wake forest cronin lopez aff ceda round1

7/17/2019 Wake Forest Cronin Lopez Aff CEDA Round1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wake-forest-cronin-lopez-aff-ceda-round1 1/12

1AC

What is war?

Peace is the absence of war. But how do we know if we’ve never lived in a world without

war? What can we do to find peace? Is peace even possible?

Reectin! war outri!ht to "ove towards a state of peace i!nores that the ustifications for

pacifis" are tied to the e#ecutive’s reasons for war. $espite their nu"erous differences%

those preachin! flower power and seekin! peace and love had si"ilar endpoints for politics

as the "ilitar& hawks whose policies brou!ht about war and hatred. Whether or not the&

actuall& desire peace% war "akers evoke the rhetoric of peace to rationali'e war as the best

wa& to e#ter"inate all those who considered threats to stabilit&.

But the ter" (war) is not powerful b& itself. Instead its si!nificance co"es fro" its abilities

to describe the realit& of conflict and "otivate further violence with an end !oal of creatin!

peace.

War is not ust the product of the political s&ste" that "a!icall& appears on the co""and

of the president. War is the process of politics constantl& fallin! short of ever brin!in!

about peace.

If peace is the ends% war is the "eans.

But war "eans different thin!s to different individuals in different situations. War forCon!ress and the Courts is so"ethin! better left to the e#ecutive. War for the e#ecutive is

never the fault of the *nited +tates. War "eans protection. War "eans lovin! one’s

countr&. War "eans unitin! the world under a co""on fra"ework. War "eans appeasin!

the !ods. War "eans erasin! difference. War "eans victor& is the onl& option. War is the

"eans. Peace is the end.

,or "e% war "eans livin! and breathin!% constantl& -uestionin! the power "anifested

around "e% and refusin! to !o on with business as usual. But can I ever find peace when

I know that others "a& still be at war? What worth are individual con-uests of peace over

war when others continuall& suffer?

What use is an& !oal at all?

Peace is the end forever out of reach% while war e#tends its reach forever.

/ow% all war is not the sa"e and all debate is not the sa"e. /or can the& be treated that

si"pl&.



And &et% debaters act like war is ust another word on the flow. 0he& clai" that a sin!le

ballot can brin! a state of peace. ow "i!ht a ud!e decide between two i"a!inar& worlds

when both are prophesi'ed to !o boo"? Is it "eanin!ful for debaters to clai" to have the

final solution on how to brin! peace without first -uestionin! the "eanin! of war? What

ends ustif& these "eans?

$ebates about war powers never reach an endin! point. After this round% the& will continue

outside this roo". 0he& will continue within halls of power. 0he& will continue in the

"eetin!s of local !rassroots or!ani'ations. 0he& will continue on the ever&da& level% a"on!

people who know the ar!u"ents wa& "ore than we ever could because the& e#perience

presidential war polic& act directl& upon the". Ar!u"ent to so"e people doesn’t ust "ean

a wa& to develop so"e skills so we can do better in law school. Instead% ar!u"ent "eans

protectin! oneself fro" the horrors of the law. 0his is% after all% a le!al topic.

+o before proceedin! throu!h the rest of this one debate% we "ust start this conversation

with a -uestion2 what even is debate?

0here are two wa&s to answer this2 either ascribe "eanin! to debate or allow it to defineitself.

+uppl&in! sin!ular "eanin! to debate is the "ore do"inant answer. 0his interpretive "ove

constructs debate as a war of words. $ebaters treat the ballot as a bullet and seek to

destro& an&one blockin! the path towards peace.

An&one believed to be in opposition to one’s end !oals beco"e labeled as an ene"& throu!h

propa!anda tactics% ustif&in! ar!u"entative hol& wars a!ainst all those considered

(unreasonable.) Peace can be!in onl& once the ene"& is van-uished.

It’s onl& fittin! that the "etaphor of debate as a war3of3words !rew "ore powerful on the

war powers topic. 0he openin! shots were fired when the 4entuck& Round Robin didn’t

invite the returnin! national cha"pion.

0hen hostilities increased.

After the historic "o"ent when for the first ti"e two black wo"en won the top two

speaker awards at the 4entuck& tourna"ent% so"e ud!es used point inflation as the onl&

option to char!e polic& relevance back onto the battlefield of eli"s. Whether or not it was

their !oal% the& punished the rest of the pool and undid the purpose of affir"ative action

point inflation.

All the while the fla"e wars on facebook and ceda foru"s continued.

But that description is inco"plete because the te#t alwa&s adds pa!es. If debate trul& is a

war% we cannot understand it full& ust b& focusin! on flashpoint conflicts. 5ach round

would be a battle with individual tactical decisions.

Is debate a war with ust two sides of the conflict? Can the divisiveness of debate reall& be

that si"ple? /o and no. 0his fra"in! i!nores how within each section are "ultiple

subsections% co"prised of debaters each with uni-ue perspectives on the topic% on

ar!u"ent% and on debate as a whole.



And the central issue of war has not been uni-ue to this &ear’s resolution% nor even debate.

We shouldn’t need evidence to prove how political pro"ises have alwa&s fallen short of

their "ark.

0he proble" with current for"s of politics and debate is their e"phasis on a !rand3

narrative telos% or an endpoint or purpose to be achieved.0he e#ecutive clai"s that the telos of war is to brin! peace% but war has &et to reach that

conclusion. If we ever reached a utopian state of peace% there would be no "ore need for

war.

6an!ua!e contains a telos as well. 0he !oal of each sentence is to perfectl& encapsulate

"eanin!. $efinitions of words establish a telos of si!nification. 0he word stru!!les to

perfectl& represent the essence of its obect. Peace is the absence of war. But if we have &et

to reali'e a state of peace% does the word have an& "eanin! at all?

0he president utili'es the power of war to ustif& tar!eted killin!% indefinite detention%

offensive c&ber operations% and the introduction of ar"ed forces as "eans toward the endof peace.

+i"ilarl&% debatin! for the purpose of a sin!le overarchin! !oal "eans we will do an&thin!

necessar& to achieve that !oal% whether that "eans e#cludin! tea"s who do not fra"e their

work in the sa"e unified "anner or settin! unreachable bench"arks for chan!e that

cannot be resolved b& a sin!le ballot.

While certain telos have i"portance in the"selves% the proble" is how we fra"e the

ar!u"ent throu!h definin! endpoints for debate.

Chan!e in debate is $5,I/I0567 needed% but if we ever believe it’s finall& arrived then we

will !ive up strivin! for it% and debate will ust sta& the sa"e.

Chan!e is not a product% but rather a process.

0he intellectual battles of debate have not brou!ht us an& closer to peace. 0he&’ve onl&

de"onstrated the privile!e and intellectual do!"atis" of debaters clai"in! to have the

silver bullet to end war once and for all. Ar!uin! in circles% the c&cles of war continue.

War powers debates do not be!in or end alon! a strai!ht line. 0he& are never resolved.

Rather% the& revolve circularl&% around and around% round after round. 8ust as each war

involves differin! conte#ts that provide new "eanin! for the word% each debate approaches

radicall& different conclusions.

,ro" the several presidential authorit& resolutions in the past to the hundreds of individual

debates this &ear% we have not answered once and for all the -uestions of the topic. $ebates

over war powers will continue outside of this space and even wa& after this topic is lon!

for!otten because the literature has no solid base. It’s not fro'en as a noun but instead fluid

like a verb% constantl& spiralin! down the drain.



I’d be l&in! if I said the affir"ative has the perfect solution to all these proble"s. I’d also

be e"plo&in! a !rand3narrative telos for votin! affir"ative. /o one individual has all the

answers. /o collective has all the answers either. But that is the beaut& of debate9 0here is

no end3all3be3all of ar!u"ent. If there was such thin! as a perfect speech% there would be

no "ore purpose to debate because the pinnacle has alread& been reached. Parado#icall&%

the !rand purpose of debate would then be to never reali'e or actuali'e the purpose ofdebate% or else there would be no "ore reason to debate at all9

0elos is unavoidable% as all ar!u"ent retains so"e for" of purpose or else nobod& would

have co""unicated in the first place. 0he i"portance lies in understandin! the li"its of

each ar!u"ent in ever reachin! its purpose and -uestionin! those li"its that we establish.

Co"petition within debate is also inevitable to so"e e#tent% so the -uestion is ust what

"etric the ud!e uses to decide. 0reatin! debate as an ends and i!norin! our "eans is the

proble". It ensures that the ballot doesn:t represent a product% but rather% endorses our

process.

Rather than debatin! war powers with a sin!ular product in "ind% we "ust e"brace theprocess of debate itself.

0o break free fro" the teleolo!ical confines that define debate3as3war% the affir"ative

allows debate to si"pl& be debate. 0here are no final3ends to our "eans. War "eans war%

peace "eans peace% and debate "eans debate.

If words loop around the"selves with the !oal perfect si!nification% allowin! debate to

define itself 0R;*< itself concedes the shortco"in!s of lan!ua!e to ever reach its end.

;ur solvenc& is not in the end of achieve"ent% but rather !ained throu!h b& deconstructin!

the "eans of co""unicative practice that continuousl& -uestions its own capabilities to

reach a !rand finale.

Instead of ar!uin! in favor of a sin!le set conclusion% we debate for the sake of debatin!.

We can either read into the resolution and beco"e cau!ht in the loop of ar!u"ent3wars or

we can take awa& fro" this topic the power to ar!ue throu!h the circularit&% throu!h the

li"itations on speech and thou!ht% throu!h the "eans= B*0 not towards that sin!ular

end off in the distance.

0he onl& wa& out is throu!h. +o let’s debate about e#ecutive war powers.

,irst -uestion. What is war?



>AC



Case

;ur process of deconstructive perfor"ance breaks down lo!ocentric do"ination that

ustifies oppressive hierarchies.ont!o"er&% @1 [Erwin B. Montgomery III, Prof of English at Bryant University;“SPECTES !" M#$S% E&EME'TS !" (EI(E#' )#U'T!&!*+ #'(BE'#MI'I#' P!&ITIC!-)IST!IC#& ESC)#T!&!*+ I' "#'$E'STEI',)E#T !" (#$'ESS, #'( T)E "E'C) &IEUTE'#'TS /!M#'0, 12324

A deconstructive perfor"ance i"plies an awareness that that to whi5h the perfor"ance addresses itself proceeds

fro" the alterit& of pure difference. 0he ethics of deconstruction, in other wor6s, encoura!es sensitivit& to the

sin!ularit& of entities and events% to their spatial% te"poral and constitutional particularities%as the nearest %

"ost faithful conceptual appro#i"ation of the event as a3conceptual and wholl& other. (e5onstr75tion remin6s one

that an& predication violentl& i"poses itself on the sin!ularit& of entities and events% tra""elin! the" into

sa"eness b& subsu"in! the" under "etaph&sical and lin!uistic cate!ories. Rather than in a telos inherent to

an event% an& i"posed predication finds i"petus in 8a moment of e5onomy, (erri6a writes,‖ that puts in order the!rand conceptual edifice of Western lo!ocentric "etaph&sics b& collapsin! and hierarchi'in! the

undifferentiated plenu" of a3conceptual% si!nificative potentialities into a si!n s&ste" devoted to facilitatin!

productive co""unication.93 +et this s&ste" appears content as it were to burn the villa!e to save the villa!e

si!ns :resse6 into servi5e to articulate the sin!ularities of events can onl& do so b& referrin! the" accordin! to the

s&ste"ic rules !overnin! their use% which precipitate the radical disconti!uit& between lan!ua!e and the

world it purports to describe . 5ntities and events i"press their s:e5tral for"s on lan!ua!e without conferrin!

