Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 Mercury Conspiracy Theory



Download 1.23 Mb.
Page62/70
Date20.04.2018
Size1.23 Mb.
1   ...   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   ...   70

Challenges Sovereignty


Exopolitical engagement is key to challenging sovereign authority

Acimovic, lecturer in Further Education, 11

(Natasha, and currently teaches Adult Literacy and Academic Study Skills at a British college,“Transcending the Hall of Mirrors: The Simultaneity of Discourse, the Third Space and Adopting Multiple Ways of Viewing the Construction of Human-Alien Identities,” Exopolitics Journal, June, http://www.exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-3/vol-3-4-Acimovic.pdf, JSkoog)



What are the implications then for Exopolitics? Certainly, there are some obvious differences between the postcolonial and experiencer spheres but while the ramifications of the former can be more effectively established the latter presents us with a paradox since we are dealing with impact of an unfamiliar, extraterrestrial paradigm. Furthermore, this is complicated by the denial of the ETH as a part of consensus reality. A similar concern is explored by Professors Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall. They examine how the UFO as an ‘authoritative taboo’ is actively produced via the mechanism of sovereign rule. This political necessity propagated by the union of science and the state, even if this pact forms a somewhat uneasy one, ensures the stability of it. They contend that since the UFO issue includes the possibility of extraterrestrials as a plausible hypothesis then modern sovereignty is faced with a ‘physical and ontological threat’ to its rule. I would suggest that if this is true of the UFO subject then this is even more so in regards to the issue of inter-dimensional and (or) off planetary intelligences interacting with the Earth’s human citizens. Accordingly, the UFO issue represents a sort of double entrapment since to disclose the former would lead to a questioning of the latter, and it is this site in particular that poses ‘ontological threats to identity or social being’. 29 Subsequently, if the psychosocial dynamics of experiencers’ narratives shares similarities with those identified by postcolonial theorists then it is a political imperative for Exopolitics to explore this further for a number of significant reasons. Firstly, aside from the psychological framework utilised by John Mack and others to account for the validity of the abduction and contactee phenomenon, we have a comparative psychosocial framework that lends further weight to the issue by showing that the impact of the alien presence constructs states of being that are representative of how multiple human cultures intersect. Secondly, it is ethically imperative for Exopolitics to do so. When left to the skeptics and scientific authorities to examine such an area, and in this particular point I am referring to how Wendt and Duvall situate the sceptic and science as sources of authority, then we are presented with the type of analysis that is representative of Dr Mark Newbrook’s treatment of the experiencer, as a sort of interplanetary hoaxer or dissident determined to confound the application of authoritative, scientific linguistic modes via their use of alien languages. 30 Needless to say, if Exopolitics as a discipline does not venture further into the territory of academia to reappropriate sites which are critical to a deeper understanding the ETH then those who speak with sovereign authority will be able to maintain the ‘epistemology of [UFO] ignorance’. 31 In the process the modern state is able to uphold its public discourse that, using Mark Newbrook words, ‘the balance of probability’ regarding the ETH does not ‘warrant further focused attention’. 32 Thirdly, the ethical imperative is that it is experiencers themselves who are left to deal with the psychological fallout from the machine of sovereignty, and what is it Exopolitics if not a site of resistance and a counter cultural discourse?

Challenges Sovereignty


The uncertainty created by the UFO directly threatens the epistemology of the science that the sovereign relies on to maintain power

Wendt, Minnesota – Professor of International Relations and Duvall, Ohio State - Professor of International Relations, 8

(Alexander and Raymond, “Sovereignty and the UFO,” August 2008, Political Theory Volume 36 Number 4, http://ovnis-usa.com/DIVERS/Wendt_Duvall_PoliticalTheory.pdf,JSkoog)

As unidentified object the UFO poses a threat of unknowability to science, upon which modern sovereignty depends. Of course, there are many things science does not know, like the cure for cancer, but its authority rests on the assumption that nothing in Nature is in principle unknowable. UFOs challenge modern science in two ways: (1) they appear random and unsystematic, making them difficult to grasp objectively; and (2) some appear to violate the laws of physics (like the 40g turns in the Belgian F-16 case). This does not mean that UFOs are in fact humanly unknowable, but they might be, and in that respect they haunt modern sovereignty with the possibility of epistemic failure. To see how this might be uniquely threatening it is useful to compare the UFO to three other cases of what might be seen as unknowability. One is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum theory, which acknowledges inherent limits on the ability to know sub-atomic reality. Since the Uncertainty Principle has not stopped physicists from doing physics, this might seem to undermine our claim that potential unknowability precludes a decision on the UFO as object. Yet, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and here the two cases differ. Quantum mechanics emerged in a highly structured context of extant theory and established experimental results, and is a systematic body of knowledge that enables physicists to manipulate reality with extraordinary precision. With quantum theory we know exactly what we cannot know, enabling it to be safely incorporated into modern science. The UFO, in contrast, emerges in a context free of extant theory and empirical research, and raises fundamental questions about the place of human beings in the universe. That we might never know what we cannot know about UFOs makes their potential objectivity more problematic for the modern project.
The sovereign’s attempts to discredit and ignore the UFO creates self censorship among the population that seeks to remove knowledge

Wendt, Minnesota – Professor of International Relations and Duvall, Ohio State - Professor of International Relations, 8

(Alexander and Raymond, “Sovereignty and the UFO,” August 2008, Political Theory Volume 36 Number 4, http://ovnis-usa.com/DIVERS/Wendt_Duvall_PoliticalTheory.pdf,JSkoog)

One might distinguish at least four such techniques: (1) authoritative representations, like the U.S. Air Force’s claim that UFOs are “not a national security threat,”67 the portrayal of ufology as pseudo-science, and the science fictionalization of UFOs in the media; (2) official inquiries, like the 1969 Condon Report, which have the appearance of being scientific but are essentially “show trials” systematically deformed by a priori rejection of the ETH;68 (3) official secrecy, which “removes knowledge” from the system;69 and finally (4) discipline in the Foucauldian sense, ranging from formal attacks on the “paranoid style” of UFO believers as a threat to modern rationality,70 to everyday dismissal of those who express public interest in UFOs, which generates a “spiral of silence” in which individuals engage in self-censorship instead.71 Much could be said from a governmentality perspective about these techniques, which are amply documented in the ufological literature, but we lack the space to do so here. Instead, we have focused on explaining why all this anti-UFO work is necessary in the first place, which goes to the fundamental puzzle with which we began our argument: given the many reasons to study UFOs, why aren’t they taken seriously? To answer this question the specific techniques by which the UFO is normalized can be a distraction, since ignorance is multiply realizable at the micro-level Notwithstanding the importance of governmentality to a critical theory of anthropocentric rule, it is to the performative insecurity of modern sovereignty that one must look first.




Share with your friends:
1   ...   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   ...   70


The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2019
send message

    Main page