Lauryn Hill- ‘i get Out’ I get out, I get out of all your boxes
Download 356.95 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The knowledge tastes bad- however, rejection is queer; this space of rival pedagogical space refuses the knowledge but continues the learning
- Your silence on Anti-Blackness reflects the REFUSAL to confront the inequities suffered by Black debaters.
- 2. Turn: these skills are probably better because this interp allow us to recognize instances of anti-blackness and then avoid/reject them
- AT: Fairness/Predictability (Dr. Reid-Brinkley) (:22)
- 2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change – limits on a topic restrict the ability to create new solutions and theories
- Limits control and exclude- that was on predictability above turns both the aff and the k
- Policing justifies and hides the antiblack white supremacist racism
- Policing/Settler societies make the black body be a magnet for gratuitous violence
AT FWThe 1nc is a eight minute impact turn to debating within the terms of the resolution: 1. Turn: The Rodriguez evidence below does an amazing job proving why even when we re-invest into the USFG and it solves, that just creates complacency within an anti-black society and strengthens anti-blackness. 2. Turn: they perpetuate the impacts of the AFF by bringing whiteness into the debate space because we don’t fit into a normalized form of debate and saying that’s a reason to reject us- THEY ALSO TURN THE K BECAUSE NORMALIZING STRATEGIES CROWD OUT AND JUSTIFY VIOLENCE AGAINST black folk THEY’VE ALREADY LOST THIS DEBATE BY TRYING TO REINSCRIBE WHAT IS wrong AND WHAT IS right IN THE DEBATE SPACE The knowledge tastes bad- however, rejection is queer; this space of rival pedagogical space refuses the knowledge but continues the learningGumbs 10 (Alexis Pauline, queer black feminist, PhD in English and African American studies from Duke University, founder of Brilliance Remastered, co-founder of Mobile Homecoming Project, ‘We can learn to mother ourselves: The Queer Survival of Black Feminism’, Duke University, English Department, Vol 1, Page 243-245. Finesse.) In the moment their responses were sentence fragments, “Might as well die,” “Better to fight and then to die.”28 During the poetry reading, 12 year old Micheal Goode, a student who continued to write to Jordan into his adult life wrote his own poem “April 4, 1968,” in which he struggles with the sentence. The beginning of Goode’s poem reads war war why do god’s children fight among each other like animals a great man once lived a Negro man his name was the Rev. Martin Luther King. but do you know what happened29 Goode refuses capitalization in poem, except for the words “Negro,” “I,” and “Rev. Martin Luther King.” He therefore, never starts a sentence. However, after the ruminations “war war” and the unmarked question of why “god’s children fight among each other,” Goode does make a sentence-ending statement in three parts. Juxtaposing “animals” his critique of racist violence, against “a great man” and capitalizing “Negro” he makes his statement towards the survival and recognition of the victim. “his name was the Rev. Martin Luther King.” Employing a period here, Goode continues to disrupt 28 Ibid, 7. 29 Ibid, 8. 113 the death sentence that ends his statement about a great man who “once lived” by following up with an uncapitalized unmarked question. “but do you know what happened” The question of knowledge continues throughout the poem as Goode asks the reader a series of questions without question marks. “but do you know what happened” “but do you think you yourself/can stand up.” Finally, at the very end of the poem Goode asks his reader a marked and remarkable question, and answers it with the only sentence in the poem that would not be called a run-on or a fragment if it were in an essay. what kind of a world is this? I don’t know.30 Goode disavows the knowledge of the world he is supposed to reproduce as a student and a child, and asserts, through his resigned response to a very adult rhetorical question that though he clearly does know the world he lives in, well enough to demonstrate it vividly and critically in this poem, he refuses that knowledge. There must be something else to learn. Jordan includes this piece as an example in her speech as well as in Soulscript her anthology of Black poetry by adults and children. I read this poem, and Jordan’s invocation of it as an invitation for the rival pedagogy that poetic engagement can enact. If the students, through poetry, express their refusal of a world that is teaching them brutal lessons through violence, like the lesson that Black life is expendable, and the lesson that a democratic practice based on equality represented by King is punishable by death, then they are creating a rival pedagogical space and signaling a need for another set of lessons. 