Bruschke Aff Perf Supplement

ADI 2007 Bruschke lab/aff.
supplement
PERFORMANCE AFF FRAMEWORK/FREIRE FILE
A/T FRAMEWORK READ AS THEORY ARGUMENT.................................................2

A/T “PREDICTABILITY”.................................................................................................7
A/T MOVING TARGET...................................................................................................10
FAIRNESS........................................................................................................................12
2AC overviews..................................................................................................................13
A/T: Just add a plan...........................................................................................................16
2AR overview...................................................................................................................17
FREIRE: BANKING EDUCATION BAD.......................................................................18
PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT KEY TO DECOLONIZATION......................................21
EDUCATION NOT NEUTRAL.......................................................................................24
MUST LISTEN TO OPPRESSED/ONLY SOLUTIONS COME FROM THEM...........25
A/T: PEOPLE OF PRIVILEGE CAN’T PARTICIPATE..................................................27
A/T: MUST FOCUS ON CAPITALISM..........................................................................28
DEHUMANIZATION IMPACTS....................................................................................29
ABSENCE OF DIALOGUE EXTENDS OPPRESISON................................................32
A/T: WE JUST ALL AGREE............................................................................................33
SINGLE FRAMEWORK BAD........................................................................................34
A/T Realism/util good (for Freire aff)...............................................................................36
A/T PHILOSOPHY (for Freire aff)..................................................................................37
AT Narratives bad.............................................................................................................39
A/T “You bring the Druze to light”...................................................................................40
STATE BAD/DISSENT GOOD: CRITICAL IR JUSTIFICIATIONS.............................41
ORAL HISTORY/PALESTINIAN NARRATIVE...........................................................48
Enck-Wanzer: Intersectional rhetoric/Instrumentality bad...............................................51
1
ADI 2007 Bruschke lab/aff. supplement
A/T FRAMEWORK READ AS THEORY ARGUMENT

In our view, topicality and framework are inseparable. A better way to
define the topic is in a way that rejects the state as government: We believe
that the government is the people; a view shared by several original
founders, as Calvin Massey phrased well in 1992:
(University of Cincinnati Law Review. University of Cincinnati, 1992, 61 U. Cin. L.
Rev. 49, 27582 words, SYMPOSIUM: PERSPECTIVE ON NATURAL LAW: The
Natural Law Component of The Ninth Amendment)
Thus, the framers expected "that the protection of citizen rights . . . [would]
be governed by state constitutional law." This is not surprising, for the
188
framers regarded sovereignty as resting ultimately with the people, and

recognized that the people of each state had been careful to create
structures by which written and unwritten fundamental law would be
enforced to limit the illegitimate pretenses of the people's legislative
agents. Because of the existence of this principle, a "federal republic . . .
of both national and state governments was possible because the people,
as the sovereign body, were superior to each government and could
determine the precise amount of power allocated to each." Accordingly,
189
because the federal and state governments were "different agents and
trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for
different purposes," Madison and the Federalists saw no need for an
190
enumerated bill of rights, because the sovereign people had made an

explicit, and quite narrow, delegation of power to the central government in
the new Constitution.
n188 Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., The Original Purpose of the Bill of Rights:
James Madison and the Founders' Search for a Workable Balance
Between Federal and State Power, 26 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1261, 1272
(1989). Several delegates expressed this sentiment explicitly during the
1787 Convention. It is recorded of Oliver Ellsworth that he trusted "for the
preservation of his rights to the State Govt. From these alone he could
derive the greatest happiness he expects in this life." 1 THE RECORDS
OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 492 (Max Ferrand ed.,
1937) [hereinafter Convention Records]. Similarly, Roger Sherman
declared that a Bill of Rights was not necessary, because "[t]he State
Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in
force are sufficient." 2 id. at 588.
n189 Wilmarth, supra note 188, at 1273.
n190 THE FEDERALIST NO. 46, at 239 (James Madison) (Max Beloff ed.,
1987).
2
As such, those of us in this room have more sovereignty to engage the

topic than the body in Washington, DC. It is our sovereign right to limit
their illegitimate use of power in our name.
This interpretation is better. Definitions are never neutral and simply lay
out ground; they construct a reality. We can either construct the topic in an
exclusive way that makes it irrelevant or in an inclusive way that allows us
to BETTER understand international relations. Our first warrant for our
interpretation is not that the state is bad but that defining the topic only in
terms of the state forces debates that are irrelevant to actual international
relations.
Ferguson 1997 (Kennan; Professor of Governmental and International Affairs,

University of South Florida; Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial
Identities; page 180)
To map is to designate members of social classes ( in the broadest sense of that tem), as
well as national peoples, through an aesthetic discrimination in relation to others. These
Heigeggerian paradigms enable a different model of the ways in which we understand
foreign cultures. The traditional Kantian mentalistic direct representation(e.g., the way
people are described in a text book) becomes far less important than the constitution of
selves in relation to incarnations of other cultures in everyday life. The immediate and
commonplace aspects of cultural items—the things valued—augment relations with alterity;
the artifactual is far more important than the intellectual in determining these relations. To
determine the American understanding of Africa, for example, most academics study
canonical texts of foreign policy like state department bulletins or administration policy
statements. These are not unimportant sources, but they are insignificant and tangential to
Americans’ common lives. More germane to the U.S. comprehension of other peoples are
the aesthetic associations with them, the everyday relationships between our lives and
other cultures: using African clothing styles, displaying native crafts, wearing handmade
jewelry, or viewing imagery of their ways of life in National Geographic. Through these
cartographic creations, ties of the world rather than the significant players in issues of
international affairs. Paul Simon is thus a far more important American-international
diplomat than whoever happens to the American representative to the United Nations at a
particular time, because he has far more control over representations of “Africanness.” It is
as important to examine everyday interactions with aesthetic judgments of the cultures as
to study the ways those cultures are represented by disciplines like international relations.
This is never more true than in the case of Palestine. Their definition of the
word government probably excludes the PNA, and to define the PNA as
“the government” in Palestine is to construct a world radically out of step
with the experience of most Palestinians.
3
A second warrant is that their construction of government is dangerous

and destructive; debating this way creates a way of thinking that justifies
the violence of both Bush and Bin Laden
Agathangelou & Ling explain in 04 (Anna M.[Lecturer at the University of

Houston-Clear Lake and Director of Global Change Institute], L.H.M.[ Associate
Professor Graduate Program in International Affairs at The New School]) “Power,
Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11”.
International Studies QuarterlyVolume 48 Issue 3 Pg. 520.
Borders of our minds secure violence to satiate elite desires for hegemonic
politics. Sovereignty and borders may correlate with objective,
geographical markers but their significance operates primarily in the mind
(cf. Weldes, Laffey, Gusterson, and Duvall, 1999). Peoples and societies did not
express legalistic notions of borders or sovereignty until the spread of the
Westphalian state-system in the 17th century. Indeed, European colonization
proceeded precisely on this lack. Osama bin Laden revitalizes this colonial
past to rationalize his hegemonic politics: that is, a religious sovereignty
against the "West." George W. Bush seeks not just national retribution for
heinous crimes committed against America but a return to old-fashioned
colonialism: that is, (Western, Christian) civilizational discipline against all
"terror." (The Bush administration's semantic shift from "terrorism" to "terror"
offers one small indication of this change from a political to cultural agenda.)
The negative will undoubtedly say that criticism of the state is their ground.
However, please remember that you can NEVER establish ground BEFORE
you select the better definition. To assert that “state bad” is negative
ground begs the question of how government should be defined in the first
place.
Recall that our 1AC has ALREADY established the value to rejecting state-
based interpretations of reality:
4
Our conception of government shapes our interpretation of all other terms:

constructive engagement means an active intellectual dialogue between us
as students and the people we research as described by the 1AC. Aid
means assistance through dialogue. We assist with security when we help
negotiate empowered identities. All these interpretation are consistent with
our interpretation of government and all contrary definitions assume a
government to be a central state actor.
Furthermore, “constructive engagement” means dialogue, respect, and

cooperation. We are a discursive affirmative, and 100% of our advantage is
that we maintain a dialogical relationship with the 1AC text.
Craig Miyamoto, a fellow of the PRSA, said on June 9. 2000: (Public

