Inherency- obama has already Solved 3 Harms- other things cause homelessness 5

Impact- Otherization= extinction

With regard to the co-existent character of human persons, Martin Buber noted two fundamental attitudes found in all human experience. One is the world of "I-thou" relations, which ought always to be lived; and the other is the world of "I-it" relations, which persons ought always to avoid. The "I-thou" form of co-existence is for cooperation. Persons meet in cooperation in order to transform the world, to improve their welfare, for it is in this form of co-existence that the truth and value of democratic ideals is lodged. "I-thou" co-existence is characterized by mutuality and dialogue. These neither impose nor manipulate, but generate a commitment to freedom and guide dialogical persons to focus their attention on the reality which challenges them.9 In the "I-thou" relation "I not only give but receive; I not only speak but listen; I not only respond but invite response."10 Such "I-thou" co-existence ought to be one of the essential aspects of the normative ethical motivation and criterion of social groups in civil society. The opposite of the "I-thou" relation is the "I-it" form of co-existence which uses the other person as an object. This relation regards others as means to an end; it is anti-dialogical, dominating and exploitative. People in civil society may form social groups and associations, but if motivated by gross materialism they operate in terms of the "I-it" relation. Such persons refers only to themselves; other people are things.11 To them what is worthwhile is to have more — always more — even at the unjust cost of others having less or nothing.12Such an "I-it" tendency toward co-existence dehumanizes; it is an obstacle to, and an enemy of, democracy; and it is a serious threat to the very existence of civilization. Such co-existence is a very likely possibility for civil society, but ought to be guarded against as long as our aim is to reform our society towards higher levels of development.

Impacts- Kritik turns case

The Kritik Turns Case- Homeless has been artificially constructed as a individual problem, we must view it as a social issue to solve it

KATHLEEN R. ARNOLD- Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Texas San Antonio- 2004- Homelessness, Citizenship,

And Identity: The Uncanniness of Late Modernity- page. 2

The fact that the homeless have less agency than full citizens in the modern nation-state is a political and not an individual problem. When certain individuals cannot occupy public space (or many private commercial spaces) because of their status and when decisions are made for them under the guise of protection (thus, protection as coercion), it is evident that homelessness is not a matter of bad luck or personal problems. Rather, it is an issue that affects hundreds of thousands of people, and yet it has been treated academically, culturally, and politically as an individual problem. Hence, although sociological or psychological studies, for example, may have value, it is worthwhile to explore the broader political and economic ramifications of homelessness. Homelessness, I will demonstrate, needs to be viewed in terms of economic identity on the one hand and national identity, on the other. It is a politicoeconomic problem that undermines the notion of universal citizenship domestically and challenges the adequacy of citizenship as an identity on an international level, given the permanent character of statelessness (refugees, exiles, and immigrants who are in camps, detainment, or other sites of legal limbo for example). In sum, I am questioning the notion of a unified subject in the political identity of citizenship and, correspondingly, the idea of a unified location for citizenship.

AT- Permutations/ Link turns

Because the Homeless have been stripped of citizenship, politics is the wrong starting point for dealing with there issues. Only addressing the fundamental economic and social issues behind the loss of citizenship does political progress become possible.

KATHLEEN R. ARNOLD- Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Texas San Antonio- 2004- Homelessness, Citizenship,

