This file includes the entirety of a capitalism K. That said, students may want to draw from other critique files to supplement the work here
Download 1.3 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The alt is a critical reimagining of the role of teachers
- The alternative is to reject the capitalist school system and fight to place control of education into students, parents, and teachers
- Alt Solves---A2: Activism Fails
- Educational activists can clearly formulate a solution to the current system of education
- Alt Solves---A2: Capitalism Inevitable
- Alt Solves---A2: Capitalism Inevitable---Education Key
- Neoliberalism relies on education to continue
- Alt Solves---A2: Empirics
- Jarvis is trash – rumor is that he also wears socks with his flip-flops
- Counter-perm: We can advocate the mechanism of the affirmative without their specific representations and epistemology
- Neg ground – The opted to include their frames in the 1AC – there’s a strategic cost that we need to test – their vision is severance – kills advocacy
- It’s predictable – K is literally an impact turn to their 1AC imagery
*** ALTERNATIVEAlt SolvesThe alt is a critical reimagining of the role of teachers in schools and society – as critical, organic, public, socialist, activist, intellectual, and transformativeHill 17 (Dave, emeritus professor of research in education at Anglia Ruskin University, visiting professor at the national and Kapodistrian University of Athens, chief editor of Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, co-founder of the Hillcole Group of Radical Left Educators, author of 25 published books and over 100 chapters and academic articles. “The Role of Marxist Educators Against and Within Neoliberal Capitalism”, 1/5/17. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hNd2iWBtUpgJ:insurgentscripts.org/the-role-of-marxist-educators-against-and-within-neoliberal-capitalism/+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us, 6/20/17)//JM Teacher, Educators and Critical Pedagogy So then, what role should teachers within schools, colleges, universities, those of us who are critical of capitalist education, what role should we play? Teachers should be actively involved in the fights for economic and social justice, that they should be critical, organic, public, socialist, transformative intellectuals, who are activists. Within the field of education, much has been written about Critical pedagogy (associated with Paolo Freire and Henry Giroux, for example, such as Giroux, 1988) and the more revolutionary, Marxist, Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy of Peter McLaren (McLaren, 2005). Critical means just that- being suspicious, questioning, interrogating, not accepting prima facie evidence, digging deeper, with a commitment to social and economic justice Organic is being part of, knowing about, living, and representing the class/section of the class we are representing. Public means going public, speaking out, and defying intimidation. Socialist means being egalitarian, working for an egalitarian, and non-capitalist society, where the wealth (such as ‘the commanding heights of the economy’–banks, industry, and public utilities) of the country is owned collectively. Transformative means using out abilities, teaching, membership, and leadership to critique and work towards reconstruction. Intellectual in the Gramscian sense (Gramsci, 1971; Giroux, 1988) recognizes that all people can think and do intellectualize. But that those of us who are educational or cultural or political workers have a unique position-and responsibility. Our job as teachers, as educators, is to think, to deal in thought. We have the luxury to think about, teach, discuss with others, ideas. But our duty as socialist critical transformative activist intellectuals is more than this. It is to offer intellectual stimulus, analysis, utopianism, hope, vision–and an analysis of how to get there–organization. Hence I think it necessary to add, to critical, organic, public, socialist, transformative, and intellectual, the characteristic of ‘activist’. We must also be Reconstructive, and develop and work systems that are collegial, socially and environmentally responsible and egalitarian; that are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic. (In Hill, 2010), I suggest principles and policies that could underlay a socialist education policy). A fundamental of critical policy analysis is to critically interrogate policy at all levels, and ask `who wins and who loses?’ And in designing programmes, pedagogies, action plans, government legislation, education policies, fiscal, economic and employment policies, we should look at policies through a class perspective, which (`raced’ and gendered) class, and class strata stand to win or lose, and what will they win/ lose, and how? And what do they win or lose? Higher educational test results? A `rounded education’? A bigger pay packet? Better health? Longer life?