3. Turn: The structure of the resolution perpetuates whiteness and crowds out demands for non-normative identity politics- in the process of choosing a resolution and establishing wording academia runs from a discussions of identity because it may disrupt the structures they operate in 4. Turn: The form of debate that engages in white space allows for instrumental defenses that never lead to real engagement- they trade off with meaningful politics Knowledge needs to be reconstituted before a solution is reached EVERNDEN 1992 – PROF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AT YORK SOCIAL CREATION OF NATURE, PAGE 109-110. Finesse) Since it seems only commonsensical that what we are attempting to achieve knowledge of is the objects "out there," one can scarcely imagine how this dualism could be avoided. Yet as we noted earlier, it may only be because it is common-sensical that it appears inevitable. And it may be that "common sense" is actually a rarefied faculty, heir to centuries of theoretical explanation. Common sense is an interpretation of experience as an encounter of an inner self and outer objects. Yet lived experience does not confirm that interpretation. Erazirn Khoak illuminates this through the example of a man who is a smoker searching for an ashtray in the house of a nonsmoker. Obviously his search is doomed from the outset, but he eventually encounters a seashell or a nut dish that serves his purpose. He obviously didn't "find" an ashtray, since there weren't any; he "invented" one. This solution is ignored by common sense, which instead treats the experience as "an encounter with an object out there in the world. Typically, it will report that 1 found an ashtray.' But there was no ashtray to be found; the smoker had to constitute it. Here 1 found one' is an interpretation, so habitual as to seem 'natural,' but still not a direct report." The ashtray that the smoker claims is "out there" is certainly not merely in his mind, either; it exists in his experience. "That is also a crucial point: the world is indeed 'there' in lived experience, but that experience is not an ephemeral, transparent nonrealm between a 'subjective' mind and an 'objective' world. Nor is it a passive 'subjective' report of an autonomously existing 'objective' reality. It is reality, the only reality that is actually given in experience rather than constructed in speculation." As should be apparent from the preceding discussion, the entity which we take for granted as an objective reality has, in fact, a complex origin as a social creation. The fact that it seems obvious is a function of its absorption into our very expectations of the world, and a function of our willingness to dwell in the world of symbols and abstractions. But when we accept thatthis "nature" of which we speak is an interpretation of our worldly experience, we become open to the question, “what, then, is our experience'" what do we encounter before we discover "nature?" Surely, some uncaged experience of otherness must still be accessible to us? Maurice Merleau-Ponty suggests that "to return to things themselves is to return to that world which precedes knowledge, of which knowledge always speaks, and in relation to which every scientific schematization is an abstract and derivative sign-language, as is geography in relation to the countryside in which we have learnt beforehand what a forest, a prairie, or a river is." 5. If we win that debate upholds anti-blackness, then you must vote AFF since we are the only thing that even confronts that issue, let alone solve it. 6. Either way the aff is a prerequisite because we must drop the notion of progress 7. Neutrality DA - Their limits are whiteness – assumes a neutral actor which marks raced bodies as pre-political. This takes out their competition and substantive bias claims. We are the topical version of the aff—we create the best form of topic education by interrogating the resolution. We provide for diverse education – they exclude us but we don’t exclude them, and without our interpretation education will always be white supremacist. Counter interp- We should have a discussion of the topic. One that allows us to examine the history of how nations are MADE and UNMADE, one that invites an ACTIVE and CRITICAL EXAMINATION of the world and the increasing concerns with RACISM, equality and the plurality of identities. This allows genuine DISCUSSION, STUDY and LEARNING.Your silence on Anti-Blackness reflects the REFUSAL to confront the inequities suffered by Black debaters.Resistance Debate, 12 (Rashad, Lawyer/Winner of CEDA/Coach at Bx Law, Shanara Rose, Professor of African American Studies at U of Pit, Jillian Marty, Former Towson Coach,/Former Debater, Amber Kelsie, Former Member of the IMPACT Coalition, works along Dr. Brinkley at U of Pit, “An Open Letter to Sarah Spring”, http://resistanceanddebate.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/an-open-letter-to-sarah-spring/Finesse ) Lack of community discussion is neither random nor power-neutral. We have tried to have discussions. These discussions have been regularly derailed—in “wrong forum” arguments, in the demand for “evidence,” in the unfair burdens placed on the aggrieved as a pre-requisite for engagement. Read the last ten years of these discussions on edebate archives: Ede Warner on edebate and move forward to Rashad Evans diversity discussion from 2010 to Deven Cooper to Amber Kelsie’s discussion on CEDA Forums and the NDT CEDA Traditions page. We have been talking for over a decade, we have been reaching out for years, we have been listening to the liberal, moderate refrain of “we agree with your goals but not with your method.” We will no longer wait for the community to respond, to relinquish privilege, to engage in authentic discussion, since largely the community seems incapable of producing a consensus for responding to what “we all agree” is blatant structural inequity. It seems that meta-debates/discussions about debate are generally met with denial, hostility and—more often—silence. This silence is in fact a focused silence. It is not people in the Resistance Facebook group that comprise