Relations Society of America,
http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/8925/engage.htm)
Next time, instead of stonewalling, ignoring, or trading blows, try some

"constructive engagement." Engage opponents in serious dialogue, learn to trust
them, and at the same time, give them reason to trust you. Show them the
figures and the facts as you know them, and be as open as possible without
compromising your competitive advantage in your marketplace.
Giving your opponents a measure of ownership by allowing them to help shape

policy is as good a gesture as any to bring them to your side of the table.
Continuing to fight the battle may not make you a loser (although it might make
management feel powerful as they flex their muscles), but it certainly will not
make you a winner. Engage your opponents, not in battle, but in constructive
work for the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest number of people.
Get past the dog-sniffing, feeling-out process as soon as you can. Very early in
the engagement, lay all your cards on the table. Respect the cards your
opponents show. And then, together, roll up your sleeves to work cooperatively.
Agree on small points at first and work your way up to the big ones. That way,
both sides will be loath to discard the hard work and results that have preceded
the sticky issues. Although consensus might never reached, each side cannot
help but understand what forces are driving the other toward its own goals.
In a sense, constructive engagement is almost Biblical in its underlying concept -

Love thy neighbor, (and, kill thy enemies with kindness). Make them part of the
solution, and they will cease to be a problem. Naïve? Perhaps. Historically
effective? Definitely.
The strategy is empowerment. Education is the key. Use it to reach the new
objective: Agreement, instead of outright victory. Everybody will win, everybody
will be the better for it.
5
TOPICALITY IS NEVER A QUESTION OF “HOW MUCH” EDUCATION, BUT

ALWAYS A QUESTION OF “WHAT TYPE” OF EDUCATION. EDUCATION
WILL NEVER BE NEUTRAL; IT CAN EITHER REPRODUCE INEQUALITY OR
CHALLENGE IT.
Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

Courage]
[Their framework arguments simply beg the question of how best to define
the state. If we win our interpretation of government is better it is an
explicit rejection of their framework.]
6
A/T “PREDICTABILITY”
The 1AC did lay out stable things that we will defend. In our style of debate you
can offer a different artifact that disproves our claims, cite other subaltern voices
that disagree with our conclusions, argue that [oral history/humor/subaltern
criticism/perspective by incongruity] fails, etc. Imagine you put Jacques Derrida
and Judith Butler in a room to talk about oppressed groups in the middle east.
There would not be a plan text, but there would be a great debate.
The topic is about foreign aid; it is entirely predictable that you would have to
debate about disempowered groups.
The only thing that isn’t predictable under our interpretation is what the
government is; all the evidence you have about oppressed groups that isn’t an
agent counterplan is relevant.
Being discursive doesn’t destroy the literature base; there are tons of critical IR
journals that discuss the same issues in a different way. The negative refusal to
go to this literature or to stuff it all in one “critical IR” file shows an intentional
unwillingness to expose themselves to an entire shelf of the library, not any
failure on our part to read important and predictable literature. Type “discourse”
and “international relations” in the ASU index and 51 books pop up. In short, no
important IR scholar would find discourse an unpredictable area of debate.
It is also bogus to claim that discursive arguments aren’t predictable anymore;

Northwestern won the NDT without reading a plan text more than 7 years ago.
This proves predictability is a bad standard; it relies on a pre-debate notion of

what is reasonable to research. Your ideological decision to refuse to enter an
entire wing of the library doesn’t mean we are not predictable. A better standard
is whether there is ample literature there.
Ultimately, they are trying to draw an impossible bright line. Obviously, new ideas
have to be possible in debate or it has no value. The question is how much
“new” is too much. Unless they can define this point and prove we’re past it they
haven’t met their burden of proof. We think that the problem is self-correcting;
insignificant ideas won’t win debates. We think the 1AC demonstrates the value
of including our new idea in the debate lexicon.
We are just asking them to talk about their personal experience; nothing should
be easier for them to talk about than their own lives, even without prior notice.
7
Predictability comes at a price; the subaltern are not represented in traditional IR

literature or even documented at all. That means their frameworks forces debate
to perpetuate the exclusion of these people and discourses. This proves our
Freire argument, that education is never neutral. We can either choose to
include the subaltern in our discussion or actively participate in their exclusion.
Hugo Slim and Paul Thomson. 1995. Listening for a Change: oral testimony and
community development pg. 4-5
8
1AR on “State Bad”

Their evidence is unresponsive; our claim is that the exclusive state focus
MISSES crucial evidence necessary to understand how policy really works.
Not one of their cards defends that state action doesn’t have blind spots.
The affirmative is necessary to correct them. Remember, debate will
replicate these blind spots unless we incorporate strategies like the
affirmative. This is our Ferguson evidence.
And, our Agathangelou & Ling evidence proves that the justification Bush
uses for using the state to protect us is the same warrant Bin Laden uses
to threaten us. This disproves their argument that states are necessary to
protect the world, since the logic of the state is what generates the threat in
the first place. Try a logic that can accurately describe the world without
replicating threats.
Ultimately, they might prove state engagement is necessary for

policymakers, but we can still win that state-centric thinking is bad for
debate, which is the only impact we claim. We are academics, not
policymakers, and we have the ability to probe deeper questions about the
nature of things. We are in a unique position to correct the blind spots of
policymakers. Evaluate academic arguments on the basis of intellectual
quality and not the ability to produce a less-disasterous worst-case
scenario.
9
A/T MOVING TARGET

We don’t shift; we’ll defend 100% of the 1AC and defend all the ground we
outlined at the bottom of the 1AC. They could have clarified what we’d
defend in the CX, and we’ll also stick by our CX answers.
For the record, they can argue:
Reading overly general evidence on their part does not constitute a shift on
our part. Even if we read a plan and claimed prolif bad, if they read prolif
good we could still make distinctions about vertical vs. horizontal prolif,
fast vs. slow, TNW versus conventional arms, etc. We make the same
distinctions, but it’s only showing how their evidence doesn’t apply to our
specific 1NC. Just because their “narratives bad” evidence doesn’t apply
to our particular narrative doesn’t mean we’re shifting, only that their
evidence is bad.
All this depends on topicality; we’ll win the world is fluid and policy actions
always involve cultural questions, making the interaction between any text
and culture inevitable. Pretending a plan text limits that out is just willful
ignorance of the way policy really works.
Finally, discursive arguments commit us to defend more than a plan text

would. Both sides are responsible for entire intellectual traditions, and
don’t play evasive games with agents, implementation, and time frames.
10
1AR ON THE FRAMEWORK

We are not saying that all affirmatives have to be run like ours is; you can read
evidence that defends state action and have those debates in other rounds.
They can only win on framework if they win that discursive affirmatives should
NEVER be run; we win if debate has room for both.
They also can’t go for switch sides as defense and predictability as offense at the
same time. If you have to be ready for these arguments when you’re aff, you
ought to have a file on this stuff.
The most important issue is that you can’t decide ground before deciding how to
interpret the topic. “State bad” is a reason our interpretation of the topic is better,
and that means it is also affirmative ground.
Even if they win that a realist framework is good, our Ferguson evidence proves
that the statist framework systematically distorts what is really going on. Our
affirmative is necessary to realistically understand the content of the topic.
Finally, education and predictability are inseparable. The type of education a