` A longer, healthier life? In doing so, in performing critical policy analysis, we must critically interrogate our own policies, and avoid leaders, whether intellectual or political, holding aloft predesigned packages/ gifts / policies. The alt is a critical reimagining of the role of teachersShannon 1 (Patrick, Ph.D distinguished professor of education at Penn State, chair of the Research Foundation for the National Council of Teachers of English, helped produce 9 books. “A Marxist Reading of Reading Education”, 2001. http://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/shannon.html, 6/26/17)//JM 25. Becoming political, then, requires that teachers judge all past, present and future school structures by their moral unfolding, or more precisely, their orientation toward human freedom. Inquiry into the structures of reading instruction (or any other practice) must center on a commitment to the idea of human emancipation. In this way, the contradiction between the rhetoric of Open Court concerning the possibilities of literacy and the actual scripted social relations of that reading program which turn teachers and students into things can serve as an opening for what Roger Simon calls "projects of possibility": I am using the term 'project' here in the particular sense in which it was discussed by Sartre as an activity determined by both real and present conditions, and conditions still to come which it is trying to bring into being. In this sense a project of possibility begins with a critique of current realities. This critique suggests that a contradiction exists between the openness of human capacities that we encourage in a free society and the social forms that are provided and within which we must live our lives. It is this contradiction which is the starting point for a project of possibility and defines its broad aim: the transformation of the relation between human capacities and social forms. More particularly the project requires both the expansion of forms to accommodate capacities and the expansion of capacities to make the realization of new forms possible. Such a project would reject the resolution of this contradiction between capacities and forms through narrowing of capacities to fit existing forms or through the narrowing of forms to fit preconceived, fixed, 'naturalized' notions of capacities. (Simon, 2001, 141-142) The social form of Open Court's tight scripting of teachers' and students' words and actions during reading instruction contradicts the openness of literacy, teaching, and learning. Despite the talk of higher test scores, efficient instruction, and systematic learning, the program cannot lead to human emancipation. Although it may be argued that the controlled beginning will eventually lead students to greater futures, this line of reasoning suggests the narrowing of social forms to fit preconceived, fixed and naturalized notions of what their capacities might be in the future. Some may overcome the controlled beginning to use literacy to open opportunities in their lives, but some will also internalize the process of control, limiting the potential of their development. And of course, the scripted lives are all there is offered to teachers. Neither teacher nor students is likely to make possible the realization of a variety of differentiated human capacities. 26. This contradiction does not lie in the scripts themselves, but in the forces of rationalization which attempt to standardize reading programs in order to make them predictable factors in the productive industrial equations. Those forces rely on the reification of all possible social structures and means for teaching reading as the commercially produced, scientifically validated scripted programs. Rationalization and reification result in the alienation of teachers from their work and their students because the fetishism of the commodified programs makes it appear as if the materials are the agents of teaching and learning. Similar contradictions can be found in more and more aspects of our public and private lives, all of which have been rationalized in order to ensure that capitalism endures and expands. In this way, the composers and innovators in education are linked with the composers and innovators in other fields of work -- child care and health care workers, agricultural workers, service workers, and many others. 27. Teachers becoming political from a Marxian standpoint means raising our own and others' consciousness about the root causes of scripted lessons, high stakes testing, and commercialization of schools and schooling. This is by no means an easy task because the structures of rationalization and commodification are cognitive, social, and physical. Those cognitive structures weigh heavily on even the innovative teacher. Harder still may be learning to act in conjunction with other workers suffering under increased pressures of rationalization in their work. Until those alliances are made, the chances for effective politics in education are limited. To really address Dudley-Marling's and Murphy's concerns, and not continue to stagger from opposition of one rationalized solution to another, we must stop the unmediated expansion of capitalism into social institutions that should be in the business of human emancipation. (See Shannon, 1998 for an elaboration on this point.) This means teachers should join the movements toward livable minimum wages, national health insurance, affordable housing, and repeal of NAFTA and GATT. They should make their presence know at the protests of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. These are large projects of possibility that show promise on a large scale. The alternative is to reject the capitalist school system and fight to place control of education into students, parents, and teachersLamelas Paz 16 (Gabriela, socialist Argentinian politician. “Public Education in Capitalism: A Marxist Perspective”, 10/31/16. http://www.leftvoice.org/Public-Education-in-Capitalism-A-Marxist-Perspective, 6/22/17)//JM *Translated, by Tatiana Cozzarelli He goes on to say, "’Elementary education by the state’ is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc… is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school…” As Marx says, on one hand, it is necessary to change social conditions to create a new education system. On the other, we need a new education system to change current social conditions. As a consequence, we must begin our analysis with an understanding of the current situation. This leads to