And Identity: The Uncanniness of Late Modernity- page. 2

More often than not, homelessness is studied as a sociological problem and the dynamics of power on the part of the homeless on the one hand, and policy makers and full citizens on the other, are not examined. It is tempting to engage this subject at the policy level in order to respond to homeless studies, recommendations, and policies. However, the politics of homelessness is a larger problem that reflects upon our society and the status of democracy rather than being a mere policy issue. The forces that homeless people deal with are disenfranchisement and social “death”:1 degrading myths and stereotypes, punitive treatment by caseworkers, deficient school systems that perpetuate illiteracy and joblessness, and most importantly, the loss of rights as a citizen, and thus, as a human that these individuals suffer. Perhaps some people are responsible for their homelessness, but in this milieu, it is difficult to tell. And why should they suffer such dire consequences? When one can no longer inhabit public space, have one’s possessions and shanty towns (home, by some definitions) burned or bulldozed, be arrested for one’s status rather than a crime (hence signaling a loss of civil rights), and only exercise political power with extreme difficulty, one cannot be said to be a citizen. This is exacerbated by the disappearance of truly public space.3 Decisions are no longer the prerogative of the individual; rather, they are made for the homeless by communities in the form of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), by the police in the form of sweeps, and by local officials in outlawing panhandling or busing the homeless to other towns, for example. Whether full citizens or politicians decide to help the homeless or not, their freedom to make choices exists in a very narrow manner. Moreover, the help received by the homeless can be authoritarian and punitive in nature. Homeless individuals are to believe that they have become so through their moral failings and every day are reminded of this. Many shelters and agencies go beyond simple admonitions, however, and issue ultimatums. Some are contradictory and put the homeless in a double bind. Indeed, the system that helps them can often be erratic, disorganized, and pathological. Of course, these terms are often reserved for the homeless, not “us.” The fact that the homeless have less agency than full citizens in the modern nation-state is a political and not an individual problem. When certain individuals cannot occupy public space (or many private commercial spaces) because of their status and when decisions are made for them under the guise of protection (thus, protection as coercion), it is evident that homelessness is not a matter of bad luck or personal problems. Rather, it is an issue that affects hundreds of thousands of people, and yet it has been treated academically, culturally, and politically as an individual problem. Hence, although sociological or psychological studies, for example, may have value, it is worthwhile to explore the broader political and economic ramifications of homelessness. Homelessness, I will demonstrate, needs to be viewed in terms of economic identity on the one hand and national identity, on the other. It is a politicoeconomic problem that undermines the notion of universal citizenship domestically and challenges the adequacy of citizenship as an identity on an international level, given the permanent character of statelessness (refugees, exiles, and immigrants who are in camps, detainment, or other sites of legal limbo for example). In sum, I am questioning the notion of a unified subject in the political identity of citizenship and, correspondingly, the idea of a unified location for citizenship.

THE AFFIRMATIVE IS A ROMANTICISED CONCEPTION OF LOCAL RESPONSES TO SUSTAINABLE LIVING THAT CONSTRUCTS POVERTY AS A PHENOMONAL CONDITION – IT CO-OPTS CRITICAL CHALLENGES TO NEOLIBERAL RULE***

MCMICHAEL ET AL 2007 – PROF DEVELOPMENT SOCIOLOGY CORNELL

POVERTY OF THE GLOBAL ORDER, GLOBALIZATIONS VOL 4 NO 4

Naturalizing a Conceptual Poverty

To reiterate, the poverty of the global order is that its legitimacy depends not simply on progress in phenomenal terms (one-sided measures), but also on the progressive naturalization of its epistemological foundations. A key to this process is the construction of 'poverty' as an original, rather than a social, condition.4 While we do not minimize the fact that most of the world's people's material needs are grossly unmet, the conceptual problem is that solutions to end deprivation proceed from an unproblematic empirical, or phenomenal, understanding of scarcity (of material means). There is little investigation of the relationships producing scarcity, and there is scant recognition that representing scarcity in market terms ignores other means of livelihood. Conventional solutions to poverty resort to market rule, and renew the development industry—they do not disturb conditions of inequality, becoming rather methods of controlling and re-producing dominant visions of what count as viable futures (cf. Fraser and Honneth, 2003). New ways of labeling old wine is a critical strategy for naturalizing the epistemological foundations upon which an unequal world is remade.

Shiva articulates one way of naturalizing poverty (and development):

The paradox and crisis of development arises from the mistaken identification of the culturally perceived poverty of earth-centred economies with the real material deprivation that occurs in market-centred economies, and the mistaken identification of the growth of commodity production with providing human sustenance for all. (1991, p. 215)

To represent 'earth-centred economies' as poor, via comparative measures of wealth, identifies them as frontiers for capital accumulation, discounting alternative value systems, which is Shiva's point. Analogously, Kothari (1997) argues that alternatives exist in micro-initiatives by the poor, and that their survival strategies constitute the basis for imagining the future. However, 'earth-centred economies' and informal networks are not necessarily virtuous alternatives, and their diversity may be repackaged as commercial opportunity, and advertised as responsible corporate practice (Da Costa, 2007). Such romanticizations risk repeating development studies' normative preoccupation with the poor. Our point is that we cannot treat alternatives as inherent signs of resistance to the poverty of the global order, for they are frequently viewed as resources ripe for appropriation as new frontiers for capital accumulation—as we have seen, for example, with micro-financing initiatives and fair trade.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 350.73 Kb.

Share with your friends: