case harms
Yapa 96 [Lakshman, Prof of Geography @ Pennsylvania State, What Causes Poverty? A Post-Modern View, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Dec.,
1996), pp. 707-728, AD: 6/17/09) JL]

To resolve the problems of the poor it is first necessary that we abandon the frame of
mind that demands a "solution to the problem," that we entertain a postmodern incredulity toward metanarratives (Lyotard 1979). I believe that
the concept of "a solution to poverty" is a metanarrative in itself. Yet hunger and homelessness are
real; if development is not the answer, then what is? In my view it is simply wrong to equate the terms "development" and
"solution" because they are mutually antagonistic concepts. First we must be willing to entertain the
hypothesis that development creates scarcity (Yapa and Wisner 1995; Sachs 1992; Esteva 1992). If development creates
scarcity, then it cannot be true that lack of development (underdevelop ment) is the cause of poverty.
What is important is to pay careful attention to the way the argument against development is
structured, and to understand the specific details of the critique. Any resolution of the poverty
problem can arise only from knowledge of the details of that critique . Of course, at the same time we must resist
the temptation to tell still another grand narrativethe story of a new societybased on visions of alternative, authentic, or
sustainable development , of "another" development, or even a postdevelopment era. The danger is that since development is a grand
idea to begin with, an "alternative solution" must appear to be equally grand to measure up to the
task.
Solution as Metanarrative.

Security

Terror
Terrorism scholarship is beset by multiple epistemological flaws- no consistent
definition, no primary sources, narrow focus on policy making, and exaggeration of
the threat. The flaws in knowledge production have to be resolved before proper
analysis of the NC can begin; this is a preempt to their offense.
Jackson 8 [Richard(Director at the National Center for Peace and Conflict Studies), 2/14/08, The Study of Terrorism after 11 September 2001: Problems, Challenges and Future
Developments, Political Studies Review, volume: 7, p. 171.184, CPO)

More than seven years after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the exceptional nature of these crimes
and the subsequent global war on terror continue to generate a vast literature. Research by Andrew Silke
suggests that a new book on terrorism is published every six hours in the English language, and
that on current trends it will soon be the case that over 90 per cent of all terrorism studies literature
will have been published since 2001 (Shepherd, 2007).There are literally thousands of academic books, articles,
reports and PhD dissertations published every year on terrorism in addition to a vast popular cultural and political corpus of terrorism
texts. However, recent reviews of the scholarly literature on terrorism suggest that the field is beset by a
persistent set of conceptual, epistemological, methodological and political normative weaknesses
and challenges (see Burnett and Whyte, 2005; Jackson, 2007a; Jackson et al., 2009; Ranstorp, 2006; Silke, 2004a). Some of the main problems
identified include, but are not limited to: the failure to develop rigorous theories or even to agree on a definition
or set of identifying criteria for the fields primary concept; a reliance on secondary sources and a
failure to undertake primary research, particularly in terms of face-to-face engagement with
terrorists; a narrow focus on a restricted set of topics frequently tailored to the demands of policy
makers for practically useful knowledge; large numbers of new scholars lacking adequate
grounding in the existing literature; and a persistent tendency to treat the current terrorist threat
as unprecedented and exceptional. For the most part, terrorism research that is theoretically and
methodologically sophisticated, intellectually independent, based on primary sources, normatively
sensitised and rooted in the existing literature is, unfortunately, relatively rare.

You as an academic should reject the negative and their terrorizing rhetoric
discursive rejection is the only way to solve the repression of entire cultures and
peoples
Kapitan [Tomis, Professor of Philosophy at Northern Illinois University, Indiana State University, Birzeit University, East Carolina
University, The American University of Beirut, and Bogazici University in Istanbul, editor of Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict,, Archaeology, History, and Culture in Palestine and the Near East. James Sterba, ed., Terrorism and International Justice (Oxford, 2003),
47-66, The Terrorism of Terrorism]