demanding and defending public, secular, and free education. It means fighting for an education budget based on student needs, not the dictates of corporations or international financial bodies. Although we demand that the state finance education and guarantee access to the population, we do not accept that we need to leave the management of education in the hands of the State that represents the interests of the capitalist class. Education can be public without being in the hands of the government. It is necessary to fight to rip control of the curriculum, of the budget, and of the allocation of funding from the hands of the capitalist government. We must put it in the hands of the people who are truly interested in our children’s education: the parents, teachers, students, community organizations, and working class organizations. We defend, but we also question, the existing education system because we fight for equal opportunities and the freedom for young people to access and build upon the knowledge accumulated by humanity. We do not fight for an education system like the one to which we are accustomed. “Equality” in education is a cynical and prejudicial lie. Until equality includes an end to class-based society and exploitation, we are know that it is just an empty phrase. We are fighting to bring an end to class society, and in this struggle, we are truly fighting for equality. This is why we fight for a workers government that will expropriate the bourgeoisie and establish democratic planning of the economy and education. Alt Solves---A2: Activism FailsThe alternative adopts critical pedagogy—this enables us to understand classrooms and formulate solutions to the current form of capitalist educationGiroux 13 - Henry Giroux, American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. In 2002 Routledge named Giroux as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period, 2013 ("Henry Giroux: The Necessity of Critical Pedagogy in Dark Times," Truthout, 2-6-2013, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14331-a-critical-interview-with-henry-giroux, Accessed on 6-20-2017 //JJ) First, I think it is best to think of critical pedagogy as an ongoing project instead of a fixed set of references or prescriptive set of practices–put bluntly, it is not a method. One way of thinking about critical pedagogy in these terms is to think of it as both a way of understanding education as well as a way of highlighting the performative nature of agency as an act of participating in shaping the world in which we live. But I think the best place to begin to answer this question is to recognize the distinction between a conservative notion of teaching and the more progressive meaning of critical pedagogy. Teaching for many conservatives is often treated simply as a set of strategies and skills to use in order to teach prespecified subject matter. In this context, teaching becomes synonymous with a method, technique, or the practice of a craft—like skill training. On the other hand, critical pedagogy must be seen as a political and moral project and not a technique. Pedagogy is always political because it is connected to the acquisition of agency. As a political project, critical pedagogy illuminates the relationships among knowledge, authority, and power. It draws attention to questions concerning who has control over the conditions for the production of knowledge, values, and skills, and it illuminates how knowledge, identities, and authority are constructed within particular sets of social relations. Similarly, it draws attention to the fact that pedagogy is a deliberate attempt on the part of educators to influence how and what knowledge and subjectivities are produced within particular sets of social relations. Ethically, critical pedagogy stresses the importance of understanding what actually happens in classrooms and other educational settings by raising questions regarding what knowledge is of most worth, in what direction should one desire, and what it means to know something. Most importantly, it takes seriously what it means to understand the relationship between how we learn and how we act as individual and social agents; that is, it is concerned with teaching students how not only to think but to come to grips with a sense of individual and social responsibility, and what it means to be responsible for one’s actions as part of a broader attempt to be an engaged citizen who can expand and deepen the possibilities of democratic public life. Finally, what has to be acknowledged is that critical pedagogy is not about an a priori method that simply can be applied regardless of context. It is the outcome of particular struggles and is always related to the specificity of particular contexts, students, communities, available resources, the histories that students bring with them to the classroom, and the diverse experiences and identities they inhabit. Educational activists can clearly formulate a solution to the current system of educationGiroux 13 – Henry Giroux, American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. In 2002 Routledge named Giroux as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period, 2013 ("Henry A. Giroux," Truthout, 6-24-2013, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/17176-henry-a-giroux-americas-education-deficit, Accessed on 6-20-2017 //JJ) Regarding policy interventions, progressives can explore a variety of options to build coalitions with labor unions, environmental organizations, and public servants in order to develop a broad-based alternative party to push for much-needed reforms, including paid family and medical leave, a new equal rights amendment for women, literacy and civic engagement programs, a guaranteed minimum