SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

2AC Neoliberalism Aff

Impact-Framing
2AC Framework

1. The framework for this debate is that you vote for who best produces a debate pedagogy to resist neoliberalism. This is net beneficial for a few reasons. a. Traditional frameworks are a system of securitization that prevents changes to pedagogy. We want to accept the golden ticket to debate can only engage others on the terms of the neoliberal master. b. Our framework encourages better education by incorporating a multitude of experience c. Allows us to reorient ourselves towards education as a practice as opposed to an instrument to secure capital. 2. Extend Giroux here. They concede that current frameworks of knowledge and cultural production are neoliberal which means that we must shift our practices. Engaging in typical frameworks or topical debates while instrumentalizing these systems of knowledge result in the conditions that are a direct result of the externalization of the neoliberal norms that Giroux articulates. 3. TURN: One-size-fits-all metholodogies of learning and engagement attempt to construct the debate space as a world of pure imagination. This disallows questions against capital, feeds the market, increases social control and paralyzes action this is the worst type of education imaginable.
Spillover

Education is a key site for resistance to neoliberal education - global alliances made possible - Cooper 8 (Chris, Professor at University of Hull, UK, Journal for Critical Educaiton Policy Studies, 6, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/6-2-11.pdf)

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

It is clear from the assessments set out in these books that neoliberal education systems have been a source of great social harm. In particular, the analyses presented bear witness to the profoundly harmful effects of neoliberalism on societal wellbeing evidenced by widening inequalities; an increasingly oppressed labour force; the erosion of democracy and critical thought; the breakdown of social solidarities; the increasing surveillance and criminalisation of specific dangerous sub-cultures; and the increasing alienation of teachers and students from the learning process (leading to rising health problems). At the same time, the public realm for critical dialogue has been increasingly closed off by the actions of nation states particularly through interventions aimed at intensifying central-state control over education - compliant to the tightening grip of neoliberal global organising. The consensus view expressed in these books is that resistance to the neoliberal agenda will require a network of alliances comprising a range of issuebased social movements and strategies, organised (as has been described) locally, nationally,
regionally and globally, and aided by ICT. There is also a consensus position on the basis of this resistance i.e.

a radical critical pedagogy rooted in Marxist analysis, applied to teaching, research and social action, is the only viable option for arriving at a more just society. Alternative ways of
that seeing and understanding the world, founded on postmodernist analyses, are discounted here as distractions sidetracking the masses from the real task which is discovering how the material basis of modern life is rooted in the exploitation of labours use value and that the only solution to this is the construction of an alternative socialist future.

This continued transfer of transportation from the public to the private is a form of accumulation by dispossession-it is a contraction of the democratic public sphere in the name of expanding private capital Harvey 08, PhD Cambridge 1962; Distg Prof, 2008 (David, September-October, The Right to the City, New Left
Review, Volume: 53, http://www.newleftreview.org/II/53/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city, JS)
Urbanization, we may conclude, has played a crucial role in the absorption of capital surpluses, at ever increasing geographical scales, but at the price of burgeoning processes of creative destruction that have dispossessed the masses of any right to the city whatsoever. The planet as building site collides with the planet of slums. [16] Periodically this ends in revolt, as in Paris in 1871 or the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968. If, as seems likely, fiscal difficulties mount and the hitherto successful neoliberal,

postmodernist and consumerist phase of capitalist surplus-absorption through urbanization is at an end and a broader crisis ensues, then the question arises: where is our 68 or, even more dramatically, our version of the Commune? As with the financial system, the answer is bound to be much more complex precisely because the urban process is now global in scope. Signs of rebellion are everywhere: the unrest in China and India is chronic, civil wars rage in Africa, Latin America is in ferment. Any of these revolts could become contagious. Unlike the fiscal
system, however, the urban and peri-urban social movements of opposition, of which there are many around the world, are not tightly coupled; indeed most have no connection to each other.

SPARK DEBATE Crit Ped Add-On Ev

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

Intellectual resistance to neoliberalism creates a critical pedagogy that is a necessary precondition for real world change. Giroux 6/19 [Henry, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department, Beyond the Politics of the Big Lie: The Education Deficit and the New Authoritarianism June 6, 2012 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9865beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie-the-education-deficit-and-the-new-authoritarianism]

While a

change in consciousness does not guarantee a change in either one's politics or society, it is a crucial precondition for connecting what it means to think otherwise to conditions that make it possible to act otherwise. The education deficit must be
seen as intertwined with a political deficit, serving to make many oppressed individuals complicit with oppressive ideologies. As the late Cornelius Castoriadis made clear,

democracy requires "critical thinkers capable of putting existing institutions into question.... while simultaneously creating the conditions for individual and social autonomy."(41) Nothing will change politically or economically until new and emerging social movements take seriously the need to develop a language of radical reform and create new public spheres that support the knowledge, skills and critical thought that are necessary features of a democratic formative culture. Getting beyond the big lie as a precondition for critical thought, civic engagement and a more realized democracy will mean more than
correcting distortions, misrepresentations and falsehoods produced by politicians, media talking heads and anti-public intellectuals.

It will also require addressing how new sites of pedagogy have become central to any viable notion of agency, politics and democracy itself. This is not a matter of elevating cultural politics over material relations of power as much as it is a rethinking of how power deploys culture and how culture as a mode of education positions power. James Baldwin, the legendary African-American writer and civil rights activist, argued that the big lie
points to a crisis of American identity and politics and is symptomatic of "a backward society" that has descended into madness, "especially when one is forced to lie about one's aspect of anybody's history, [because you then] must lie about it all."(42) He goes on to argue "that one of the paradoxes of education [is] that precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must find yourself at war with your society. It is your responsibility to change society if you think of yourself as an educated person."(43) What Baldwin recognizes is that learning has the possibility to trigger a critical engagement with oneself, others and the larger society - education becomes in this instance more than a method or tool for domination but a politics, a fulcrum for democratic social change. Tragically, in our current climate "learning" merely contributes to a vast reserve of manipulation and self-inflicted ignorance. Our

education deficit is neither reducible to the failure of particular types of teaching nor the decent into madness by the spokespersons for the new authoritarianism. Rather, it is about how matters of knowledge, values and ideology can be struggled over as issues of power and politics. Surviving the current education deficit will depend on progressives using history, memory and knowledge not only to reconnect intellectuals to the everyday needs of ordinary people, but also to jumpstart social movements by making education central to organized politics and the quest for a radical democracy.

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

Questioning traditional notions of state-centered policy approach is key to our intellectual and political development Biswas 7 Biswas December 2007, (Shampa, Professor of Politics at Whitman College, Empire and Global
Public Intellectuals: Reading Edward Said as an International Relations Theorist, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 124
What Said offers in the place of professionalism is a spirit of amateurism the desire to be moved not by profit or reward but by love for and unquenchable interest in the larger picture , in making connections across lines and barriers, in refusing to be tied down to a specialty, in caring for ideas and values despite the restrictions of a profession, an amateur intellectual being one who considers that to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to raise moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized activity as it involves ones country, its power, its mode of interacting with its citizens as well as with other societies. (T)he intellectuals spirit as an amateur, Said argues, can enter and transform the merely professional routine most of us go through into something much more lively and radical; instead of doing what one is supposed to do one can ask why one does it, who benefits from it, how can it reconnect with a personal project and original thoughts. 24 This requires not just a stubborn intellectual independence, but also shedding habits, jargons, tones that
have inhibited IR scholars from conversing with thinkers and intellectuals outside the discipline, colleagues in history, anthropology, cultural studies, comparative literature, sociology as well as in non-academic venues, who raise the question of the global in different and sometimes contradictory ways. Arguing that the intelle ctuals role is a nonspecialist one, 25 Said bemoans the disappearance of the general secular intellectual figures of learning and authority, whose general scope over many fields gave them more

Discarding the professional strait- jacket of expertise-oriented IR to venture into intellectual terrains that raise questions of global power and cultural negotiations in a myriad of intersecting and cross-cutting ways will yield richer and fuller conceptions of the politics of global politics. Needless to say, inter- and cross- disciplinarity will also yield richer and fuller conceptions of the global of global politics. It is to
than professional competence, that is, a critical intellectual style. 26 that that I turn next.

Neoliberalism destroys the environment the fixation on material wealth, use of resources and speedy results causes neglect of the environment Brie 9 (Michael, Director of the Institute for Social Analysis of the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation, Ways out of the Crisis of
Neoliberalism, Development Dialogue No. 51, pg. 20-21, http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/DD2009_51_postneoliberalism/Development_Dialogue_51-art3.pdf, 2009, JKE)

Second, the

ecological reproduction crisis that Fordism had already conjured up is deepening. The primary fixation on accumulation of material wealth and the expansion of the use of resources as well as the emission of dangerous materials into the environment has further speeded up. While
the highly developed countries have not changed their development model, other countries with large populations are waiting to take on this outdated development model. Worldwide, the

number of cars will double by the year 2030, from currently almost 1 billion to 2 billion, if there is no reversal of policies. The attempt to find a technological solution to the rapid destruction of the natural foundations of human life without a revolution in the mode of production and way of life is completely impossible. Furthermore, finance market capitalism shortens the already short time horizon of capital valorisation to two years. Projects that go on longer than that are increasingly financed less.
Slimmed down states have had the possibilities of long-term comprehensive investment projects taken from them, while at the same time they still have to step into the breach opened up by the crisis and come up with answers.

This leads to a general

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

underinvestment in the renewal and development of the most important fields of social reproduction, particularly in education, culture, environment and heath. There is a reproduction crisis.