predictable debate generates is destructive to both us as debaters and the
people we debate about. They cannot win framework unless they win both
education and predictability.
11
FAIRNESS
Fairness is not separate from predictability or education. The only warrant they
have for unfairness is unpredictability, and the only impact to fairness is
education.
Even if they win unfairness in debate, we will win that debates in their framework
are unfair to all the people excluded from our activity who’s voices can never
enter it in their framework. This is a larger fairness impact.
Choosing good 1AC ground is not unfair or every affirmative would lose. The
standard is whether we give the negative some ground to take up and defend,
our 1AC already outlined what we will always defend, and everything else has
been roundly defeated on the predictability debate.
12
2AC overviews
S&M
IR has naturalized its own categories and failed to recognize that they are
subjective creations. This intellectual failing has produced serial policy failure
and oppression on an untold scale. The presentation of subaltern voices that we
listen to and dialogue with is constructive engagement at a discursive level. The
advantage is that we tear down the naturalized categories and open space for
new thinking. This is a much better way to debate about I.R. in the middle east
than parroting our opinions about what governments should do. The only impact
of any debate is the intellectual accomplishment of how we think about the
issues; we believe we have a better way.
Axis of Evil
The key to IR is identity; that’s where politics and power impact the lives of real
people. The oppressed need to decolonize their identities and those of privilege
must find a way to understand identity without recolonizing others. The
ChicanoBrujo style – which is irreverent, gritty, and over the top-- allows identity
to be explored and empowered and resists essentialization. The advantage is
not just for the oppressed but for the audience, for whom the possibilities of
identity are opened up. The jokes in our 1AC show both the western ignorance
of middle eastern identity – conflating it all as Arab – as well as the discomfort
many Iranians can feel toward their own state. Our 1AC is a constructive
engagement with middle eastern identity necessary to decolonize it. All this is in
our Hollings and Calafell evidence in the 1AC.
Martyrs
If the Middle East were to conflate Christian ideas with the Crusades they could
very well conclude we were inherently violent and the only way to engage us was
with violent resistance. If they were instead to strategically engage Christian
ideals of self-sacrifice they could conceive of the west as an entity to be
persuaded in more constructive ways. Our 1AC is not about how to solve
terrorism, but how we should think about the concept of martyrdom in Islam. The
status quo views it monolithically, locking us in a cycle of violence. Our call is to
understand it in context, because only they can we conceive of an entity we can
constructively engage. This is a much better way to debate about I.R. in the
middle east than parroting our opinions about what governments should do. The
only impact of any debate is the intellectual accomplishment of how we think
about the issues; we believe we have a better way.
13
Oral History
Oral histories are the most important evidence that debaters never hear; all the
so-called “substantive issues” we debate we fundamentally misunderstand
without it. The impact is not some high-theory discursive weirdness, but that our
aid policies increase human suffering instead of solving it. The substantive
issues are never just about the policies; they are always cultural and emotional.
How we debate them is also important; we must relate them to our lives in order
to really educate ourselves. This is a much better way to debate about I.R. in the
middle east than parroting our opinions about what governments should do. The
only impact of any debate is the intellectual accomplishment of how we think
about the issues; we believe we have a better way.
Peter Roberts 2000 [Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the Work
of Paulo Freire]
14
PERSPECTIVE BY INCONGRUITY
The only impact of any debate is the intellectual accomplishment of how we think
about the issues; we present the Druze in the 1AC as a fundamental challenge to
the idea of what constructive engagement is and ought to be. It is NOT about
solving for the Druze, but understanding who the Druze are and how they
redefine the way we should think about engagement. We gain perspective on
engagement by the incongruity that the Druze introduce to the concept. This is a
much better way to debate about I.R. in the middle east than parroting our
opinions about what governments should do.
15
A/T: Just add a plan

The warrant for affirmative is that state-centered debates are bad. We can’t just
incorporate a state-based plan in that framework.
16
2AR overview
The International Relations literature fundamentally misunderstands
aid policy
how gender distorts policy
martyrdom
the Druze
Islamic identity.
Debate can either choose to reproduce that failure or debate the issue in its full
context. Our 1AC claim is that our performance IS a discursive engagement with
the topic that is necessary to understand the world as it truly is.
The ONLY impact to ANY debate is the education we take from it. We COULD
argue over whether a given policy is a good one or not, but the IMPACT of the
debate is what we take from it. Our 1AC constructive engagement is a HUGELY
important step for debate to take and will MASSIVELY improve our knowledge of
the topic. This is the in-round, discursive impact we’ve been talking about since
the 1AC.
We are NOT a movement or resistance, we do NOT result in political action, we

are NOT trying to change USFG practice. We ARE trying to make topic-specific
education better. If we’ve done that, vote for our 1AC.
17
FREIRE: BANKING EDUCATION BAD

What the affirmative calls “education” is merely exposure to facts. This
style of education dehumanizes debaters; only the affirmative style of
education truly generates knowledge.
Freire 1979
Paulo Freire (Brazilian educator and theorist of education). Pedagogy of the
Oppressed. Chapter 2.
http://www.marxists.org/subject/education/freire/pedagogy/ch02.htm
Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the
depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the
teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently
receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in
which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as
receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the opportunity
to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But in the last
analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of
creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. For
apart from inquiry apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human.
Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the
restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry, human beings pursue in the
world, with the world, and with each other.
18
THE BANKING METHOD PERPETUATES OPPRESSION, DISABLES

LEARNING, AND IS THOROUGHLY DEHUMANIZING. DIALOGIC
EDUCATION SOLVES.
of Paulo Freire]
19
TRANSMISSION OF CONTENT IS NOT EFFECTIVE EDUCATION.

Courage]
20
PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT KEY TO DECOLONIZATION

Locating your own position within the issues attains a type of education
that can be decolonizing.
Hooks 1994
Bell Hooks (African-American intellectual, feminist, and social activist) Teaching
to Transgress p. 47
Because the colonizing forces are so powerful in this white supremacist capitalist
patriarchy, it seems that black people are always having to renew a commitment
to a decolonizing political process that should be fundamental to our lives and is
not. And so Freire’s work in its global understanding of liberation struggles,
always emphasizes that this is the important initial stage of transformation- that
historical moment when one begins to think critically about the self and identity in
relation to one’s political circumstance. But while to say the true word — which is
work, which is praxis — is to transform the world, saying that word is not the
privilege of some few persons, but the right of everyone. Consequently no one
can say a true word alone — nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act
which robs others of their words.
WE MUST ACTIVELY ENGAGE WITH THE TEXT AND APPLY IT TO OUR

PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.
Peter Robert [Educational Review 50(2), 105-114, Jun 1998 ]
The immediate physical presence of other human beings is thus not a

prerequisite for all forms of dialogue. Hence it becomes possible to speak of a
dialogical relation between readers and texts. Books, from Freire's point of
view, ought to be actively engaged: this means entering into a relationship
of a particular kind with the text, allowing, in a sense, the text to 'talk' to us
while we simultaneously 'talk' to it. Readers ought to both apply the ideas
they encounter in books to their own struggles and material circumstances
and bring their personal experiences to bear in interpreting and 'rewriting'
texts. Reading, for Freire, entails 'seizing' or 'grappling' with the text, both
challenging it and being prepared to be challenged by it (Roberts, 1993). The
respect for others necessary for Freirean dialogue is enhanced in a truly critical
situation, for to wrestle with a text is to indicate the worth of engaging an author's
ideas.
21
PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT IS KEY. ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ALREADY

SOCIAL; THEIR POLY SCI LITERATURE IS NO MORE OBJECTIVE THAN
OUR SUBALTERN TEXTS
of Paulo Freire]
22
23
EDUCATION NOT NEUTRAL

Naming the world in a different way transforms it.
Freire 1979
Human existence cannot be silent nor can it be nourished by false words, but
only by true words, with which men and women transform the world. To exist
humanly is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world in its turn
reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming.
Human beings are not built in silence,[3]but in word, in work, in action-
If it is in speaking their word that people, by naming the world, transform it
dialogue imposes itself as the way by which they achieve significance as human
beings.
24
MUST LISTEN TO OPPRESSED/ONLY SOLUTIONS

COME FROM THEM
Solutions can only come from the oppressed themselves. This is a warrant
for the 1AC engagement with subaltern texts.
Freire 1979
Oppressed chapter 1-
This lesson and this apprenticeship must come, however, from the oppressed
themselves and from those who are truly in solidarity with them. As individuals or
as peoples, by fighting for the restoration of their humanity they will be attempting
the restoration of true generosity. Who are better prepared than the oppressed to
understand the terrible significance of an oppressive society? Who suffer the
effects of oppression more than the oppressed? Who can better understand the
necessity of liberation? They will not gain this liberation by chance but through
the praxis of their quest for it, through their recognition of the necessity to fight for
it.
25
Giving voice to the subaltern is a necessary first step to liberation.
Freire 1979
Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and
those who do not wish this naming — between those who deny others the right to
speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them. Those
who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim
this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression.
26
A/T: PEOPLE OF PRIVILEGE CAN’T PARTICIPATE
WE ALL HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES TO WE CAN SHARE
Peter Robert [Educational Review 50(2), 105-114, Jun 1998, ]
This does not mean that personal experience should represent the end-point of a
literacy programme. Education, Freire would be quick to say, ought to encourage
people to go beyond their current understanding of the world (whether this is
through reading and writing or any other form of social practice), by challenging
them, by demanding something some of them in their thinking than they have
been accustomed to, by extending their existing critical capacities and so on.
Freire's point is that each person has unique access to at least one domain
of knowledge-the reality of their lived experience. No one knows my world-
my perceptions, feelings, longings, sufferings, activities, etc.-quite the way
I do. A literacy programme (indeed any educational programme) cannot succeed
if learners are unable to relate in some way to what educators or coordinators are
saying. The stronger the connection with existing knowledge and
experience, the better (other things being equal) learners will be able to
proceed with further learning by building on this base.
27
A/T: MUST FOCUS ON CAPITALISM