upon it an& of their essence. #s Ernesto &a5la7s o<serves in his analysis of (erri6as 6e5onstr75tive :ra5ti5e, ontology as 6is5o7rse5on5erning the <eing of <eings <e5omes transforme6 <y 6e5onstr75tion into 8ha7ntology. 91‖



0 >AC

;ur interpretation is that the -uestion of the topic should be political strate!& and /;0

law enforce"ent Aff is a prere-uisite to topic knowled!e about restrictions.Rana% ’11 [#=i= ana re5eive6 his #.B. s7mma 57m la76e from )arvar6 College an6 his .(.from +ale &aw S5hool. )e also earne6 a Ph.(. in :oliti5al s5ien5e at )arvar6, where his6issertation was awar6e6 the 7niversity>s Charles S7mner Pri=e. )e was an !s5ar M.7e<ha7sen "ellow in &aw at +ale; “/ho (e5i6es on Se57rity?0; @A33A33; Cornell &aw &i<rary;htt:%AAs5holarshi:.law.5ornell.e67A5lso:s:a:ersA@A4

If <oth obective sociolo!ical clai"s at the center of the "odern securit& concept are themselves profoundl&

contested% what does this "ean for refor" efforts that seek to recalibrate the r elationship between libert&

and securit&? #<ove all, it in6i5ates that the central proble" with the procedural solutions offered b&

constitutional scholars e"phasi'in! new statutor& fra"eworks or !reater udicial

assertiveness is that the& "istake a -uestion of politics for one of law. In other wor6s, such

scholars i!nore the e#tent to which !overnin! practices are the product of back!round political ud!"ents

about threat% de"ocratic knowled!e% professional e#pertise% and the necessit& for insulated decision3"akin!.

0o the e#tent that A"ericans are convinced that the& face continuous dan!er fro" hidden and potentiall&

li"itless assailants dan!er too co"ple# for the avera!e citi'en to co"prehend independentl& it is

inevitable that institutions Dre!ardless of le!al refor" initiativesE will operate to centrali'e power

in those hands presu"ed to eno& "ilitar& and securit& e#pertise. Th7s, an& s&ste"atic

effort to challen!e the current fra"in! of the relationship between securit& and libert& "ust be!in b&

challen!in! the underl&in! assu"ptions about knowled!e and securit& upon which le!al and

political arran!e"ents rest. Without a sustained and public debate

about the validit& of securit&

e#pertise% its supportin! institutions% and the broader le!iti"ac& of secret infor"ation% there can be no

substantive shift in our constitutional politics. The : ro<lem at :resent, however, is that no popular base

e#ists to raise these -uestions. *nless such a base e"er!es% we can e#pect our prevailin!

securit& arran!e"ents to beco"e ever "ore entrenched.

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/



333A0 $ecision"akin!

Aff teaches "ost portable skills for real world activis" and decision"akin! !ov

e#pertis" and secrec& "eans we can’t know what we’re up a!ainst so we should role3pla&as ourselves in a state of episte"olo!ical inco"petence because not ever&one who leaves

this space will be politicians.

ansfield% @F ['i5D Mansfiel6; #s the (ean )igher (egree esear5h at Ma57arie University inSy6ney, #7stralia, he is the senior a5a6emi5 res:onsi<le for :ostgra67ate resear5h st76y a5rossall "a57lties an6 6e:artments. #fter 5om:leting his Ph( in English &iterat7re from theUniversity of Sy6ney, 'i5D was a )arDness "ellow at Col7m<ia University in 'ew +orD, an6s7<se7ently at +ale University. #fter ret7rning to #7stralia, he ta7ght at "lin6ers University in#6elai6e, an6 then at Ma57arie, first in English an6 then in Criti5al an6 C7lt7ral St76ies. 'i5Dis one of the fo7n6ing general e6itors of the Fo7rnal (erri6a To6ay “ef7sing (efeatism%(erri6a, (e5ision an6 #<sol7te isD0; S!CI#& SEMI!TICS G!&UME 3H 'UMBE