3. At worse, we lose that mass transit is bad for the environment, at best we win that we solve for the root cause of environmental destruction- neoliberalism.

This technological thought that the neg is talking about has been here since the beginning of humanity, we have been embedded in a world to control aspects of the environment this doesnt mean that you vote us down if we prove a positive solution to this paradigm like solving for inequality and politics that necessitate war and extinction then we should win No link- they are a link to the status quo- buses and trains already exist- we just improve them for living conditions

Perm do both - its too late to withdraw from technology we have to use it to try and fix the system
Zimmerman 89 Philosophy Professor, Tulane (Michael, Introduction To Deep Ecology, http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Zimmrman.htm) A critique I hear often is that deep ecologists want to return to a way of life that's totally tied to the rhythms of the Earth, but at this point

we have so disturbed those rhythms that we can't even consider going back. To retreat to a pre-technological state would in fact be dooming the Earth to destruction, whereas what we need now is to be more engaged in trying to repair
the damage. How would a deep ecologist respond? Michael: I think deep ecologists have mixed emotions about that, but I would agree with that critique. For example, if

we stopped our development at the current level, it would be a catastrophe, because our production methods are so dirty and inefficient and destructive that if we keep this up, we're really in trouble. Some deep
ecologists say that it would be all for the best if the industrial world were just to collapse, despite all the human suffering that would entail. If such a thing ever occurs, some people have suggested, we could never revive industrialization again because the raw materials are no longer easily accessible. I hope that doesn't happen, and yet it may happen. Now, social ecologists say that deep

ecologists flirt with

fascism when they talk about returning to an "organic" social system that is "attuned to nature." They note that
reactionary thinkers often contrast the supposedly "natural" way of life - which to them means social Darwinism and authoritarian social systems - with "modernity," which in politial terms means progressive social movements like liberalism and Marxism. But deep ecologists recognize this danger. They call not for a regression to collective authoritarianism, but for the evolution of a mode of awareness that doesn't lend itself to authoritarianism of any kind. So I think the

only thing we can do is to move forward. We need to develop our efficiency and production methods so that we'll be able to take some of the pressure off the environment. We also need to develop increasing wealth for the highly populated countries so their populations will go down. [Ed. Note: See Lapp and Schurman, "The Population Puzzle," in IC #21.] There's a necessity for new technology. The question is,
can it be made consistent with our growing awareness that the planet is really hurting?

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

Perm do the plan and reject all other instances of calculative thought - double bind either a) the alt should be able to overcome the residual link to the aff or b) it cant solve alone which grants us perm solvency

7. Vague Alts Bad 1. Vague alts are illegit and a voting issue for competitive equity: A. No Stable Offense or Groundthey can always reinterpret what the alt means and whether or not it solves the case in the block and nullify the 2AC which makes them a moving target and means that we cant generate stable offense or perm ground which puts us at a structural disadvantage B. Educationvagueness means we have to focus on pinning the down to a particular advocacy instead of learning about the Aff or their advocacy proper. Clear alternative texts resolve both concerns

Turn A. Technology provides the best hope to prevent and check HIV/AIDS.

Julien S. Murphy. 1995. Ph.D. Philosophy, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, International
Association of Bioethics, American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. The Constructed Body Pgs. 6-7.

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

B. Unchecked AIDS results in extinction

Robert Ornstein, University of California Medical Center, Paul Ehrlich, Center for Conservation Biology, New World New Mind,

1989, p.129AIDS clearly has the potential for decimating the human population. In addition to its extreme virulence, the AIDS virus can be carried for many years without producing symptoms. For part or all of that period the carrier is infectious, and that makes the situation much worse. People carrying the virus can infect person after person, and no one need be the wiser. A prostitute infected with AIDS could stay in business for five years or more, killing thousands of people (her clients and their other contacts) without being aware she was doing it. Under present public health policies in many nations there is no way of ending the sequence. More frightening is the extreme mutability (the ability to change form) of the virus. Many different strains exist already, which, along with other properties of AIDS, may make the development of cheap, permanent immunization procedures quite difficult. Furthermore few drugs so far exist to combat viruses, and
there is little reason to believe that a biochemical cure for AIDS will be found readily, even though substantial progress has been made in understanding how to design antiviral drugs. Among other things, the

virus may be able to evolve resistance to drugs that are initially effective. Last, as more and more people are infected, strains of the virus may evolve that are more readily transmittible than those already circulating in the population. That is a very real possibility that terrifies biologists who understand the evolutionary potential of viruses. It is even therefore conceivable that humanity will sooner or later have to deal with strains of AIDS that can be transmitted by the bites of arthropods (perhaps by the bites of mosquitos that were interrupted while feeding on someone carrying the virus). Worse yet, a variety of AIDS virus might evolve that can be transmitted by relatively casual, nonsexual physical contact or even by inhaling droplets sneezed into the air. The odds of it happening seem very small, but the consequences if it did occur would be, to say the least, daunting. With millions virtually certain to die in Africa, the possibility that the virus, if uncontrolled, could result in extremely high death rates in the developed countries should not be overlooked.