CAN’T REDUCE TRANSFORMATION AND EMPOWERMENT TO A SIMPLE
QUESTION OF CAPITALISM
of Paulo Freire]
28
DEHUMANIZATION IMPACTS
HUMANIZATION IS THE ULTIMATE IMPACT TO EDUCATION; THERE IS NO
OTHER PURPOSE TO IT.
of Paulo Freire]
29
OUR END GOAL FOR EDUCATION IS DEEPER SELF-CONSCIOUS

UNDERSTANDING
[Peter Roberts 2000 [Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the

Work of Paulo Freire]
30
HUMILITY IS THE KEY; SINGLE FRAMEWORKS AND BUREAUCRATIC

PROCESSING CAN NEVER ATTAIN IT

Courage]
31
ABSENCE OF DIALOGUE EXTENDS OPPRESISON

FAILURE TO DIALOGUE WITH THE OPPRESSED NECESSARILY
OPPRESSES THEM

Courage]
32
A/T: WE JUST ALL AGREE

CAN STILL DEBATE AND DISAGREE IN A DIALOGIC WAY

Courage]
33
SINGLE FRAMEWORK BAD

WE MUST ADMIT THAT OUR APPROACHES MUST BE WRONG FOR TRUE
EDUCATION TO OCCUR. THIS MITIGATES DEBATING IN THE SAME
FRAMEWORK FOREVER AND ESTABLISHES THE DIALOGICAL
IMPERATIVE.

Courage]
34
35
A/T Realism/util good (for Freire aff)

First of all, our 1AC is about aid, not security. The evidence talks about how traditional
aid programs focus only on policy, even when the policies are only a small part of what
goes into a program success. Our 1AC evidence shows that traditional IR, realist
literature doesn’t even consult most of the people they work with, that these are
invaluable sources of information, in fact the exact phrasing of the 1AC is that the value
of this evidence can’t be overestimated. Ours is not so much an indictment of the realist
framework per se, we’re just saying they ignore crucial evidence. So unless the negative
can show their literature HAS included this information, most of these cards are
irrelevant.
Finally, it’s not really even offense. The realist framework being good is not a reason that
they shouldn’t listen to the voices of the oppressed.
36
A/T PHILOSOPHY (for Freire aff)

Our framework is that you fundamentally misrepresent, misunderstand, and ultimately
reproduce the oppression of the marginalized unless you consult their voices first hand
and show your personal engagement with them.
The gateway is for the negative to show that their authors have consulted the oppressed
and demonstrated a personal reaction to their concerns. The negative should then go on
to show THEIR personal engagement with their philosophers and how they relate to us.
[Resistance]
We are not “resistance” to anything. The 1AC advantage is about decolonizing ourselves
by listening to oral history. This is an in-round, real-world, discursive impact. We do not
talk about movements or changing the government.
I guess I’m supposed to feel like an inferior debater because I don’t understand what
means by
. But All we’re saying is that it’s a good idea to listen to marginalized voices to
understand development needs; they can’t win the debate until they can explain why
is a reason to reject that.
37
And, a reason we distrust this philosophical approach is that these philosophers can’t
accomplish our performative ends. Philosophers haven’t done any better at listening to
the oppressed than aid workers.
Ronald J. Grele. 2006 (Handbook of Oral History, pg. 55-56)
38
AT Narratives bad
Your evidence assumes we use the narratives to try to produce political change. That’s
not the point. We listen to the voices to decolonize ourselves; we personally engage them
to deepen our understanding and improve our education. Your evidence assumes a much
more static version of narrative and not our dialogic relation to it.
39
A/T “You bring the Druze to light”

We do NOT increase the contact between the Druze and the west. We are
westerners talking to other westerners about how we should engage to the
Druze.
It’s like this: Imagine someone had a massive crush on you, but you didn’t
want to date them. You would talk to your friends and conclude it was NOT
a good idea to hang out with them at parties. The discussion is between
you and your friends, and it ends with LESS contact even though you
talked MORE about it.
Finally, this is something they need a card on to win. They have NO

evidence saying that “talking about the Druze even to say disengage with
them engages them more.” That’s quite a claim, it’s not supported by ANY
of our evidence, and they have no evidence of their own to prove it.
40
STATE BAD/DISSENT GOOD: CRITICAL IR

JUSTIFICIATIONS
WE REJECT STATIST INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TOPIC. GLOBAL
POLITICS IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT DISSENT, NOT SOVERIGN STATES.
Bleiker, 2K. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and

Cambridge, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge
University Press, 2000. p. 273-74)
A conceptual break with existing understandings of global politics is

necessary to recognise trans-territorial dissident practices and to
comprehend the processes through which they exert human agency. A
long tradition of conceptualising global politics in state-centric ways has entrenched spatial
and mental boundaries between domestic and international spheres such that various
forms of agency have become virtually unrecognised, or at least untheorised. The
centrality of dissent can thus be appreciated only once we view global
politics, at least for a moment, not as interactions between sovereign
states, but as 'a transversal site of contestation'. This is to say that
one's investigative gaze must be channelled less on national
boundaries and the discursive practices that legitimise and
objectivise them, but more on various forms of connections,
resistances, identity formations and other political flows that
transgress the spatial givenness of global politics. With such a conceptual
reorientation in mind, the present book has embarked on a disruptive reading of the
agency problematique in international theory. This is to say that it has tried to understand
transversal dissent and its influences on global politics by employing epistemological and
methodological strategies that one would not necessarily expect in an investigation of an
international relations theme. Cross-territorial manifestations of human
agency have thus been scrutinised, for instance, not by engaging the
well-developed structure— agency debate in international theory, but
by employing a form of inquiry that illuminates the issues in question
from a novel set of theoretical and practical perspectives. The following
concluding remarks now reflect on the benefits that such a disruptive reading engenders
for an understanding of contemporary global politics.
41
IN RETHINKING THE POLITICAL WE INEVITABLY OPEN UP NEW