income, ecological reform, free child care, new finance laws for funding public education, the cancellation of higher education debt obligations for middle- and working-class students, health care programs, and a massive jobs program in conjunction with a Marshall Plan–like program to end poverty and inequality in the United States. But, to achieve these goals, progressives will invariably need to take on the role of educational activists. One option would be to create microspheres of public education that further modes of critical learning and civic agency, and thus enable young people and others to learn how to govern rather than be governed. This could be accomplished through a network of free educational spaces developed among diverse faith communities and public schools, as well as in secular and religious organizations affiliated with higher educational institutions. These new educational spaces, focused on cultivating both dialogue and action in the public interest, can look to past models in those institutions developed by socialists, labor unions, and civil rights activists in the early twentieth century and later in the 1950s and 60s. Such schools represented oppositional public spheres and functioned as democratic public spheres in the best educational sense and ranged from the early networks of radical Sunday Schools to the later Brookwood Labor College and Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.26 Stanley Aronowitz rightly insists that the current system "survives on the eclipse of the radical imagination, the absence of a viable political opposition with roots in the general population, and the conformity of its intellectuals who, to a large extent, are subjugated by their secure berths in the academy, less secure private sector corporate jobs, and centrist and center-left media institutions."27 Alt Solves---A2: Capitalism InevitableCapitalism’s collapse is inevitable—3 reasonsMason 15 - Paul Mason, writer and broadcaster on economics and social justice, 15 ("The end of capitalism has begun," Guardian, 7-17-2015, Available Online at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun, Accessed on 7-7-2017 //JJ) As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started. Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation, currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences, will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all. Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely. Third, we’re seeing the spontaneous rise of collaborative production: goods, services and organisations are appearing that no longer respond to the dictates of the market and the managerial hierarchy. The biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by volunteers for free, abolishing the encyclopedia business and depriving the advertising industry of an estimated $3bn a year in revenue. Alt Solves---A2: Capitalism Inevitable---Education KeyNeoliberalism utilizes education to proliferate its violent ideology in order to surviveGiroux 14 - American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. In 2002 Routledge named Giroux as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period, 14 ("Henry A. Giroux," Truthout, 4-26-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/23306-neoliberalisms-war-on-democracy, Accessed on 6-27-2017 //JJ) Not only does neoliberal rationality believe in the ability of markets to solve all problems, it also removes economics and markets from ethical considerations. Economic growth, rather than social needs, drives politics. Long-term investments are replaced by short-term gains and profits, while compassion is viewed as a weakness and democratic public values are derided. As Stanley Aronowitz points out, public values and collective action have given way to the "absurd notion the market should rule every human activity," including the "absurd neoliberal idea that users should pay for every public good from parks and beaches to highways [and] higher education."45 The hard work of critical analysis, moral judgments, and social responsibility have given way to the desire for accumulating profits at almost any cost, short of unmistakably breaking the law and risking a jail term (which seems unlikely for Wall Street criminals). Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good" speech in the film Wall Street has been revived as a rallying cry for the entire financial services industry, rather than seen as a critique of excess. With society overtaken by the morality of self-interest, profit-seeking weaves its way into every possible space, relationship, and institution. For example, the search for high-end profits has descended upon the educational sector with a vengeance, as private bankers, hedge fund elites, and an assortment of billionaires are investing in for-profit and charter schools while advocating policies that disinvest in public education. At the same time the biotech, pharmaceutical, and defense industries and a range of other corporations are investing in universities to rake in profits while influencing everything from how such institutions are governed and define their mission to what they teach and how they treat faculty members and students. Increasingly, universities are losing their power not only to produce critical and civically engaged students but also to offer the type of education that enables them to refute the neoliberal utopian notion that paradise amounts to a world of voracity and avarice without restrictions, governed by a financial elite who exercise authority without accountability or challenge. Literacy, public service, human rights, and morality in this neoliberal notion of education become damaged concepts, stripped of any sense of reason, responsibility, or