these silent figures—it is (as has been described) “the old boys club.” We have been quite vocal—and we believe that it is this very vocalness (and the development of a diversity of tactics in response to status quo stalling tactics) that has provoked response when response was given. Sarah Spring’s cedadebate post is a case in point. \ If the AFF references and discusses the resolution it should be allowed If we are only allowed to affirm the resolution, there is no possible rejection of the USFG, of the small ass interpretation of the Political, therefore there is no possible rejection of anti-blackness. The frameworks interpretation is anti-black and must be rejected by the judge. ROB 1. to reject as many instances of anti-blackness possible, present in the round Policy debate is flawed Stannard 01 ( Mathew Stannard, Portraying the Ruling Class: Argument Fields and the Material Antecedents of Policy Debate Matthew Stannard Department of Communication and Mass Media University of Wyoming. Finesse) This paper seeks to apply materialist criticism to the pedagogy of academic debate. Although debate enjoys a certain pragmatic autonomy from argumentation theory, many unspoken assumptions are found in debate practice which find their bases in traditional theories of argument fields. I argue that the argumentation theory that serves as a basis for debate praxis is currently a reflection of the capitalist-administrative rhetoric of privilege. In the first section, I lament the conceptual separation between theories of argument fields as institutions and criticism of the materiality of those institutions. In the second section, I explain how the rhetorical patterns that emerge from the ruling-class institution of policy making are reproduced in contemporary policy debate. Policy debate is flawed Stannard 01 ( Mathew Stannard, Portraying the Ruling Class: Argument Fields and the Material Antecedents of Policy Debate Matthew Stannard Department of Communication and Mass Media University of Wyoming. Finesse) To summarize, I am suggesting that discursive inequalities and marginalized identities are not the only objects of criticism in policy debate. These problems are symptoms of the reproduction of the policy field, a field which, in its institutionalized materiality, produces and contains both inequality and marginalization. The field of policy debate is a ritualized and enhanced reproduction of this larger material institution. Debaters are taught, through pedagogy and reward, drawing from policy literature and traditional (uncritical) notions of governing, to imitate the ruling class. Inequality and marginalization are part of the structure governing such imitation. Policy, Class and the State We might view policy debate as a ritualized imitation of ruling-class political discourse with occasional "holes." Critical spaces open up when participants realize that the argumentative field they model is often irrational and unjust. The holes of critical discourse, which can question the field as field, have not yet grown big enough to transform it. Rather than attributing the incompleteness of critical policy discourse to a lack of rhetorical innovation on the part of the participants, it is more accurate to attribute it to the material antecedents of policy debate: a society steeped in technological rationality, replete with inequalities of power, led by a class whose interests include convincing "the people" that self-management is futile or undesirable. There is, therefore, a parallel ordering: the material ordering of society, wherein the privileged pretend to be removed from the dirty problems of their subjects; and the rhetorical ordering of policy argumentation, where argument fields are treated merely as texts and where competitors cite ruling class discourse while arguing about how to manage the problems below them. Friedrich Engels described the state as a contingent product, which must hide its status as such: The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it "the reality of the ethical idea," "the image and reality of reason," as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is the product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within the bounds of "order"; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state. I am arguing that the constant referent of the "state" invites the debater to look on the world from "above," from a rhetorical vantage point whose material antecedents are inequality and conflict, and whose desirability is absolutely necessary for its perpetuation. A2 Decision Making1. Non-unique: social movements and non-policy action give use just as good decision making skills BEST EDU IN THE ROUnd, make them prove the distinction of why policy is better not just list why policy decisions are good and not mention K decisions. 2. Turn: these skills are probably better because this interp allow us to recognize instances of anti-blackness and then avoid/reject them3. Specifically, we change the decision of the ballot by challenging the traditional debate structures and b) we critique that knowledge production that excludes people from debate and academia.4. Learning policy helps operate in an anti-black world, education provided by our aff helps reject anti-blackness all together. A2 Predictability1. Lack of predictability is non-unique: teams will always try to gain the upper hand and disadvantage the other time 2. Turn: they use this as a weapon against new arguments- running this against k affs destroys the creativity in this round and it justifies always debating the same topics 3. Turn: claims of predictability create a static space which elites control and exclude Dantley 2 (Professor at Miami University focusing on leadership, spirituality and social justice Education and Urban Society, vol. 34 (3)Finesse) The third dynamic of positivism, technical control, meanders outside the confines of theoretical and research methodological conscription into the realm of social and power relations its tenets so ably design. It is not difficult to see how imperialist behaviors are birthed from the positivist mentality. The belief that a strict subscription to an empirical design of rationality and predictability contours the acceptable behaviors of a society that embraces its fundamental dispositions. Difference or an alternate perception becomes anathema and silenced, especially if it offers ammunition to refute the propositions the positivist position has already established. It outlines the hegemony and celebrates confirmation and corroboration of its doctrines. It is vitally important to see how the tenet of control within the positivist frame crafts the cultural thought. Control, domination, and subjugation systematically establish boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Control propagates a cataloguing of acceptable behaviors as well as acceptable people whose nature is to demonstrate these honored behaviors. In fact, a meritocracy emanates as clearly defined systems of rewards and sanctions are put into place. These reify the positivist position and ensure its continual influence. Therefore, there are attributes and character traits codified by those whoestablish the cultural thought or hegemony that describe clones of social positivism. There arises a host of binary oppositional rituals that systemically and systematically exclude those who differ from the hegemonic model. Appiah (1992) affirmed these notions of exclusivity as he delineated thesignifiers of the modernist and postmodern ideologies. He maintained that in philosophy, postmodernism is the rejection of the hegemonic acceptance of Descartes’s through Kantian notions of logical positivism on foundationalism, which touts that there is one route to knowledge, thus representing epistemological exclusivism. Logical positivism supports the stance of metaphysical realism that purports that there is one truth resulting in exclusivity in ontology. All of this, according to Appiah, is founded on a unitary notion of reason celebrated by logical positivism. 4. Education: predictable debate is boring debate, we make it more interesting from round to round, which means you are learning more, and it better for competitive debate 5. Un-Predictability is inevitable, funding, coaches, accessibility to evidence, and much more prove this. Arguments of predictability undermine these disadvantages and are anti-black. To assume all debaters start on the same level of fairness to begin with is anti-black. 6. Making a predictable argument means you’ve bought into the bad education we solicit from debate. Bringing that ontology into the debate space causes all the impacts of the 1AC AT: Fairness/Predictability (Dr. Reid-Brinkley) (:22)Predictability and limits are illusions to uphold the normative structures of debate. There is no rulebook that limits us out of the space, only your own conception of what should fit into the topic.Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley et al, 13 (Dr. Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, PhD, Assistant Professor of Public Address and Advocacy, Director of Debate, William Pitt Debating Union, Amber Kelsie, M.A., Nicholas Brady, 2013, http://resistanceanddebate.wordpress.com/, NC) We are not just critiquing topic selection or topic development, we are also critiquing knowledge production in areas that we define in terms of research. So why isn’t your affirmative about Egypt and the concept of the development of democracy in the context of anti-blackness a predictable affirmative in the research literature. The reason it’s not predictable is because it’s not in the confines of the space we have identified as available for research. Your whole argument is an argument against the normative manner in which we draw the circle within the research literature. Your argument isn’t that there shouldn’t be a circle, that the topic can’t function as a circle. Sure we could attempt to affect the knowledge making practices by changing the topic or the process of selection for topics, but I fear that that may just be a surface level reformist change that won’t result in a change in the practices of knowledge that we participate in within the debate space. In other words, even if we changed topics to go beyond the traditional wording of contemporary topics, that may not result in changes in what the community conceptualizes as potential research areas within these new topic areas. If we really got into diversifying what we think of as areas of research, it’s not like we wouldn’t define some boundary with the topic, but what fits in the area of the topic would necessarily expand. To some extent that’s not that problematic, look how many affirmative’s are on this topic, we have all of these countries. You can do democracy assistance in any way, but we have decided that the only way that you can do democracy assistance is based on the way that the USFG has budgeted it. Because we have decided that that should be the line of predictability. We could