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

Turn - Technology is Key for the medical field

A. Improved quality of life.

David Cutler, Professor of economics at Harvard University and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. and Mark McClellan, associate professor of economics and medicine at Stanford University and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. September 2001. Health Affairs Is Technological Change In Medicine Worth It?

There are two benefits of medical innovations. The most important is the value of better health longer life as well as improved quality of life. We follow the consensus of the literature and measure health using the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) approach.2 Many (but not all) of the conditions we consider have high fatality rates, so changes in longevity tend to dominate the results. Again following the literature, we assume that the value a year of life in the absence of disease is $100,000.3 The qualitative results we present are not very sensitive to a wide range of values of a year of life. A second benefit of medical innovation is its effect on the financial situation of others. One part of this benefit is any increase in production that results from technology allowing people to work and earn more. Offsetting this productivity benefit are the medical and nonmedical costs of additional years of life, if any, from the technology. The entire cost of sustaining life is appropriate to include in this latter component, as the right comparison is the value of medical innovation less the total cost of providing the care.4The net value of medical technology change is the difference between the benefits and costs. A positive net value implies that the technological change is worth it in total.

B. Decreases mortality from heart attacks and premature birth.

David Cutler, Professor of economics at Harvard University and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. and Mark McClellan, associate professor of economics and medicine at Stanford University and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. September 2001. Health Affairs Is Technological Change In Medicine Worth It?We

have highlighted two conditions where medical technology greatly reduced mortality: care for low-birthweight infants and treatment of acute heart attacks. Our heart attack analysis was for only the recent time period, but other data suggest medical benefits for a longer period of time.27 If one takes just the medical component of reduced mortality for lowbirthweight infants and ischemic heart disease, medical care explains about onequarter of overall mortality reduction. Thus, medical care is certainly worth it if any of the additional increase in longevity results from improved medical care, or if medical care improves quality of life. We have shown examples where it clearly does. Thus, we
conclude that medical care as a whole is clearly worth the cost increase, although we cannot present a specific rate-of-return

Alt Doesnt Solve: Mere declaration of an alternative does nothing --- they have no mechanism to enact their worldview
Murray 97 (Alastair J.H., Professor of Political Theory University of Edinburgh, Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics, p. 188-189)

Realists, however, would be unlikely to be troubled by such charges. Ashley needs to do rather more than merely assert that the development of global threats will produce some universal consensus, or that any number of less exclusionary world orders are possible, to convince them. A

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

the assertion that indeterminate numbers of potentially less exclusionary orders exist carries little weight unless we can specify exactly what these alternatives are and just how they might be achieved. As such, realists would seem to be justified in regarding such potentialities as currently unrealisable ideals and in seeking a more proximate good in the fostering of mutual understanding and, in particular, of a stable balance of power. Despite the adverse side-effects that such a balance of power implies, it at least offers us something tangible rather than ephemeral promises lacking a shred of support . Ultimately, Ashley's demand that a new, critical approach be adopted in order to free us from the grip of such 'false' conceptions depends upon ideas about the prospects for the development of a universal consensus which are little more than wishful thinking, and ideas about the
universal threat does not imply a universal consensus, merely the existence of a universal threat faced by particularistic actors. And existence of potentially less exclusionary orders which are little more than mere assertion. 50 Hence his attempts, in 'Political realism and human interests', to conceal these ideas from view by claiming that the technical base of realism serves only to identify, and yet not to reform, the practical, and then, in 'The poverty of neorealism', by removing the technical from investigation altogether by an exclusive reliance on a problem of hermeneutic circularity.

Advantage--Gender

The automobile industry defines our modern conception of a women- their interaction defines our current political structures. Jain 05, (Sarah S, Associate Professor of Anthropology, awarded the Cultural Horizons Prize by
the Society for Cultural Anthropology for best article published in the journal Cultural Anthropology in 2004. a National Humanities Center Fellow in 2006, and currently a fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center, Violent Submission: Gendered Automobility, Cultural Critique, No. 61 (Autumn, 2005), p. 198-199 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4489227.pdf?