JSEPTEMBE 122HK; #55esse6 A31A394

What is at stake here is the politics of decision and the insistence on responsibilit&.+o"eone is "akin!

decisions% but because of the undefined nature of their position in a co"ple# that cannot picture% understand

or "ap itself% the& cannot know their role % the power of their decision or perhaps even that the s"all technical

choices the& are "akin! are world3historical. 0he shiftin! nature of the relations between knowled!e% power%

death3dealin! and the onGoff lo!ic of technical pro!ress rob decision of !round and "o"ent. /o3one reall&

knows or can know what the& are doin!. It is this hi66enness [si54 an6 in5ommens7ra<ility, this over-6etermine6, 7n6er-self-5ons5io7s s:a5e that

nee6s to <e s:oDen. (e5ision itself, an6 5hoi5e, (erri6a writes, are <eing s7<tra5te6 from 7s, are a<an6oning 7s J3L@9, 11K. 0he function of speech

here then% the "eanin! of speech% is to allow events to separate and beco"e the"selves. 0his can onl& happen if

decision is fore3!rounded as an act in which the issue of co"petence is at stake % in whichthose to who"

co"petence is a proble" insist that this realisation be included in the te#ture of ever& and all decisions. In other

wor6s, the auto"atis" of calculated and pre3fi#ed options has to be e#posed for what it is2 the will to rob

decision of its subectivit& and thus its indeter"inac&% to pretend that decisions alread& lon! "ade were not infact decisions% but the i"ple"entation of a necessar& pro!ra""in!. +peech then "ust raise for the 5om:etent the slow, har6,

gr7elling :ro<lem of 5om:eten5e. It m7st re"ind the co"petent that it is in in3co"petence that we "a& better know the

wa&. In the state of e"er!enc&% the terror of the event "akes a co"petence knowable as such purel&

h&pothetical. 0here can onl& be in3co"petence in its two deno"inations2 self3conscious or disin!enuous. ;nl&

in3co"petence can decide% and indeed act. What is at stake is whether or not it ad"its to what it is. JIt is thisinsisten5e on the logi5 of in-5om:eten5e in (erri6a that se:arates this logi5 of 6e5ision from the S5hmittian mystifi5ation of the 6e5ision as the eer5ise of asovereignty that s7<stit7tes the :rivilege of e5e:tionality for the 6emo5ra5y of res:onsi<ility. S5hmittian 6e5isionism is a relative of 5al57lation <e5a7se it insists on

the inv7lnera<ility of the 6e5ision to a55o7nta<ility.K 0he in3co"petent are not si"pl& ust intellectuals then. 0he& are Hsic

ever&one not in a position of technical% "ilitar& or political pseudo3co"petenc&. In the a!e of elite techno3

"ilitar&3econo"ic funda"entalis"% the broad population % to which the intellectual here is in a "eton&"ic

relation% is e#cluded fro" the e#ecutive knowled!e and capabilit& that de"ocrac& sa&s it adudicates and

licences. 0he proble" of in3co"petence that the intellectual curates is sociall& central because in an a!e of

over3co"petence% where the prero!ative to act is locked up a"on! the super3-ualified and their esoteric

lan!ua!es% citi'ens "ust know how to evaluate not fro" a position of infor"ation% but fro" one of i!norance

not fro" bein! full& infor"ed% but fro" bein! confused% "&stified and for!otten. $e"ocrac& depends, then, not

on the full&3infor"ed citi'en% but the uninti"idated evaluation carried out b& the in3co"petent and

uncertain% those for who" co"petence endures as a proble". #n6 we m7st <e e:li5it a<o7t this. !7r in-5om:eten5e is <eing

:rostit7te6 so that its inflammatory nat7re 5an <e ne7tralise6. #t the moment, in3co"petence is sucked into the !eneralised

defeatis" of the a!e as auto"atic% populist scepticis" towards ud!es% acade"ics% politicians% talkin! heads of

ever& kind ho"o!enised in one sweepin! tide of pre3e"ptive conde"nation% the auto"atic and defensive

knee3erk reaction a!ainst the t&rann& of co"petence. 0his in3co"petence has to be retrieved as an activel&

considerin! responsibilit&% not panick& defeatist intolerance.