the continuation of tit-for-tat violence between Israelis and Palestinians has

long been foreseen. Al ready in 1956 the U.N. Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, inform e d Israels Prime Minister , David Ben-Gurion, that Israels retaliatory actions
against Palestinians would postpone indefinitely peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Arabs (Urquhart 1972, p. 157). Hammarskjolds advice went unheeded as successive
Israeli governments added retaliation to retaliation, with deterrence offered as the standard
justification (Dayan 1968, Netanyahu 1993). 23 As Hammarskjold predicted, the effect has been the very opposite. Raymond Close summarized the
situation accurately as follows: The state of Israel has been committed for 50 years to a policy of massive and
ruthless retaliationdeliberately disproportional. Ten eyes for an eye, the Israeli like to say. And still their policy fails,
because they have not recognized what the thoughtful ones among them know to be true that terrorism will thrive as long as
the Palestinian population is obsessed with the injustice of their lot and consumed with despair. (Close
1998) The [US] United States has edged ever closer to mimicking Israeli strategy in its confrontation with terrorism. For example, the
In the absence of a negotiated settlement,

State Department has developed just four basic policy tenets for dealing with terrorism: First, make no concession to terrorists and strike no deals. Second, bring terrorists to justice for their
crimes. Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior. Fourth, bolster the counterterrorist capabilities of those countries that work with

Nowhere does the State Department call

for investigating the causes of persistent terrorist violence , or for any sort of policy review. This is surprising given that the State
the United States and require assistance. (Patterns of Global Terrorism , Alexander and Musch 2001, pp. 1-2)

Its refusal to deal

squarely with the political origins of terrorism has led it to adopt a position of dealing with the
symptoms while ignoring the causes. The rhetoric of terror might not have caused the development of this curious stance, but it has paved the way for its
Department is a policy- making sector of the U.S. Governmentunlike the law-enforcement agencies for whom these guidelines are more understandable.

acceptance by the general public. 24 There are legitimate ways of responding to terrorist actions without responding with terrorism. Granting that terrorism is wrongful and intolerable, law
enforcement agencies must make every effort to identify, apprehend, and prosecute individuals and organizations responsible for specific terrorist actions. A resort to force should occur only after
the appropriate legal channels have been exhausted, and here one must be careful to target only those for whom one has firm evidence of terrorist activity. But it is a mistake to think of all
terrorism merely as a problem of criminal offense and law enforcement. Persistent terrorism stemming from a given population is indicative of a serious political disorder. As long as the members
of that population are outraged over perceived injustices and decide that terrorism is the only viable form of redress, then mere police action, coupled with a repeated failure to address their

The solution to a particular problem of

terrorism requires, at the very minimum, examining the circumstances wherein violence against civilians is
seen as the only emotional outlet or route of resistance. Only then can intelligent moral responses be crafted. To reach this stage, it is
imperative that the rhetoric of terror be recognized for what it is. Its practitioners are serving a political agenda, unwittingly or
not. Its victims are innocents, civilians, noncombatants, whose plight is ignored and whose communities suffer from reprisals
because some of their members have found violence to be the only way to react in a desperate hope
that somehow, someone with enough sense and power, will realize that these grievances must be addressed . Perhaps they are wholly
misguided, but when the rhetoric of terror succeeds in discrediting them before rational inquiry into the
causes of their grievances and behavior can begin , then it is itself a cause of terrorism. If its practitioners anticipate this sort of result, they are guilty
grievances, will solve no thing, and certainly, in discriminate retaliation will only intensify hatred and resolve.

of knowingly furthering terrorism. Should they intend to bring that result, then they are themselves guilty of terrorist actions. Language moulds thought, and thought precipitates action. The
pejorative bias that infects the current employment of terrorism and terrorist discourages a clear moral assessment of political conflicts like that between Israelis and Palestinians. If these
words cannot be used in a consistent and unprejudiced manner, then they are obstacles in the path towards the resolution of such conflicts and stimulators of further violence against civilians.

if terrorism has no place in a civilized world, then the rhetoric of terror has no place in the
civilized discourse of today.
Consequently,