have decided that the line of predictability lay elsewhere. In other words, the lines we draw are arbitrary, but not neutral. How about we just draw the line at what academic research has decided is the available space of conversation surrounding democracy assistance. Or how about we define it in the context of not just academic research but also what revolutionary activists, who are producing grassroots scholarship may have to add to the discussion. A2 Fairness Debate is always unfair, race, disability, and class determine fairness before anything in a round is read. Fairness claims are not only inherently privileged, but lead to the disavowal of actual unfair parts of debate. A2 Limits1. Limits are destructive, especially in the framework of expression. Our arguments are based on our social location in debate and the world. By putting “limits” on our social locations, you effectively remove us from the debate.2. Innovation is a prerequisite to change – limits on a topic restrict the ability to create new solutions and theories3. Limits not key – if we prove impacts and solvency for our aff, that proves that our advocacy is important, and outweighs the impact to limits.4. Education is more important, it’s why we are here at debate camp and here as debaters.Limits control and exclude- that was on predictability above turns both the aff and the kA2 Role Playing USFG Good 1. Roleplaying presupposes that taking USFG action is neutral. Government action can never be neutral because it always already exists in an environment of antiblackness in the status quo.2. Supporting the resolution isn’t an option in the squo. Participation in debate as future policymakers teaches the wrong portable skills. We distance ourselves from our anti-black legacy. We celebrate each new nuclear war.Dr. Reid-Brinkley, University of Pittsburgh Department Of Communications, 8 (Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, University of Pittsburgh Department Of Communications, “THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE” 2008, NC) Mitchell observes that the stance of the policymaker in debate comes with a “sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture.”115 In other words, its participants are able to engage in debates where they are able to distance themselves from the events that are the subjects of debates. Debaters can throw around terms like torture, terrorism, genocide and nuclear war without blinking. Debate simulations can only serve to distance the debaters from real world participation in the political contexts they debate about. As William Shanahan remarks: …the topic established a relationship through interpellation that inhered irrespective of what the particular political affinities of the debaters were. The relationship was both political and ethical, and needed to be debated as such. When we blithely call for United States Federal Government policymaking, we are not immune to the colonialist legacy that establishes our place on this continent. We cannot wish away the horrific atrocities perpetrated everyday in our name simply by refusing to acknowledge these implications” (emphasis in original).116 118 The “objective” stance of the policymaker is an impersonal or imperialist persona. The policymaker relies upon “acceptable” forms of evidence, engaging in logical discussion, producing rational thoughts. As Shanahan, and the Louisville debaters’ note, such a stance is integrally linked to the normative, historical and contemporary practices of power that produce and maintain varying networks of oppression. In other words, the discursive practices of policy-oriented debate are developed within, through and from systems of power and privilege. Thus, these practices are critically implicated in the maintenance of hegemony. So, rather than seeing themselves as government or state actors, Jones and Green choose to perform themselves in debate, violating the more “objective” stance of the “policymaker” and require their opponents to do the same. It doesn’t even matter if they prove USFG edu. Good, because black folk can never be included in the USFG. Give us ground for once. The frameworks form of simulation props up a system of anti-blackness Stannard 2000 [Matt, director of forensics and associate lecturer in the University of Wyoming Department of Communication and Journalism, “Portraying the Ruling Class: Argument Fields and the Material Antecedents of Policy Debate,” http://www.uvm.edu/~debate/stannard300a.html. Finesse] Moreover, reliance on mass media sources, the journals of elitist think tanks, and public relations-manufactured press services all serve to construct a particular possibility of argument in policy debates. The advent of electronic research databases has exacerbated this conservatizing tendency since most of these databases are mainstream in content. To summarize, I am suggesting that discursive inequalities and marginalized identities are not the only objects of criticism in policy debate. These problems are symptoms of the reproduction of the policy field, a field which, in its institutionalized materiality, produces and contains both inequality and marginalization. The field of policy debate is a ritualized and enhanced reproduction of this larger material institution. Debaters are taught, through pedagogy and reward, drawing from policy literature and traditional (uncritical) notions of governing, to imitate the ruling class. Inequality and marginalization are part of the structure governing such imitation.