POSSIBILITIES. THIS AFFECTS BOTH THE WAY WE INTERACT IN PUBLIC
SPACE AND OUR POLICY DECISIONS.
DILLON 96 (MICHAEL, SENIOR LECTURER IN POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LANCASTER, THE POLITICS OF SECURITY, P 7-
8)
Now, if we think the political in the way that we do because of the way that we think,
and if the project of thought has taken a significantly different turn, then the entire
range of our political concerns must take a different turn as well. The scope of that
turn is such that it must traverse all of our traditional political concerns. It re-raises,
for example, the thought of the political itself, in what I would call the politics of the
thought of the political. It necessarily, also, re-poses the ancient concern with forms of
government, in as much as it raises the question of the public space. It has direct
purchase, also, upon what most preoccupies everyday politics; namely ‘policy’, or
the moment of decision and judgement. In respect of the question of public space,
the turn of thought insists upon a bi focal interpretation of the limits set by the
institutional delineation of public space, and the necessary play of both presence and
absence which takes place there. For its borders both separate and join —
differentiate as they individuate — constitute the politically abject as they constitute
the politically subject. That bi-focality, alert to their relationality, emphasises also the
undecidability of borders. Necessary but contingent, material but mutable, precise
but porous, they are prone to violent foreclosure which excites its own resistance.
This is not a question of refusing people individual or collective identity, enframed
and sustained by institutional practices. Rather, it is a matter of construing the
institutional question of the political in a way, consistent with the openness of
human being, that cultivates its freedom to be. A freedom to be that can only be
enjoyed within mutably habitable, rather than viciously and unsustainably
circumscribed, limits. Limits, too, which are on terms with the ineradicable and
irreducible Otherness human beings encounter within themselves as well as with others,
because they are indebted to it. This turn of thought also re-poses the question of
policy. It does so as the moment of ethical encounter for human beings; beings which,
however rooted they may think that they are, are always already en route, out in the open
and on the move. Exposed to, and constituted by, an Otherness they share with
others, human beings are always already both decided, and in a position of having to
decide, in respect of themselves with others in that Otherness. Their mode of
decision en route (simultaneously deciding and being decided) is consequently their
ethos. However much this moment is rendered, politically, as a technologised
decisional administration of things, there is, in fact, no escape from encountering it
as an ethical encounter. For a way of being that is gratuitously given its being to be,
that being is a free being which has responsibly to assume its taking place in the
world as a responsive being. Short of death, there is no way out of this predicament,
other than to immerse ourselves in the routinised everyday in the hope that we will never have to confront it. Ironically, because the
everyday has a disturbing habit of breaking-down, such a recourse is always unsafe. Generalised routines never satisfactorily fit the
singular case, old habits are continuously overwhelmed by the new, or the body inevitably begins to age and crack-up. We are
temporal beings and temporality is a motility which treats the everyday like a vagrant. Given no peace, it is continuously told to move-
on.
42
Worse case scenarios focus causes political myopia and stagnates effecting political
thinking. The disad is strategic analysis on crack. Its construction of a worse case
scenario stories distorts policy analysis, causing cataclysmic lapses of knowledge.
Only by looking at underlying assumption can we truly become effective pragmatic
policy makers, meaning we straight turn the warrants to your util and framework
arguments. This also serves as terminal impact defense because the worse case
scenarios just don’t happen.
Barnett ’05 - Professor at the U.S. Naval war college and Harvard poly sci Phd
Thomas P - The Pentagons New Map- War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century- page 20-21
Why did the defense analytic community perform so poorly across the 1990s in
terms of generating unreproducible strategic concepts? Being bottom – up thinkers,
most security analysts believe it's only right to leave the big questions for the
policymakers up on top. But as I learned each and every time I walked into a Pentagon
briefing room, most policymakers are neck-deep in day-to-day management issues and
are rarely able to step back from their never-ending schedule of fifteen-minute office
calls to actually contemplate the big-picture question of Why? So much of the defense
analytic community – not to mention the intelligence community- assumes that as all the worker
bee analysts toil in their individual cubbyholes, someone up top fit all the disparate efforts into
some logical, strategic whole. In truth, that rarely happen in the pentagon or elsewhere in the
government. Most senior and mid-level policymakers spend there day putting out bureaucratic
fires, and when someone like me comes into the room to brief them on the view form 30,000 feet,
I'm typically welcomed like a fabulous diversion from the daily grind. I've given a lot of briefs
over the years to special groups embedded throughout the U.S. Government that are dedicated to
“strategic issues”, “strategic assessment”, “long-range planning”, and so forth, suggesting that all
they do is focus on the big picture, only to have them exclaim at the end of my presentation that
“nobody focuses on the big picture like you do!” This always leave me wondering “what the heck
do you guys do all day?” The answer of course is that these “strategic studies” groups are
trapped in the production cycle of reports, quadrennial reviews, annual estimates, and
long-rang plans. In effect, they're too busy cracking out big picture material to ever spend
any serious time actually thinking about the big picture. They focus on the “what” and
the “how” but almost never the “why”. Having put time in some of these groups
over the years, I know the drill is meeting upon meeting until every single word on
every single page (or slide) has been massaged to death. In the end, these assignments
are like crack for strategic thinker, highly addictive, providing you with a delusion
of grandeur, but ultimately leaving your brain fired. Do enough of these stints and
you'll start rapping Armageddon like Nostradamus. Why is this? These planning
efforts almost universally focused on preventing horrific future scenarios rather
than building positive outcomes. Despite the fact that these blue-ribbon groups and
commissions enjoy the participation of some of the brightest people generating some the
most fascinating operational concepts, I have yet to see any one of them ever come up
with a compelling vision of a future worth creating. The only place where I've found
positive long-range planning in the U.S. foreign policy agencies is, oddly enough, the
U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), where I worked for close to two
years as a CNA consultant in the mid-1990s. I've long daydreamed about what it would
be like to combine the USAIDS's eternal optimism with the Defense Departments
43
rigorous worst -case planning procedures. So how does the hungry pol-mil analyst go
about generating the big picture? Besides avoiding every staff meeting possible, the first
rule to becoming a truly long-range thinker is to do whatever it takes to weasel out of
every assignment you are every offered to join some official long-range planning effort.
Don't worry, you'll actually be trapped into enough of them to check that box off on your
resume. The second rule is to read everything you can get your hands on that seriously
explores future trends, meaning you almost never read any official Department of
Defense reports or projections. Those documents are crammed from stem to stern
with fear and loathing of the future, and if they were every correct in their
projections, this planet would have self -destructed decades ago and fallen to those
damn dirty apes!
44
A community based on a linguistic commonality destroys difference—their framework requires homogeneity

and muting all perspectives that are deemed outside it and destroys human agency.
Secomb 2K (“Fractured Community” Hypatia – Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2000, pg. 138-139)
This reformulated universalist model of community would be founded on "a moral conversation in which the capacity to reverse perspectives, that is, the
willingness to reason from the others' point of view, and the sensitivity to hear their voice is paramount" (1992, 8). Benhabib argues that this model does
not assume that consensus can be reached but that a "reasonable agreement" can be achieved. This formulation of community on the basis of a
conversation in which perspectives can be reversed, also implies a new understanding of identity and alterity. Instead of the generalized other, Benhabib
argues that ethics, politics, and community must engage with the concrete or particular other. A theory that only engages with the
generalized other sees the other as a replica of the self. In order to overcome this reductive assimilation of alterity, Benhabib formulates a
universalist community which recognizes the concrete other and which allows us to view others as unique individuals (1992, 10).
Benhabib's critique of universalist liberal theory and her formulation of an alternative conversational model of community are useful and illuminating.
However, I suggest that her vision still assumes the desirability of commonality and agreement, which, I argue, ultimately destroy
difference. Her vision of a community of conversing alterities assumes sufficient similarity between alterities so that each
can adopt the point of view of the other and, through this means, reach a "reasonable agreement." She assumes the necessity
of a common goal for the community that would be the outcome of the "reasonable agreement." Benhabib's community, then, while attempting to
enable difference and diversity, continues to assume a commonality of purpose within community and implies a subjectivity
that would ultimately collapse back into sameness.
Moreover, Benhabib's formulation of community, while rejecting the fantasy of consensus, nevertheless privileges
communication, conversation, and agreement. This privileging of communication assumes that all can participate in the rational conversation
irrespective of difference. Yet this assumes rational interlocutors, and rationality has tended, both in theory and
practice, to exclude many groups and individuals, including: women, who are deemed emotional and corporeal rather than rational;
non-liberal cultures and individuals who are seen as intolerant and irrational; and minoritarian groups who do not adopt the authoritative
discourses necessary for rational exchanges.
this ideal of communication fails to acknowledge the indeterminacy and multiplicity of meaning in all
In addition,
speech and writing. It assumes a singular, coherent, and transparent content. Yet, as Gayatri Spivak writes: "the verbal text is
constituted by concealment as much as revelation. . . . [T]he concealment is itself a revelation and visa versa" (Spivak 1976, xlvi). For Spivak, Jacques
Derrida, and other deconstructionists, all communication involves contradiction, inconsistency, and heterogeneity. Derrida's
concept of différance indicates the inevitable deferral and displacement of any final coherent meaning. The apparently rigorous and irreducible
oppositions that structure language, Derrida contends, are a fiction. These mutually exclusive dichotomies turn out to be interrelated and interdependent:
their meanings and associations, multiple and ambiguous (Derrida 1973, 1976).
While Benhabib's objective is clearly to allow all groups within a community to participate in this rational
conversation, her formulation fails to recognize either that language is as much structured by miscommunication
as by communication, or that many groups are silenced or speak in different discourses that are unintelligible to
the majority. Minority groups and discourses are frequently ignored or excluded from political discussion and decision-making because they do not
adopt the dominant modes of authoritative and rational conversation that assume homogeneity and transparency.
45
OUR LANGUAGE IS A FORM OF ACTION THAT IS KEY TO DISCURSIVE

FORMS OF POWER RELATIONS AND TRANSVERSAL POLITICS
Bleiker, 2000. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge,

Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
p. 216)
Language is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life. It is omnipresent. It

penetrates every aspect of transversal politics, from the local to the global. We
speak, Heidegger stresses, when we are awake and when we are asleep, even when we
do not utter a single word. We speak when we listen, read or silently pursue an occupation.
We are always speaking because we cannot think without language, because 'language is
the house of Being', the home within which we dwell. 2 But languages are never neutral.
They embody particular values and ideas. They are an integral part of transversal
power relations and of global politics in general. Languages impose sets of
assumptions on us, frame our thoughts so subtly that we are mostly unaware of the
systems of exclusion that are being entrenched through this process. And yet, a
language is not just a form of domination that engulfs the speaker in a web of
discursive constraints, it is also a terrain of dissent, one that is not bound by the
political logic of national boundaries. Language is itself a form of action — the place
where possibilities for social change emerge, where values are slowly transformed,
where individuals carve out thinking space and engage in everyday forms of
resistance. In short, language epitomises the potential and limits of discursive forms
of transversal dissent.
46
LANGUAGE IS THE MOST IMORTANT FOCUS OF DEBATE; HOW WE

CONSTRUCT THE ISSUES WE DEBATE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN
OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO,
BECAUSE OUR DISCOURSE SHAPES EVERY PERCEPTION OF WHAT WE
HAVE OF THE WORLD AROUND US AND FORMULATES OUR RESPONSES
TO THAT WORLD.
Bleiker, 2K. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and Cambridge,

Popular Dissent,Human Agency and Global Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
p. 219)
Nietzsche played an important role in the debate about language, for he opened up,
Foucault stresses, the possibility of connecting philosophical tasks with radical reflections
on language. 4 Language, Nietzsche argues, can never provide us with pure, unmediated
knowledge of the world. Thinking can at best grasp imperfect perceptions of things
because a word is nothing but an image of a nerve stimulus expressed in sounds. It
functions, to simplify his argument, as follows: a person's intuitive perception creates
an image, then a word, then patterns of words, and finally entire linguistic and
cultural systems. Each step in this chain of metaphors entails interpretations and
distortions of various kinds. When we look at things around us, Nietzsche illustrates, we
think we know something objective about them, something of 'the thing in itself'. But all we
have are metaphors, which can never capture an essence because they express the
relationship between people and things. 5 For Nietzsche, language systems are sets of
prejudices that are expressed via metaphors, selectively filtered images of objects and
phenomena that surround us. We cannot but live in conceptual 'prisons' that permit us to
take only very narrow and sporadic glimpses at the outside world, glimpses that must
entail, eby definition, fundamental errors of judgement. 6 But there is more to the problem
of language than its imperfections as a medium of expression. Languages embody the
relationship between people and their environment. They are part of a larger
discursive struggle over meaning and interpretation, an integral element of politics.
We are often not aware of this function of language. The process of forgetting that we have
been conditioned by linguistically entrenched values largely camouflages the systems of
exclusion that are operative in all speech forms. We become accustomed to our distorting
metaphors until we 'lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all'. 7 As a result, factuality,
observation, judgement and linguistic representation blur to the point that the boundaries
between them become all but effaced: This has given me the greatest trouble and still
does: to realize that what things are called is incomparably more important than what they
are. The reputation, name, and appearance, the usual measure and weight of a thing, what
it counts for — originally almost always wrong and arbitrary, thrown over things like a dress
and altogether foreign to their nature and even to their skin — all this grows from
generation unto generation, merely because people believe in it, until it gradually grows to
be part of the thing and turns into its very body. What at first was appearance becomes in
the end, almost invariably, the essence and is effective as such. 8 As soon as one
problematises the existence of objectified values one must recognise that there
cannot be authentic knowledge of the world, knowledge that is not in one way or
another linked to the values of the perceiver and the language through which s/he
gives meaning to social practices.
47
ORAL HISTORY/PALESTINIAN NARRATIVE

Wiped out
by Waseem Bakr, age 17
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Until 52 years ago, a peaceful nation was living in a holy land called
Palestine. Then, the Jews of the world decided that they would like to
have their own land, instead of being scattered here and there. Almost
overnight Palestine no longer existed: all new atlases should now name
that region of the world Israel.
Oh, of course there was the problem of the original inhabitants of that
land. Solution: they were just kicked out. My grandparents were among
those people.
I am not going to bore you with what the Palestinians went through,
nor am I going to try to explain why the last Camp David Summit
failed.
I will simply tell you of the impact that choice of the Jews had on a
person who, probably, just like you, knows Palestine (or rather Israel)
only through the camera lenses of news reporters: me.
Triple-flavored-ice-cream-cone
For most Palestinians, the Israelis (I am not going to use the word Jews
anymore, because I have nothing against the Jews themselves) have
taken their land, holy places, homes.
As for me, a person of the third generation of those that have been
sent on a short, fifty-year 'camping trip', the Israelis have robbed me of
one thing: my identity. I no longer know where I belong.
When my grandparents left Palestine, they made a forced

hike to Syria, and settled there. That was where my parents were born
and raised. When my parents married, our gypsy-like family moved to
the United Arab Emirates, the place where I was born.
A Question
Maybe a few thousand years ago, Socrates stood in front of a group of
Greek philosophers and bombarded them with weird questions: How
did the Universe come into being? Are things in our world shadows of
other things somewhere else?
Since such questions are beyond the scope of my simple essay, let me
48
ask you a simpler one: From what you read so far, can you figure out
my nationality?
Oh, don't move that mouse pointer to the close button of your
browser... I completely assure you, when I wrote these words, I was in
possession of my full mental powers.
If you think I am a Palestinian, then think again. Remember, there's no
such thing as Palestine. So? Syrian? A UAE citizen?
Boy, I wish time machines were for real. Maybe then I'd be able to go
back to 450 BC, get hold of Socrates, tell him to stop pondering his silly
questions and find an answer for mine.
Impossible Alternatives
Now let's think more systematically. I faced the same problem when I
was filling an online university application form. The university wanted
to know my nationality. The first (and most obvious) nationality to
choose was Palestinian. Probably, you're familiar with the drop-down
boxes used in Web pages. Well I had to choose a country from the list.
There was no Palestine.
Anyway, is ancestry enough to make me a Palestinian? I never saw an
inch of Palestine. I scrolled down to Syria, my parents' birthplace and
the country which gave me a wonderful document similar to your
passports, but only
issued to very unique people like me called refugees.
Then again, I did not enjoy Syrian rights. Only left with the UAE, my
country of residence. Scroll down a bit more. Move the pointer. Wait!
The rights problems again (as if I
have rights anywhere, excluding that to live). Finally, I just closed the
browser.
All this may seem pointless to you. Why should I worry about my
nationality?
That's probably because you're American or European. Unfortunately,

I'm a Nowhere-ian, so I have to worry a bit now and then.
You take your nationality and citizenship for granted, while I have
nothing of the kind.
Colonialism has led many people to suffer from an identity crisis. Like Waseem Bakr I
too am torn between my nationality. Like the Israelis who conquered and occupied Palestine the
Spanish and the Americans conquered Mexico and striped it of its ancient culture. Being Mexican
American has disabled me from fitting in to a specific culture. I have lived in two places Mexico
and the united states. I have endured various forms of racism, rejection and criticism for big
Mexican American. I belong no where since when I go to Mexico I am not accepted because
many of my relatives can not pronounce my name they would have preferred to see me with a
name like Maria not Jeanette. They claim that I have given in to the American way of life and
have forgotten my culture. My relatives living in Mexico disapprove of my way of life to them I
am solely American. The same is true of life in the United States I am discriminated against and
49
am subject to various stereo types. People expect me to be uneducated and unsuccessful.

Statistics show that I am supposed to be either a high school drop out, pregnant or married before
the age of 21.
50
Enck-Wanzer: Intersectional rhetoric/Instrumentality bad

We cannot reduce intersectional rhetoric to its instrumentality – we must pay attention
to the “means” rather than correlating “success” to the “ends”.
Enck-Wanzer (Darrel, Professor of Speech at Univ. of Georgia and Eastern Illinois Univ.),
Trashing the System: Social Movement, Intersectional Rhetoric, and Collective Agency in the
Young Lords Organization's Garbage Offensive, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 92, Issue 2,
May 2006, p.174-201
Second, although rhetorical scholars focusing on social movement have documented the
key role non-verbal rhetorics play in confrontation and the rhetoric of the streets, that
role is often reduced to an instrumentality that enables or facilitates verbal rhetorics.
Griffin, for example, considers body rhetoric one possibility in an early stage of social
movement development when a non-rational, non-democratic scene invites non-
rational, non-democratic acts. This, however, is one stop along a movement's evolution,
eventually giving way to "the decision to speak openly ('overtly,' unambiguously)."29 For
Andrews, body rhetoric heightens the coerciveness of speech. While he agrees with
Scott and Smith that it can be "consummatory," Andrews never explicates the tactical
functioning of body rhetoric. John Bowers, Donovan Ochs, and Richard Jensen place
themselves in a similar position when they deny the rhetoricity of consummatory acts and
insist on the instrumental function of any rhetoric, especially nonverbal agitation tactics.30
For Simons, "militants use rhetoric as an expression, an instrument, and an act of
force." Furthermore, by conferring "visibility," embodied rhetorics open spaces for
"moderate tactics" to "gain entry into decision centers.
While certainly true in some instances, reducing non-verbal rhetoric to such an

instrumental role fails to consider what the rhetoric itself is up to - what cultural or
social work it is accomplishing. Even DeLuca (who, ironically, is often quite critical of
Simons) seems to mirror Simons by arguing that staged, embodied "image events" alter
public consciousness through their instrumental usefulness in getting a message out (for
example with the 1999 Seattle WTO protest images serving "as a dramatic lead that opens
into expansive and extensive coverage of the issues surrounding the WTO protests").32
Alberto Melucci would agree that a focus on the instrumentality of any movement
activities risks missing the point of the movement:
Contemporary movements operate as signs, in the sense that they translate their
actions into symbolic challenges to the dominant codes. In this respect, collective
action is a form whose models of organization and solidarity deliver a message to
the rest of society. Collective action raises questions that transcend the logic of
instrumental effectiveness and decision-making by anonymous and impersonal
organizations of power.33
Hence, reducing embodiment to instrumental utility is problematic because it

obscures the ways in which rhetorical and organizational form may be constitutive
and central to a movement's political and social objectives rather than a means to an
end.
51
Intersectional rhetoric lets us see beyond the binary of how bodies plus words
function. Instead, we can utilize the way bodies, words, and images intersect to
create an embodied agency .
May 2006, p.174-201
While one might rightly object both to the notion from Scott and Smith that we "read" the
rhetoric of confrontation and to the notion form Ono and Sloop that we start anew, it is
important to try to shift our critical optics (at least slightly) about street movement
rhetoric so that we might see beyond how <bodies plus words> function, and begin
seeing how <bodies-words-images> intersect to form (an)other rhetoric of resistance
that is qualitatively different than a critic might have assumed.
The importance of this challenge to our disciplinary heuristics is particularly pronounced in

the instance of the YLO's garbage offensive. If the garbage offensive is approached as
a "text" to be "read" and as guided principally by one rhetorical form or another,
then we risk losing sight of the important connection between rhetorical
form/movement tactics and the constitution of an anti-colonial Nuyorican agency. Just
as examining the content of the YLO's discourse is relevant to understanding how
they constitute Nuyorican agency, so too is examining the form of that discourse
critical to seeing how they challenge agency in the diaspora. In what follows, I
demonstrate how the YLO's garbage offensive functions as an intersectional rhetoric
and why a critical heuristic attuned to the intersection of forms is necessary for
seeing such rhetoric's constitutive effects on agency. This analysis is guided by two
primary assumptions: First, the act of resistance in the garbage offensive should not
be reduced to an instrumentality; doing so risks overlooking the constitutive effects
of their performance.44 Second, focusing solely or separately (that is, apart from visual
and verbal) on the embodied performance aspects of the situation traps us
conceptually and critically in a related but different way by denying the
intersectionality of rhetorical forms constitutive of this resistance and of the agency
of "the people" of El Barrio.
52
There is no static “text”, as text is always situated. The subordinate, unlike the
privileged, do not have the luxury of transparency and explicitness needed for a
“fair”, open debate.
May 2006, p.174-201
Garbage, though, cannot be easily textualized. In fact, the whole garbage offensive
event presents significant difficulties in terms of textualization. Unlike the speeches
delivered in the mainstream civil rights movement or the discrete "image events" for
contemporary radical environmentalists, there is no single static "text" to which we
can turn to critique. Even in their newspaper, Palante, and their book, Palante: Young
Lords Party, the Lords declined the opportunity to offer up a sustained "text" of the
event.58 As Conquergood suggests, "Subordinate people do not have the privilege of
explicitness, the luxury of transparency, the presumptive norm of clear and direct
communication, free and open debate on a level playing field that the privileged
classes take for granted."59 This creates a methodological problem because we are now
forced to make sense of the event by stringing together the many utterances of different
members of the Lords. The critic must be (perhaps as s/he always must be) a bricoleur,
assembling "texts" and defining the bounds of a fragmented rhetoric.60 Once we do
this, we have a very moving and powerful story about the material and symbolic
conditions under which the YLO lived and operated. Their situation - environmentally,
politically, economically - was one marked by filth and decay. The images of these decrepit
conditions were re-presented through words depicting/describing a sensory explosion by
drawing attention to the physical (omni)presence of the garbage.
53
While there is an instrumental aspect to any resistance, we must be wary of focusing

on instrumentality. We must look at the spatial politics that the affirmative creates
through their performance – the means of challenging is more important than any
measurable “success” the performance may result in.
May 2006, p.174-201
We can imagine Melendez's position as, in a sense, a standard rhetorical account of

what the YLO was attempting in their resistance. Bowers, Ochs, and Jensen likely might
agree that the offensive was rhetorical insofar as it was a symbolic act designed to
achieve an instrumental goal.77 Likewise, while Melendez's account goes beyond the
idea that the offensive was merely about getting the trash picked up, the offensive retains a
kind of instrumental quality. The offensive, in Melendez's reading, was a tool - an
instrument like a compass helping people get their bearings straight. Like the way
that a compass directs people toward their destination, the offensive pointed people to
an awareness of politics. It showed people that their political voice could be
acknowledged in an era where quite the contrary seemed the case.
The political consciousness of which Melendez speaks, though, does not suggest a
fundamental shift in the way "the people" saw the role of the political or themselves
within a political system. Rather, the offensive swept people up in the fervor of the
moment, helping them understand that politics and resistance were possible. Yet this
perspective does not seem to go far enough. While it is certainly the case that there is
an instrumental element in any offensive, reducing the garbage offensive to
instrumentality misses the possibility that the act of protest itself has a constitutive
effect on the people involved and those who bear witness to it.
One feasible way to move beyond this instrumental focus on the garbage offensive
is to interpret it as an embodied act of decolonization. This attitude is best exhibited by
Augustín Laó, who argues that the garbage offensive engaged in a "Spatial Politics of
recasting the colonized streets through direct action [that] is grounded in the
common sense of cleanliness ('we are poor but clean'), and the performative power and
polyvalence of the symbolism of cleansing."78 Furthermore, Laó suggests, "[t]his great
sweeping-out became an act of decolonization, a form of humanizing the living
space, a way of giving back dignity to our place, by taking it back.79 Notice that Laó
does not really reduce the offensive to pure instrumentality; rather, he seems to be
cognizant of the ways in which the form of the protest has significant implications.
His attentiveness to the "spatial politics" of the offensive is particularly significant
because it makes the focal point the performance of cleansing and/in protest,
suggesting that the act itself has important political/identity-constituting
implications that come prior to any benefits accrued as a result of the protest (that
is, as a result of the offensive's instrumentality). Laó's interpretation is incisive; but he
seems hesitant to expand or extend the theoretical importance of this move.
54
By questioning one aspect of the way “the system”, the instrumental force that
maintains elite power, functions, we can open up space to expose the corruption of the
entire machine.
May 2006, p.174-201
Taking a cue from Laó and radicalizing Melendez's point about political consciousness, a
more productive engagement of the garbage offensive would understand it as a
rhetorical performance of trashing "the system." To begin unpacking this metaphor, we
might return once more to retrospective remarks made by Guzmán, who writes,
We hoped to show that our object as a nation should not merely be to petition a
foreign government (amerikkka) to clean the streets, but also to move on that
government for allowing garbage to pile up in the first place. By questioning this
system's basic level of sanitation, our people would then begin to question drug
traffic, urban renewal, sterilization, etc., until the whole corrupt machine could be
exposed for the greedy monster it is.80
One of the central devil figures for the YLO (as it was for many radical groups of the era)
was "the system."81 Drawing primarily from Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, "the
system" represents the (more or less) monolithic, assimilating machine that is able to
keep the dominant group dominant and ensure that resistance can never be truly
successful. The system keeps the rich rich, the poor poor, and maintains that
inequality without critical reflection.
55
Intersectional rhetoric represents a way to act anti-colonially in the world – the