These exclusions of women from the representations of car culture are reflected in other areas, namely in their exclusion from whole professions that range from automobile and safety engineering, design, sales, repair, policy making, and commentary to taxi driving, industry executive positions, racing, road construction, and, until recently, urban planning (see Gregory). In short, women are virtually excluded from a range of careers that together account for one-sixth of the U.S. economy. According to Carol Sanger's analysis, women are defined as women through their purported preceding relationships to cars. The infrastructures of automobility, while excluding women from the economies of automobility, have required them to do unremunerated car labor such as chauffeuring children. These exclusions work within the stereotypes of women's supposed mechanical inabilities and overcautious driving to sustain and enhance "traditional understandings about women's abilities and roles in areas both public and private" (Sanger, 707). That women have so often been the subterfuge for the sexual forays of men and cars, or men and men, however, does not make the car immaterial. Indeed, it is the very materiality of it that

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

makes it such an important site of analysis. As the New York Times quoted one woman car owner as saying, "It's dangerous to get too good a car, you will only end up wishing men would look at you with the same admiration and lust in their eyes" (Stanley, D11). The female owner of this car is caught between desiring the gaze of the male and owning the means of his homosocial identification. Her rather banal, even naively heterosexual comment illustrates the extent to which misogyny and the car underpins gendered American economic and political structures. What would it take to have a female director for one of the BMW films? How would the Ritchie film have meaning if Madonna and Owen switched roles?

And those interactions perpetuates gender norms and gendered violence made invisible by its structural nature. Jain 05, (Sarah S, Associate Professor of Anthropology, awarded the Cultural Horizons Prize by
the Society for Cultural Anthropology for best article published in the journal Cultural Anthropology in 2004. a National Humanities Center Fellow in 2006, and currently a fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center, Violent Submission: Gendered Automobility, Cultural Critique, No. 61 (Autumn, 2005), p. 187-188, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4489227.pdf?acceptTC=true). Thus, both the film's legibility and its ironic reversals make it an ideal site for better understanding the car as a highly ambiguous gendered space. Its implied simplicity (two people make a journey) belies a deeply gendered heteronormative narrative that underpins American understandings of technology and consumption, safety and security-and influences the ways that these relations play out in everyday life and practices of representation. Specifically, I examine the tenets of these normative narratives to better understand how the violence of the film makes sense in the context of its ironies. I argue that automotive technology, engineering studies, and cultural notions of masculinity carry notions of gendered violence that have remained both central to the structuring of the kinds of violence played out by automobility and have naturalized to the point of invisibility both policy itself and mainstream social histories of the automobile. The car, not only an object or container moving through a city but a particular kind of composite, has been at least as much about defining social relations as it has been about transporting people and goods. "Star" presents the interaction between two individuals, but its legibility rests on the gendered and classed spaces of the auto itself. Most crucially here, I analyze the way in which the various spaces at play in automobility have been articulated and understood through the varied layers of representation that make meaning of cars and, specifically, how these have both enforced and constituted gender. To get at these questions I borrow Eve Sedgwick's notion of "triangulation" to examine, in relation to a series of popular films, the way in which the technology of the car and the skill of driving has organized heterosexuality in the twentieth century. These social relations of homo- and heteronormative social relations lead us not only toward a richer understanding of the social role of automobiles but they also demonstrate the physicality of social reproduction. If, as Judith Butler argues, "recognition becomes a site of power by which the human is differentially produced" (Butler, 2), car culture reminds of the relentless physicality of that production. Although safety movements have typically been understood as humanist moves toward economies with fewer human costs, safety-engineering studies of the second collision that were taking place in the 1950s and '60s

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

show these to be deeply gendered projects. These have been reiterated not only through the gendered car-death statistics but also through the ways the popular-culture narratives about crash deaths have reiterated stories of masculine heroism. Finally, I situate this set of critiques within the ironies that the film sets out: that Madonna is in some ways the most powerful actor in the film; that the film enters her varied genre of production, one that includes so many aspects of popular culture; and that the fact that she is beaten by no means renders her impotent or powerless but rather demands us to ask if and how this film challenges cultural feminist thought.

Its historically proven- cold war- the dream of frontiers explored by automobile was used in the cold war in an attempt to recreate the patriarchical male pioneer. Sieler 2003, (Cotton, Associate professor of American studies, Statist Means to Individualist
Ends: Subjectivity, Automobility, and the Cold-War State, American Studies, 44:3 (Fall 2003), p. 14, https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/3015/2974).

The postwar celebration of mobility as a revitalizing force was predictably gender-coded. As mentioned above, many social critics' conceptions of the new American character equated the transformation of that character with the assumption of traditionally feminine qualities and sensibilities; a number saw mobility as a practice capable of counteracting what, in the Cold War context, appeared to be a crippling "domestication" of American men. If men were to reclaim their manhood, the "open road" stood as one of the sites of that reclamation. Male social critics of the era tended, therefore, to emphasize actual and metaphorical motion in their prescriptions for the revitalization of American society (which was inseparable from a renewal of masculinity). Yet in an age of effortless automobility, the vision of journey-as-trial became increasingly difficult to sustain. Hence George Pierson lamented the process of travel standardization as "the emasculation of the journey," movement in which "much of the excitement has been drained off."61 Yet despite the less arduous nature of travel by modern automobile, the notion of the journey as recreating the salutary conditions of the male pioneer remained powerful and pervasive.62