Policing DABy running framework, the Negative tries to silence the AFF’s discussion of anti-blackness. Even if they just want to change our methodology, this is the same as when white folk said “well if you speak, dress, talk, and act like us, then we will incorporate you into our society”.Policing justifies and hides the antiblack white supremacist racismMartinot and Sexton, 2003 (Steve and Jared, "The Avant-Garde of White Supremacy", Social Identities, Volume 9, Number 2, 2003 Accessed 8-3-12, MR) This confluence of repetition and transformation, participation and subjection gets conjugated inversely so that the target becomes the aggressor and the uniformed aggressors become a priesthood, engineering a political culture whose construction is the practice of whiteness. What are wholly and essentially immanent are the structures of racist reason that produce practices without motive. ‘Police procedures’ become pure form because they are at once both self-defined and subordinated to the implicit prerogatives of this political culture. They empty the law of any content that could be called justice, substituting murderousness and impunity. The ‘social procedures’ that burgeon in the wake of this engineering also become pure form, emptying social exchange as the condition of white social cohesion. It flattens all ideals of political life to a Manichean structure that it depicts as whiteness versus evil. It is a double economy. On the one hand, there is an economy of clearly identifiable injustices, spectacular flash points of terror, expressing the excesses of the state-sanctioned system of racial categorisation. On the other, there is the structure of inarticulability itself and its imposed unintelligibility, an economy of the loss of meaning, a hyper-economy. It is this hyper-economy that appears in its excess as banal; a hyper-injustice that is reduced and dissolved in the quotidian as an aura, while it is refracted in the images of the spectacular economy itself. Between the spectacular as the rule and the banal as excess, in each of the moments of its reconstruction, the law of white supremacist attack signifies that there is no law. This hyper-economy, with its hyper-injustice, is the problem we confront. The intractability of racism lies in its hidden and unspeakable terror, an implicate ethic of impunity. A repetition of violence as standard operating (police) procedure, an insidious common sense, renders any real notion of justice or democracy on the map of white supremacy wholly alien and inarticulable.
(Frank B., “The Prison Slave as Hegemony’s (Silent) Scandal”, Soc Justice 30 no2 2003, Accessed 8-4-12, MR) It makes no difference that in the U.S. the "casbah" and the "European" zone are laid one on top of the other. What is being asserted here is an isomorphic schematic relation - the schematic interchangeability - between Fanon' s settler society and Martinot and Sexton's policing paradigm. For Fanon, it is the policeman and soldier (not the discursive, or hegemonic, agents) of colonialism that make one town white and the other Black. For Martinot and Sexton, this Manichean delirium manifests itself by way of the U.S. paradigm of policing that (re)produces, repetitively, the inside/outside, the civil society/Black world, by virtue of the difference between those bodies that do not magnetize bullets and those that do. "Police impunity serves to distinguish between the racial itself and the elsewhere that mandates it...the distinction between those whose human being is put permanently in question and those for whom it goes without saying" (Ibid.: 8). In such a paradigm, white people are, ipso facto, deputized in the face of Black people, whether they know it (consciously) or not. Whiteness, then, and by extension civil society, cannot be solely "represented" as some monumentalized coherence of phallic signifiers, but must first be understood as a social formation of contemporaries who do not magnetize bullets. This is the essence of their construction through an asignifying absence; their signifying presence is manifested by the fact that they are, if only by default, deputized against those who do magnetize bullets. In short, white people are not simply "protected" by the police, they are - in their very corporeality - the police. This ipso facto deputization of white people in the face of Black people accounts for Fanon's materiality, and Martinot and Sexton's Manichean delirium in America. What remains to be addressed, however, is the way in which the political contestation between civil society's junior partners (i.e., workers, white women, and immigrants), on the one hand, and white supremacist institutionality, on the other hand, is produced by, and reproductive of, a supplemental antiBlackness. Put another way: How is the production and accumulation of junior partner social capital dependent upon on an anti-Black rhetorical structure and a decomposed Black body? Download 356.95 Kb. Share with your friends:
|