obligation to a just society. In this way, neoliberalism proceeds, in zombie-like fashion, to impose its values, social relations, and forms of social death upon all aspects of civic life.This is marked by not only a sustained lack of interest in the public good, a love of inequitious power relations, and a hatred of democracy. There is also the use of brutality, state violence, and humiliation to normalize a neoliberal social order that celebrates massive inequalities in income, wealth, and access to vital services. This is a social Darwinism without apology, a ruthless form of casino capitalism whose advocates have suggested, without irony, that what they do is divinely inspired.46 Politics has become an extension of war, just as state-sponsored violence increasingly finds legitimation in popular culture and a broader culture of cruelty that promotes an expanding landscape of selfishness, insecurity, and precarity that undermines any sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of others. Too many young people today learn quickly that their fate is solely a matter of individual responsibility, legitimated through market-driven laws that embrace self-promotion, hypercompetitiveness, and surviving in a society that increasingly reduces social relations to social combat. Young people today are expected to inhabit a set of relations in which the only obligation is to live for oneself and to reduce the obligations of citizenship to the demands of a consumer culture. Gilded Age vengeance has also returned in the form of scorn for those who are either failed consumers or do not live up to the image of the United States as a white Christian nation. Reality TV's overarching theme, echoing Hobbes's "war of all against all," brings home the lesson that punishment is the norm and reward the exception. Unfortunately, it no longer mimics reality, it is the new reality. There is more at work here than a flight from social responsibility. Also lost is the importance of those social bonds, modes of collective reasoning, and public spheres and cultural apparatuses crucial to the construction of the social state and the formation of a sustainable democratic society. Nowhere is the dismantling of the social state and the transformation of the state into a punishing machine more evident than in the recent attacks on youth, labor rights, and higher education being waged by Republican governors in a number of key states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio. What is often missed in discussions of these attacks is that the war on the social state and the war on education represent part of the same agenda of destruction and violence. The first war is being waged for the complete control by the rich and powerful of all modes of wealth and income while the second war is conducted on the ideological front and represents a battle over the very capacity of young people and others to imagine a different and more critical mode of subjectivity and alternative mode of politics. If the first war is on the diverse and myriad terrain of political economy the second is being waged though what C. Wright Mills once called the major cultural apparatuses, including public and higher education. This is a struggle to shape indentities, desires, and modes of subjectivity in accordance with market values, needs, and relations. Both of these wars register as part of a larger effort to destroy any vestige of a democratic imaginary, and to relegate the value of the ethical responsibility and the social question to the wasteland of political thought. Paul Krugman is on target in arguing that in spite of massive suffering caused by the economic recession—a recession that produced "once-unthinkable levels of economic distress"— there is "growing evidence that our governing elite just doesn't care."47 Of course, Krugman is not suggesting that if the corporate and financial elite cared the predatory nature of capitalism would be transformed. Rather, he is suggesting that economic Darwinism leaves no room for compassion or ethical considerations, which makes its use of power much worse than more liberal models of a market-based society. Neoliberalism relies on education to continueSlater 13—Graham B. Slater, Marriner S. Eccles Fellow in Political Economy at the University of Utah, where he is completing a PhD in the Department of Education, Culture and Society, 2013 (“Education as recovery: neoliberalism, school reform, and the politics of crisis”, Taylor & Francis, November 15th, Available Online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680939.2014.904930, Accessed on 6-28-2017, HL) For over three decades, education has been a target of neoliberal reform. The neoliberal education project is multifaceted, complex, and adaptive. In particular, the neoliberal enclosure of public education has been facilitated by an increasingly diverse array of crises, both ‘manufactured’ and ‘naturally occurring.’ While much has been written about the relationship between crisis and neoliberal education reform scholars have yet to fully examine the discursive and ideological work that is done at the level of subjectivity in the aftermath of crises. In response to this lacuna, this paper proposes that a process of recovery is operating within the crisis politics of neoliberal education reform, and that this process is integral in rearticulating the broader social terrain into a totalizing neoliberal lifeworld. The violence and dispossession of neoliberal crisis compounds the already tenuous conditions of many in an era marked by unhinged financialization and a brand of ‘revanchist state politics’ that works to dissolve any collective basis for social welfare (Means 2013; see also Wacquant 2009). Recovery is an integral mechanism in the process of capital accumulation that bridges crisis to crisis, securing ‘precarious neoliberal futures’ (Means 2013). In order to capitalize on crises, neoliberal reformers position further privatization as the primary mechanism of recovery. The expansion of neoliberal policies, however, should be understood as both constructing and responding to material conditions (Clarke and Newman 2010), activating discourses that shape ideologies and ultimately produce subjectivities attuned to neoliberal rationality (see Leonardo 2003). In doing so, neoliberalism becomes further entrenched, both creating and securing the means of its own reproduction. This paper builds on the voluminous literature in critical education policy studies that has explored the insidious depths of neoliberal schooling, the politics of disaster, and political economies of school reform (Apple 2004; Ball 2003, 2007, 2009; Buras, forthcoming; De Lissovoy 2008; Hursh 2004, 2006, 2008; Lipman 2004, 2008, 2011; Means 2013; Peters 2011; Saltman 2000, 2007a, 2007b). By exposing the utility of disaster and crisis to neoliberal reform, this scholarship provides an invaluable foundation for critiquing neoliberal education policies and informs my conceptualization of recovery as a simultaneously discursive and material force that is fundamentally implicated in the educational production of subjectivity and the enclosure of visions of social futures outside or beyond neoliberalism. Some scholars frame crises as latent opportunities for social transformation. Lipman (2011), for example, argues that the recent financial crises of 2008 ‘has laid bare the effects of neoliberal economic and social policies,’ and as such, ‘compels us to rethink not just the neoliberal strategy but capitalism itself and to reimagine alternatives’ (148). Similarly, Duménil and Lévy (2011) claim that ‘a crisis of neoliberalism implies a possible transition to a new phase’ of economic and social relations (5). Others emphasize the damaging effects of crisis and the violent and dispossessive effects of neoliberal restructuring. Saltman (2007a), for one, writes, ‘Around the world, disaster is providing the means for business to accumulate profit’ (1). The application of crisis politics to the sphere of education, he argues, ‘imperils the development of public schools as crucial sites for engaged critical democracy while undermining the public purposes of public education and amassing vast profits for a few’ (3). Likewise, Buras (2007) decries the historical precedence of ‘benign neglect’ by the state in moments of disaster and crisis that affect poor communities of color, which she argues constitutes ‘a highly racialized strategy of genocidal proportions; sometimes its effects are immediate and at other times gradual, but its effects are real and not infrequently calculated’ (105). Beyond an opportunity to reconsider capitalism and to imagine alternative visions of economic and social life, the friction between these analyses seems to call for a more precise conceptualization of the relationship between the discursive, ideological, and subjective dimensions of crisis politics within neoliberalism. By this, I mean that the structural effects of neoliberal domination – the forging of crisis situations through racist urban planning, the criminal justice system, and unequal educational funding for example – are implicated in neoliberal subject formation, by which subjectivities are forcibly attuned to a social ontology of regular crisis, thus becoming ‘indebted’ to neoliberal reform and recovery (De Lissovoy and McLaren 2003). The theory of recovery that I articulate in this paper attempts to challenge this violence by expanding the field of critical policy studies to more fully include the subjective dimensions of crisis politics and to affirm radical and autonomous political responses of communities regularly targeted by neoliberal crises. Recovery is crucial to the reproduction and entrenchment of neoliberalism because it exploits the exigency of recovery for those most affected by crises, while simultaneously enclosing possibilities grounded in alternative ethics. A critical theory of recovery uncovers an important contradiction in neoliberal domination. At the same time as neoliberals create crises, they also position neoliberal reform as the sole medium of recovery (Klein 2007). An analysis of recovery can help critical educators and researchers to understand the evolving utility of crisis for neoliberals. Specifically, I examine how neoliberal reformers replicate and expand the historical burdening of education with the demands of recovering from crises (Tyack and Cuban 1995). Rather than divest themselves of the imperative to accumulate capital, neoliberal reformers position education as the ideal mechanism of recovery. In doing so, they externalize the demands of recovery onto schools, teachers, and students. United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan clearly exposes this sentiment in comments he made about the Race To The Top fund. Duncan claims, ‘It is not a competition between [states]. Where [states] want to continue to drive reform, we want to invest. Where they’ve lost interest or lost courage we won’t’ (McNeill 2011, 19). The message, essentially, is that students, communities, and schools are responsible for their own recovery, but always under the purview of neoliberal surveillance, rationality, and governmentality. Against the violent neoliberal exploitation of crisis, this essay calls for critical educators and social justice advocates to refuse the neoliberal terms of recovery and to affirm the collective potential of communities to break the cycle of crisis and recovery. Alt Solves---A2: EmpiricsYes transition – collapse induces deep societal value transformation that promises sustainability – transition wars or our alt being bad are irrelevant – IT’S LITERALLY TRY OR DIE – this evidence also sets the solvency bar super low because individual movements can overthrow the global orderRutherford 14 ---- Jonathan, Professor of Cultural Studies (Middlesex), “The Deep Green Alternative: Debating Strategies of Transition,” Simplicity Institute, Report 14a, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf As industrial civilisation continues its global expansion and pursues growth without apparent limit, the possibility of economic, political, or ecological crises forcing an alternative way of life upon humanity seems to be growing in likelihood (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013). That is, if the existing model of global development is not stopped via one of the pathways reviewed above, or some other strategy, then it seems clear enough that at some point in the future, industrial civilisation will grow itself to death (Turner, 2012). Whether 'collapse' is initiated by an ecological tipping point, a financial breakdown of an overly indebted economy, a geopolitical disruption, an oil crisis, or some confluence of such forces, the possibility of collapse or deep global crisis can no longer be dismissed merely as the intellectual playground for 'doomsayers' with curdled imaginations. Collapse is a prospect that ought to be taken seriously based on the logic of limitless growth on a finite planet, as well as the evidence of existing economic, ecological, or more specifically climatic instability. As Paul Gilding (2011) has suggested, perhaps it is already too late to avoid some form of 'great disruption'. Could collapse or deep crisis be the most likely pathway to an alternative way of life? If it is, such a scenario must not be idealised or romanticised. Fundamental change through crisis would almost certainly involve great suffering for many, and quite possibly significant population decline through starvation, disease, or war. It is also possible that the 'alternative system' that a crisis produces is equally or even more undesirable than the existing system. Nevertheless, it may be that this is the only way a post-growth or post-industrial way of life will ever arise. The Cuban oil crisis, prompted by the collapse of the USSR, provides one such example of a deep societal transition that arose not from a political or social movement, but from sheer force of circumstances (Piercy et al, 2010). Almost overnight Cuba had a large proportion of its oil supply cut off, forcing the nation to move away from oil-dependent, industrialised modes of food production and instead take up local and organic systems - or perish. David Holmgren (2013) has recently published a deep and provocative essay, 'Crash on Demand', exploring the idea that a relatively small anti-consumerist movement could be enough to destabilise the global economy which is already struggling. This presents one means of bringing an end to the status quo by inducing a voluntary crisis, without relying on a mass movement. Needless to say, should people adopt such a strategy, it would be imperative to 'prefigure' the alternative society as far as possible too, not merely withdraw support from the existing society. Again, one must not romanticise such theories or transitions. The Cuban crisis, for example, entailed much hardship. But it does expose the mechanisms by which crisis can induce significant societal change in ways that, in the end, are not always negative. In the face of a global crisis or breakdown, therefore, it could be that elements of the deep green vision (such as organic agriculture, frugal living, sharing, radical recycling, post-oil transportation, etc.) come to be forced upon humanity, in which case the question of strategy has less to do with avoiding a deep crisis or collapse (which may be inevitable) and more to do with negotiating the descent as wisely as possible. This is hardly a reliable path to the deep green alternative, but it presents itself as a possible path. Alt Solves---A2: JarvisJarvis is trash – rumor is that he also wears socks with his flip-flopsShapiro 1 (Michael J., Professor of Political Science – University of Hawaii, International Studies Association Review of Books, p. 126-128) D. S. L. Jarvis's International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline constitutes a radical alternative to Cochran's practice of critique. Manifesting a serious allergy to critique and especially to what he calls "postmodernism," Jarvis presumes that he must defend traditional, neopositivist IR against (in the words of the book jacket) "the various postmodern and poststructuralist theories currently sweeping the discipline of International Relations."To put the matter simply at the outset, Jarvis appears to be almost entirely ignorant of the philosophical predicates of the critical IR literature he attacks. He invents a model of thought that he finds vulnerable and then proceeds with his method of argumentation, mostly to scoff at the enemy he has invented. But Jarvis's scoffing amounts to whistling in the dark. He has entered a field of critique with predicates that are mysterious to him, and he shows signs of being genuinely anxious about the consequences of critical work.The monster Jarvis creates is a work of fiction, for he begins with the presumption that postmodern orientations are "sweeping" and therefore threatening the discipline. (I estimate that roughly one percent of the papers at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association reference postructuralist philosophy.) Returning to the Victorian genre of Gothic fiction in which the constitutive practice