This form of institutional and systematic violence is a prerequisite to warfare it is impossible to understand war as an event separate from the ongoing war against the periphery DeFrancisco and Palczewski 2k7 (Victoria Leto Catherine Helen, 2007, Professors of
Communication at the University of Northern Iowa, Communicating gender diversity: a critical approach, 149-150) The institutionalization of violence has effects beyond the microlevel of interpersonal relations. The fear of sexual violence affects women's participation in civic institutions. Political scientist Amy Caiazza (2005)
analyzed factors affecting men's and women's levels of civic participation. She asked,"Do pemeived levels of safety from crime or violence influence men's and women's decisions to become involved in their communities?" (p. 1607). Because many activities involved with civic participation occur at night, when women feel most vulnerable to attack, it is important to start thinking about the way systemic, institutionalized forms of sexism might influence women's full civic participation. Caiazza studied women's levels of participation and

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

correlated them to women's fear of potential violence. She found that "far women as a group, a sense of perceived safety is strongly related to involvement in the community, while a lack of perceived safety is linked to disengagement. In contrast, among men as a group, safety plays a relatively insignificant role in encouraging or discouraging engagement" (p. 1608). Of course, this conclusion is moderated when one recognizes that safety is not equally experienced by all women; poor women tend to be less safe, and so their participation is not influenced by the perceived loss of safety (which they normally lack anyway) but by other factors. Caiazza's research makes dear that gender-based violence is an issue relevant to political and civic participation" (p. 1627). Some women participate less than men in politics, city councils, and legislatures not became they am disinterested in politics but because their fear of violence functions as a deterrent to participation. When sexual violence is examined in this way, antiviolence measures

are no longer just a way to decrease crime or maintain law and order but are also "a way to strengthen U.S. democracy and women's access to it" (p. 1627). This exposes how gender/sex affects something as taken-for-granted as citizenship. Although every person is equal under
the law of the land, the reality is that gender as an institution, and the institutionalization of gender/sex violence, make women's ability to participate unequal to men's. The

preceding discussion has focused on an acute act of violence: rape. However, violence is committed not only in the form of overt acts of physical aggression. Because it is systemic, it also occurs in subtle, pervasive ways. Poverty, famine, environmental destruction, lack of adequate water, lack of adequate health care, and lack of adequate education also can be understood as forms of systemic violence (Tickner, 1992); and with their chronic status, they kill just as effectively as, if not more than, acute acts of violence such as war (Reardon, 1985). For example, philosopher Chris Cuomo (1996) documents less obvious, yet pervasive, violence done by the military. She urges people to consider the effects of militarism on the environment and women, explaining that "military institutions probably present the most dramatic threat to ecological well-being on the planet" (p. 41). Why might this claim be true? Because the military is the largest generator of hazardous waste in the United States, a massive consumer of fossil fuels; 9% of all the iron and steel used by humans is consumed by the global military. Where did Cuomo find her information? In a book by William Thomas
(1995),a U.S. Navy vet-an. Poverty, too, does violence to a person's body. Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) attempted to live for one year on the wages possible for a U.S. woman without higher education credentials or personal connections. She found out quickly that one cannot live on the minimum wage; her nutrition suffered, her safety was placed at risk in lower-income housing, she was more often the victim of verbal abuse by strangers, and she was sleep deprived. Understanding the

complex ways in which

violence is normalized by communication practices across social institutions should make one better able to identify sources of gender oppression and social control for women and girls and for men and boys (Miedzim, 1993). You can begin to trace the links between predominant cultural ideology and its tools of control. These are the necessary first steps toward ending violence. Communication scholar Julia Wood (2005) writes, "Widespread violence exists only if a society allows or endorses it. In other words, the epidemic of gendered violence reflects cultural values and social definitions of femininity, masculinity, and relationships between women and men" (pp. 258-259). Wood names violence an epidemic to make clear the intensity of the problem. Renaming is needed for one to begin to realize the functions violence serves in social institutions. By examining violence as gendered, one can begin to identify the ways in which it is socialized into such things as raising children, work, education, religion, media, and even interactions with the environment. One can also begin to understand how institutions contribute to and are related to a continuum of violence around the world, from gender intimidation to verbal and psychological abuse, to sexual coercion, to physical abuse and murder (ICramarae, 1992; Wood, 2005). The subtler forms create a context in which even the more explicit forms of violence become normalized. Wherever violence happens, the incidents are not isolated but systemically related. In the chapters to follow, we hope to help you
identify the links between gender, violence, social institutions, and communication.

1.

SPARK DEBATE
2.

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

UNIQUE LINK TURN we defend our affirmative as a discursive counter-aesthetic to the hegemonic heteronormative polemic of the status quo. We do not defend that we have any privileged place in the discussion, rather, we challenge the polemical dominant discursive paradigm that is ingrained in status quo policymakers

3.