$ebate needs differential relationships to the politics of war "akin! fra"ework a votin!

issue i"plies that /;/5 of our process was productive the& have to win that the 1AC

should’ve /5J5R APP5/5$ and our process should be e#ter"inate fro" debate% "eans

the& preserve status -uo ac-uiescence to do"inant !rand narrative telos of debate the

e#ecutive authorit& to rele!ate speech uni"portant preserves the he!e"onic re!i"e thatwill eli"inate difference throu!h war as a "eans to the end of peace.

Butler @K [1229, 76ith B7tler is a Professor of hetori5 an6 Com:arative &iterat7re at U.C.BerDeley, “Pre5ario7s &ife% The Powers of Mo7rning an6 Giolen5e0, :g. i-i4

$issent and debate depend upon the inclusion of those who "aintain critical views of state polic& and civic

culture re"ainin! part of a lar!er public discussion of the value of policies and politics. To 5harge those who voice

critical views with treason, terrorist-sym:athi=ing, anti-Semitism, moral relativism, :ostmo6ernism, F7venile <ehavior, 5olla<oration, ana5hronisti5 &eftism, isto seeD to 6estroy the 5re6i<ility not of the views that are hel6, <7t of the very :ersons who hol6 them. It :ro675es the 5limate of fear in whi5h to voi5e a 5ertain viewis to risD <eing <ran6e6 an6 shame6 with heino7s a::ellation. To 5ontin7e to voi5e ones views 7n6er those 5on6itions is not easy, sin5e one m7st not only 6is5o7ntthe tr7th of a::ellation, <7t <rave the stigma that sei=es 7: f rom the :7<li5 6omain. (issent is 7elle6, in :art, thro7gh threatening the s:eaDing s7<Fe5t with an7ninha<ita<le i6entifi5ation. Be5a7se it wo7l6 <e heino7s to i6entify as treasono7s, as a 5olla<orator, one fails to s:eaD, or one s:eaDs in throttle6 ways, in or6er to

si6este: the terrori=ing i6entifi5ation that threatens to taDe hol6. 0his strate!& for -uellin! dissent and li"itin! the reach of critical

debate happens not onl& throu!h a series of sha"in! tactics whi5h have a 5ertain :sy5hologi5al terrori=ations as their effe5t, but

the& work as well b& producin! what will and will not count as a viable speakin! subect and a reasonableopinion within the public do"ain. It is precisel& because one does not want to lose one’s status as a viable

speakin! bein! that ones does not sa& what one thinks. *nder social conditions that re!ulate identifications

and the sense of viabilit& to this de!ree% censorship operates i"plicitl& and forcefull&. The line that 5ir57ms5ri<es what is

s:eaDa<le an6 what is liva<le also f7n5tion as an instr7ment of 5ensorshi:. 0o decide what views will count as reasonable within the

public do"ain, however, is to decide what will and will not count as the public sphere of debate. And if so"eone

holds vies that are not in line with the nationalist norm, that person co"es to lack credibilit& as a speakin! person% an6 the

me6ia is not o:en to him or her Jtho7gh the internet, interestingly, isK. 0he foreclosure of criti-ue 3e"pties the public do"ain of

debate and de"ocratic contestation itself% so that debate beco"es the e#chan!e of views a"on! the like3

"inded % and criticis" % which ou!ht to be central to an& de"ocrac&% beco"es a fu!itive and suspect activit&.