performance of the 1AC articulates a space for challenging normative constructions
and inventing a new democratic consciousness.
May 2006, p.174-201
Furthermore, while we cannot deny the possibility of a primarily instrumental

political offensive, the desirability of interpreting this instance only (or even
predominantly) through such a lens is challenged when we begin to recognize what
this ignores. As Kenneth Burke argues, while symbols may be used as tools,
instrumentality is not their principle purpose (they are a form of action, he says);
similarly, this essay suggests that the intersectional rhetoric of the YLO's garbage
offensive represents a way of acting in the world and, in the process, serves to
constitute that world by delineating a material place (El Barrio) and discursive space
(political Nuyoricans in El Barrio) for this altered public consciousness.91 Diana
Taylor writes, in a manner reminiscent of Burke's theorization of the scene-act ratio, that
[T]he place allows us to think about the possibilities of the action. But action also
defines place. If, as Certeau suggests, "space is practiced place," then there is no
such thing as place, for no place is free of history and social practice.92
The rhetorical constitution of such a space affords the YLO the opportunity to
challenge prior constructions of Barrio Boricuas and invent a new, radical
democratic political consciousness that played in the hybrid space between U.S.
American and Puerto Rican, domestic and foreign, etc. In her engagement of Chicana
feminist writing, Lisa Flores suggests,
Creating space means rejecting the dichotomy of either at the margins or in the center and
replacing that perspective with one that allows for Chicana feminists to be at their own
center intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and ultimately physically. The desire for
space is the need for both a physical location and an intellectual one.93
Similarly, the YLO invented an intellectual, political, and physical space in which
radical democratic resistance through "community control" could be envisioned and,
in some cases, realized.
Importantly, the YLO articulated this radical democratic space at the intersections of
various rhetorical forms rather than through dominant modalities. For Laclau, "a
radical democratic society is one in which a plurality of public spaces, constituted
around specific issues and demands , instills in its members a civic sense which is a
central ingredient of their identity as individuals." Laclau continues, "Not only is
antagonism not excluded from a democratic society, it is the very condition of its
institution."94 In this way, the YLO exploited an antagonism in "the system" and,
through their intersectional rhetorical performance, constituted a radically
56
democratic space. Their rhetorical performances functioned, Taylor would likely

agree, "as vital acts of transfer, transmitting social knowledge, memory, and a sense
of identity through reiterated, or what Richard Schechner has called 'twice-behaved
behavior.'"95 Quite significantly, the way in which the YLO accomplished this task
was through an intersectional rhetoric that our critical heuristics must be fine-tuned to
notice more clearly. The status quo models of envisioning "texts" and privileging
discrete rhetorical forms are insufficient to this task. In the words of Conquergood,
"The hegemony of textualism needs to be exposed and undermined."96
Considering the different aspects of the garbage offensive together, I hope the case of the
YLO has made clear that looking at just one facet (i.e., words, images, or bodies), or
at these characteristics discretely or instrumentally, only provides a partial view of
the significance of the garbage offensive. When we consider the verbal, visual, and
corporeal forms of discourse and how they come together, however, we see an
intersectional rhetoric that articulates a particular anti-colonial sensibility for acting
in the world. We also see an intersectional rhetoric that resists hegemonic norms for
appropriate protest rhetoric because it refuses to recognize the singularity or
boundedness of any solitary rhetorical form.
57

Bruschke Aff Perf Supplement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bruschke Aff Perf Supplement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ADI 2007 Bruschke lab/aff.

PERFORMANCE AFF FRAMEWORK/FREIRE FILE

A/T FRAMEWORK READ AS THEORY ARGUMENT.................................................2

A/T FRAMEWORK READ AS THEORY ARGUMENT

framers regarded sovereignty as resting ultimately with the people, and

enumerated bill of rights, because the sovereign people had made an

As such, those of us in this room have more sovereignty to engage the

Ferguson 1997 (Kennan; Professor of Governmental and International Affairs,

A second warrant is that their construction of government is dangerous

Agathangelou & Ling explain in 04 (Anna M.[Lecturer at the University of

Our conception of government shapes our interpretation of all other terms:

Furthermore, “constructive engagement” means dialogue, respect, and

Craig Miyamoto, a fellow of the PRSA, said on June 9. 2000: (Public

Next time, instead of stonewalling, ignoring, or trading blows, try some

Giving your opponents a measure of ownership by allowing them to help shape

In a sense, constructive engagement is almost Biblical in its underlying concept -

TOPICALITY IS NEVER A QUESTION OF “HOW MUCH” EDUCATION, BUT

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

It is also bogus to claim that discursive arguments aren’t predictable anymore;

This proves predictability is a bad standard; it relies on a pre-debate notion of

Predictability comes at a price; the subaltern are not represented in traditional IR

1AR on “State Bad”

Ultimately, they might prove state engagement is necessary for

A/T MOVING TARGET

For the record, they can argue:

Finally, discursive arguments commit us to defend more than a plan text

1AR ON THE FRAMEWORK

Finally, education and predictability are inseparable. The type of education a

A/T: Just add a plan

We are NOT a movement or resistance, we do NOT result in political action, we

FREIRE: BANKING EDUCATION BAD

THE BANKING METHOD PERPETUATES OPPRESSION, DISABLES

TRANSMISSION OF CONTENT IS NOT EFFECTIVE EDUCATION.

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT KEY TO DECOLONIZATION

WE MUST ACTIVELY ENGAGE WITH THE TEXT AND APPLY IT TO OUR

Peter Robert [Educational Review 50(2), 105-114, Jun 1998 ]

The immediate physical presence of other human beings is thus not a

PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT IS KEY. ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ALREADY

EDUCATION NOT NEUTRAL

MUST LISTEN TO OPPRESSED/ONLY SOLUTIONS

Giving voice to the subaltern is a necessary first step to liberation.

A/T: PEOPLE OF PRIVILEGE CAN’T PARTICIPATE

WE ALL HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES TO WE CAN SHARE

Peter Robert [Educational Review 50(2), 105-114, Jun 1998, ]

A/T: MUST FOCUS ON CAPITALISM

OUR END GOAL FOR EDUCATION IS DEEPER SELF-CONSCIOUS

[Peter Roberts 2000 [Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the

HUMILITY IS THE KEY; SINGLE FRAMEWORKS AND BUREAUCRATIC

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

ABSENCE OF DIALOGUE EXTENDS OPPRESISON

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

A/T: WE JUST ALL AGREE

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

SINGLE FRAMEWORK BAD

Paulo Freire 1998 [Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic

A/T Realism/util good (for Freire aff)

A/T PHILOSOPHY (for Freire aff)

A/T “You bring the Druze to light”

Finally, this is something they need a card on to win. They have NO

STATE BAD/DISSENT GOOD: CRITICAL IR

Bleiker, 2K. (Roland, Professor of International Relations Harvard and