Things such as neoliberalism, racism and partriachy are pervasive in art, literature and politics. The violent polemic of the status quo must be challenged to break down patriarchy. Their alternative can never solve without creating this counter-aesthetic, as the patriarchical polemic is ingrained in American capitalism, politics, art, and literature -

Ibarguen 89 provides a key example in his discursive analysis of

famous American literature: (Raoul, Literary Critic and Philosopher; http://www.henry-miller.com/narrativeliterature/the-discourse-of-patriarchy-necessarily-varied-protean.html ) The discourse of patriarchy, though unified in its devaluation of women and women's experience, is necessarily a varied, protean thing. Were it merely a reflection of inequitable
distributions of economic and social power and prestige, the discourse would be without consequence: each increase, however incremental, in women's access to institutions traditionally reserved to men would produce a corresponding reduction of its presence and force. Further, were its powers of persuasion dependent upon an internally consistent, rational structure of doctrine and deduction, the discourse of patriarchy would have fallen under the weight of its own contradictions centuries ago, or been demolished by the various "totalizing" criticisms that have exposed its obvious flaws as a philosophical "world view."

The vitality of the discourse

of patriarchy, like that of any other discourse, depends upon its variety. Its power is rhetorical: it is a logic of convenience responding to different challenges, different situations, in different ways without
abandoning its purpose. It is only because one articulation of male sexual desire managed to desexualize and idealize women as embodying a stifling cultural motherhood that Miller's casual and sequential sexual "depredations" could ever have been passed off as the "sexual liberation" of men and women.[65]

Misogyny as a "system" is little but "ill-will": misogyny

as a rhetorical practice is power diversely deployed.

In passing from the fundamental misogyny Fitzgerald and Miller share to the distinctive shape of male sexual desire and correspondingly differential representation of women in The Great Gatsby and Tropic of Capricorn, I wish to pursue the same double agenda as in the preceding discussion of commodity desire, looking to the disputatious discourse of the novel to explicate the discrete "New Yorks" produced by authors who begin with similar ideological premises, and to the multiple, totalized "realities" so generated to suggest a powerful way in which--beyond mere repetition, "reflection," or aesthetic elevation--the historical genre contributes to the persuasiveness of the ideological discourses upon which it draws.

In an effort to advance rival modern aesthetics,

symbolist and narrative, Fitzgerald and Miller each engage a rhetoric of the Real: this is the reality of our time; here is my art, both in it and of it. A selective aestheticization of elements and strands of patriarchal discourse supports their respective claims, configuring sexual desire and the representation of its objects to "realize" the formal polemics of their novels. This is the sense in which the more misogynous turns of
patriarchal discourse do not appear in The Great Gatsby and Tropic of Capricorn in addition to Fitzgerald and Miller's aesthetics, as if there were on the one hand their attitudes toward women, and on the other their artistic achievements. Rather,

through an

elaboration of competing, and to some extent mutually exclusive,

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

aestheticizations of women, The Great Gatsby and Tropic of Capricorn turn misogyny to divergent aesthetic ends, by their very difference vitalizing the discourse of patriarchy. The novels reinforce the subordination of women to men by "realizing" an ideological field within which the meaning of "modernity" and the relative merits of Fitzgerald and Miller's "modernisms" may be endlessly debated, without addressing the status of women. For behind the foreground of their violent aesthetic difference, that status is made to appear a "natural" constant. The Great Gatsby and Tropic of Capricorn are novels preoccupied with the culture of consumption in its purest forms; neither favors the market oriented tropes of exchange specific to traditional, mercantile, or early capitalist cultures.[66] This preoccupation is even more evident in their representations of sexual desire than commodity desire. The forms of desire which make women valuable objects in The Great Gatsby and Tropic of Capricorn preclude the metaphoric exchange of women among men typical of market-based novels of consumer culture, wherein "successful" marriage is the denouement of a general circulation of commodities and women.[67] The women and commodities of The Great Gatsby are symbolic "goods," or "no good," thereby validating the structured aesthetic integrity of Fitzgerald's modern American Waste Land. In Tropic of Capricorn, women, like commodities, are on display or they are forcibly displayed; in either case they figure an American cultural excess that echoes the endless, metonymic "depredations" of Miller's narrative aesthetics. Both novels go to great lengths to denigrate sexual desire founded on exchange value, polemically representing it in such clear contradiction with their privileged forms of sexual desire as to constitute an "unreality" against which the characters of the novels valiantly struggle

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

4. Polemics inevitable the way their evidence describes polemics, any debate argument would link unless they are willing to cede the ballot and just have a discussion. As soon as you say you are winning an argument and you have to vote down one side, you become a polemic.