Public Polic&, in5l76ing foreign :oli5y, often seeks to restrain the public sphere fro" bein! open to certain for"s of

debate an6 the 5ir57lation of me6ia 5overage. ;ne wa& a he!e"onic understandin! of politics is achieved is throu!h

circu"scribin! what will and will not be ad"issible as part of the public sphereitself. Without disposin!

populations in such a wa& that war see"s !ood and ri!ht and true% no war can clai" popular consent% and noad"inistration can "aintain popularit&.

To :ro675e what will 5onstit7te the :7<li5 s:here, however, it is ne5essary to 5ontrol the way in whi5h :eo:le see, how they hear, what they see. 0he

constraints are not onl& on content N5ertain images of 6ea6 <o6ies in Ira, for instan5e, are 5onsi6ere6 7na55e:ta<le for :7<li5 vis7al 5ons7m:tion

N but on what (can) be heard% read% seen% felt% and known. The :7<li5 s:here of a::earan5e is one way to esta<lish what will 5o7nt as

reality, an6 what will not. It is also a wa& of establishin! whose lives can be "arked as lives% and whose deaths will count

as deaths. ;ur capacit& to feel and to apprehend han!s in the balance. But so% too% does the fate of the realit&

of certain lives and deaths as well as the abilit& to think criticall& and publicl& about the effects of war.



Cap

,ra"ework is a double turn with cap alternative "ust escape control over politics

proves the inauthenticit& of the alternative and "eans the per" solves.Invisible Co""ittee 1

The Invisi<le Committee. The Cy<erneti5 )y:othesis. 1223

B7t that also means that its first obective "ust be to resist all atte"pts to reduce it awa& with

de"ands for representation. ,o! is a vital response to the i"perative of clarit&% transparenc&% which is

the first i"print of i"perial power on bodies. 0o beco"e fo!like "eans that I finall& take up the part of the

shadows that co""and "e and prevent "e fro" believin! all the fictions of direct de"ocrac& insofar as the&

intend to rituali'e the transparenc& of each person in their own interests% and of all persons in the interests of

all. 0o beco"e opa-ue like fo! "eans reco!ni'in! that we don:t represent an&thin!% that we aren:t

identifiable it "eans takin! on the untotali'able character of the ph&sical bod& as a political bod& it "eans

openin! &ourself up to still3unknown possibilities. It means resistin! with all &our power an& stru!!le forreco!nition. &yotar6% OWhat &ou ask of us , theoreti5ians, is that we constitute ourselves as identities% as

"ana!ers. But if there:s one thin! we:re sure of% it:s that this operation Dof e#clusionE is ust a cheap show%

that incandescences are "ade b& no one% and belon! to no one. 'evertheless, it won:t be a "atter of

reor!ani'in! a few secret societies or con-uerin! conspiracies liDe free-masonry, 5ar<onarism, as the avant-gar6es of the last5ent7ry envisione6 - I>m thinDing mostly of the College of So5iology. Esta<lishing a =one of o:a5ity where :eo:le 5an 5ir57late an6 e:eriment

freely witho7t <ringing in the Em:ire>s information flows, means :ro675ing Oanonymo7s sing7larities,O recreatin! the conditions for a

possible e#perience% an e#perience which will not be i""ediatel& flattened out b& a binar& "achine assi!nin!

a "eanin!Gdirection to it% a dense e#perience that can transfor" desires and the "o"ents where the&

"anifest the"selves into so"ethin! be&ond desire, into a narrative, into a fille6-o7t <o6y. So, when Toni 'egri asDe6 (ele7=e

a<o7t 5omm7nism, the latter was 5aref7l not to assimilate it into a reali=e6 an6 trans:arent 5omm7ni5ation% &ou ask whether societies

of control or co""unication would !ive rise to for"s of resistance capable of !ivin! a new chance for a

co""unis" conceived as a :transverse or!ani'ation of free individuals. : I 6on>t Dnow; :erha:s. B7t this wouldbe i"possible if "inorities !ot back hold of the "e!aphone . May<e words% co""unication% are

rotten. 0he&:re entirel& penetrated b& "one&2 not b& accident% but b& their nature. /e have to 6eto7rnAmis7se wor6s.