involves two primary roles—the monster and the victim—Jarvis portrays Richard Ashley as the Frankenstein monster and the victim as the entire IR discipline. Moreover, Jarvis's overwrought style of characterization of the dangers of postmodern IR fits Gothic fiction's motivational profile as well. As is noted in Fred Botting's treatment of the genre: "The terrors and horrors of transgression in Gothic writing become powerful means to reassert the values of society, virtue and propriety. . . . They warn of dangers by putting them in their darkest and most threatening form" (p. 5).Why fiction? Jarvis' makes "the postmodern" (which he seems to know primarily on the basis of rumor, for most of his citations are not to postructuralist texts but to thinkers hostile to them) an elastic category that applies to everything that he perceives to be antagonistic to his pre-Kantian empiricism. It encompasses most of feminist IR and anything that uses interpretive method. Although the use of a deconstructive mode of critique is extremely rare in international studies (the major practitioner is David Campbell), Jarvis frequently uses the term "deconstruction" as a synonym for postmodernist method. He assumes, without showing any evidence that he has read a word of Jacques Derrida's writings, that deconstruction is hostile to theory building and is opposed to all forms of affirmation. This characterization is belied by Derrida's state‑ments and demonstrations and by Campbell's deconstruction-inspired writing on war, security, and the ethics of responsibility. Symptomatic of his woeful ignorance of critical work in general, Jarvis refers at one point to the expression "structure of feeling" as a "postmodern phrase" (p. 32). Structure of feeling is initiated in the work of Raymond Williams, the late (and famous—though not sufficiently to alert Jarvis) Marxist literary critic whose work cannot be remotely related to poststructuralist critique and has inspired such prominent postmodernism bashers as Terry Eagleton.Jarvis's ignorance is not confined to contemporary critical interpretive theory (postmodern or otherwise); it even extends to the neoempiricist philosophy of science. For example, he chides postmodernists for holding the outrageous view that theorizing constitutes fact (p. 27), while he wants to uphold a model in which the integrity of theory—in international studies or elsewhere—requires that the domains of theory and fact be understood as radically separate. One need not resort to a Foucauldian treatment of discourse as event or a Deleuzian critique of representational thinking to challenge Jarvis's approach to theory. Jarvis's view of the theory–data relationship was seriously impeached by enough neoempiricist philosophers by the 1960s to field a softball team (among the heavy hitters in the starting lineup would be Willard V. Quine, Patrick Suppes, and Norwood Russell Hanson).The critical work for which Jarvis has contempt is not the threat he imagines to "the discipline," unless we construct the IR discipline as a trained inattention to the problematics, within which the work of theory proceeds. The writings of Michel Foucault (some of whose work Jarvis seems to have read) have implications for a critical and affirmative perspective that does not compromise the kind of theory building that IR empiricists do. It extends the arena—in which to theorize while encouraging a historical sensitivity—to regimes of discourse and suggests an ethico-politics of freedom from the impositions of identity. Although Foucault's conception of the problematic points to how concepts and the modes of fact assigned to them are historically contingent, explicable in contexts of value, and complicit with modes of power and authority, this does not thereby invalidate theory. Rather, it opens the way to work on the ethico-political context of theory and, among other things, to theorize with a sensitivity to theory's constituencies (beyond the policymakers that seem to be prized by Jarvis). As Molly Cochran, whose work is based on knowledge and critique rather than rumor and contempt, implies, an important legacy of contemporary critical work is the expansion of political and moral inclusion. Finally, there is one other genre that is (regrettably) embedded in Jarvis's fable of the dangers of postmodernism, a biographical speculation about a five-year hiatus in Richard Ashley's publishing life. Obsessed with the dangers of postmodernism, Jarvis attributes these years of silence to the "deep resignation" (p. 183) that he thinks Ashley's version of postmodern theorizing invites. Without insisting on a counterspeculation, I want to point out that Ashley's publishing hiatus coincides with the period shortly after an automobile accident claimed the life of his wife and seriously maimed his two sons. At a minimum, the information renders Jarvis's biographical fable crass and uninformed—like the rest of the book. Floating PIKCounter-perm: We can advocate the mechanism of the affirmative without their specific representations and epistemologyThat’s best –Discursive education – representations matter for political salience, the creation of coalitions and effective solvency – Their standard drowns-out our analysis for big-stick impactsNeg ground – The opted to include their frames in the 1AC – there’s a strategic cost that we need to test – their vision is severance – kills advocacyReciprocal – Their perms offer alternate advocacies that balance advantagesIt’s also not arbitrary or self-serving because they picked their advantages and should have defenses of themIt’s predictable – K is literally an impact turn to their 1AC imageryDirectory: 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 1.3 Mb. Share with your friends:
|