5. Debate is the Wrong Forum for Open-Ended Discussion the kind of back and forth discussion they call for is precluded by the structures of a debate round we have timed speeches and the ballot has to endorse one version of truth in the debate. Their authors assume the world of academia in which back and forth discussions are ongoing constantly with none of these debate constraints. 6. No internal link polemics are inevitable and do not equate to sovereigns waging war; it is only to advocate a side in a debate to label polemicists as warmongers is itself polemical Dean 08 (Jodi, Teacher of Political Theory and Author; march 5th, http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2008/03/polemics-politi.html; Polemics, Politics and Problematisation) These passages from Foucault are well known. What's particularly fascinating is how wrong they are. Link: Polemics, Politics and Problematisation:
Questions and answers depend on a game- a game that is at once pleasant and difficult- in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of the dialogue. The first part of the passage is nearly Habermasian (and those who worked to bring Habermasian and Foucauldian ideas together of course emphasized this passage). The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the search for the truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is harmful and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, the game does not consist of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak, but of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be, not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth, but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.

Never agree to question? Right to wage war? An enemy whose very existence is a threat? Abolishing the other? These too quick accusations sound themselves polemical. Perhaps Foucault is attempting a kind of deconstruction? Perhaps he is deliberately performing a contradiction so as to undermine the nearly Habermasian position he just took? I had thought that polemics were disputations, arguments against another position defended by apologists. Together, the positions engaged in an argumentative practice designed to get to something like truth. The polemicist pushes a side, but against another side, in an agonistic practice that is itself dialogic. As a practice of speech, it is not the same as war and annihilation. It's part of a time of words. What is the privilege of a polemicist? Surely not the right to wage war. The polemicist is not the sovereign; the sovereign doesn't have to use words, give reasons, engage in critique. The sovereign doesn't need or require a partner. The polemicist does. His very position presupposes an adversary. Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth; or a history that recognizes any search for truth is always already polemical.

SPARK DEBATE

a2 Polemics

Go Chargers!!

7. No specific link no discursive practices we use can be technically called polemical other than our call for the ballot. Either the link is way too vague and does not uniquely apply to our advocacy, or they link as well. 8. No impact we can advocate a position without necessitating the bias that polemics implies our advocacy uses problematization to conclude for a political position this is not the same as polemics, which ignore and distort opposing views Crampton 07 (Jeremy, Professor at UKentucky and Foucault Scholar, http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/13/partisanship-polemics-and-politics/ )
Foucault famously observed that he preferred problematizations, not polemics and defined the former: Problematization doesnt mean representation of a pre-existing object, nor the creation by discourse of an object that doesnt exist. It is the totality of discursive or non-discursive practices that introduces something into the play of true and false and constitutes it as an object of thought (whether in the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis, etc.). Politics, Philosophy, Culture, p. 257. So are problematizations and partisanship compatible? One might initially think not. Again from Foucault: I think I have in fact been situated in most of the squares on the political checkerboard, one after another and sometimes simultaneously: as an anarchist, leftist, ostentatious or disguised Marxist, nihilist, explicit or secret anti-Marxist, technocrat and I must admit that I rather like what they mean (Foucault 1997, 113). Foucault, Michel (1997) Polemics, Politics, and Problematizations. In Paul Rabinow (Ed.) The Essential Works of Michel Foucault Vol. I. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press. 11119. This is, you might say, the antithesis of partisanship as a political position: left, right, centerall as necessary, all desirable so that one remains mobile and tactical, not strategic. The polls showing the distrust of political bias in the classroom were themselves strongly split along political lines. Fully 73.3% of Republicans thought there was a problem, but only 6.7% of Democrats. But overall 40% of respondents thought that political bias partisanshipwas a very serious problem. Again this implies that having a position that leads one to be biased is a problem. I wonder why this is, and I wonder if it is possible as I said above to be honestly (for want of a better wor d) partisan? In Europe for example, it is well-known that certain newspapers hew to a political position (liberal, conservative), whereas in the US the news media is supposed to be fair and balanced (but is not). The US news media of course is frequently criticized for not actively doing journalistic investigation of the powerful, instead being rather smitten by them (criticism most vigorously from bloggers and authors such as Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Eric Boehlert in his book Lapdogs: How the Press rolled Over for Bush).

Contemplating this one could argue that partisanship has become polemic, and if so, this leaves little room for the honest partisan, the person who believes something and tries to vigorously pursue it. This does not mean however, that we should conclude that partisanship should be divorced from politics. Partisanship could be divorced from bias however. I would like to operate under and suggest a more expansive notion of politics than partisanship as bias with which it is frequently conflated. We often hear it said that we dont want politics to enter into a decision, meaning bias. But if problematizations are the putting into play of the true and false and of constituting things as objects of thought, what other word might we want than politics? Politicspolisis the art of deciding about where you live. In this way I think that problematizations can be re-identified with partisanship. Partisan politics is the recognition of genuinely held positionalities which are neither polemics nor bias . I think this recovery of the meaning of politics is quite in line with the continental tradition of thought and of Foucaults putting into play of true and false.