Creatin! has alwa&s been so"ethin! different fro" co""unicatin!. 0he i"portant thin! is may<e to

create vacuoles of non3co""unication% interrupters who escape control. +es, the i"portant

thin! for us is to have opacit& 'ones% openin! cavities% e"pt& intervals% black blocs within the c&bernetic

"atri# of power. The irreg7lar war wage6 against the Em:ire, on the level of a given :la5e, a fight, a riot, from now on will start with the

5onstr75tion of o:a7e an6 offensive =ones. 5ach of these 'ones shall be si"ultaneousl& a s"all !roupGnucleus startin!

fro" which one "i!ht e#peri"ent without bein! perceptible% and a panic3propa!atin! cloud within the

ense"ble of the i"perial s&ste"% the coordinated war "achine% and spontaneous subversion at all levels. 0he

proliferation of these 'ones of offensive opacit& DL;;E% and the intensification of their interrelations% will !ive

rise to an irreversible dise-uilibriu".

Per" solves "ust e#peri"ent to find "ethods of subversion totali'in! conceptions of

the (!lobal capitalist s&ste") doo" alt solvenc&.

Connoll&% @11 HWillia" Connoll&% >11% review -uotes of his book (a world of

beco"in!)% htt:%AAo<soletematter.wor6:ress.5omA1233A2A2HAwilliam-5onnolly-a-worl6-of- <e5omingA

http://obsoletematter.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/william-connolly-a-world-of-becoming/







+pecific cultural priorities, ha<its of family l ife, religio7s <elief an6 rit7al, 7n6ergro7n6 marDets, new social "ove"ents, ta

evasion,cross3state political for"ations% "ilitar& reticence or adventuris", me6ia h7mor an6 6rama, s5ientifi5 resear5h an6

tea5hing all :osses :artial an6 shifting 6egrees of a7tonomy from system governan5e. 0o insist that ever& practice% once capitalis"

e#pands its reach% is entirel& absorbed into its orbit is to translate the idea of a world3 capitalist s&ste" into

that of a totalit&. +uch an i"a!e e#a!!erates the absorptive power of one s&ste"% and discoura!es e#ploration

of wa&s to stretch and challen!e !lobal capitalis" in creative wa&s. It pro"otes either a response of "ana!in!

the s&ste" without "odif&in! its traector&% or of preparin! a revolutionar& "ove"ent% or of waitin!

passivel& for it to burst into fla"es of its own accord. That is, to translate a world3capitalist s&ste" into a

totalit& is to "isread what is outside it% to "iss those thin!s i"perfectl& incorporated into it% and to present an

apolitical orientation to it.

Aff accesses se-uencin! $A deconstructin! outdated concepts and startin! afresh solves

best% otherwise our old re"edies beco"e he!e"onic.

<alli 1% Carlo *alli, Professor of Politi5al Philoso:hy at the Univeristy of Bologna, Politi5sS:a5es an6 *lo<al /ar, trans. #6am Sit=e, :. 3@@

Rather than den&in! the theoretico3political novelt& of <lobal War% ratherthan closin! our e&es to the fact

that <lobal War radicall& challen!es"odern political philosoph& and its cate!ories% and rather than

continuin! to believe that !lobali'ation is not the hori'on that deter"ines oure#perience toda&%our task is to

be!in to think the novelties% the parado#es and the aporiac of !lobali'ation. We "ust ask ourselves about itspossibilities Nnot in or6er to sta<ili=e it, for that wo7l6 <e im:ossi<leN but in order to i"a!ine routes within it that would

"ake for a less tu"ultuous crossin! of the sea the world has beco"e. If we do not want to "ake the "istake of

appl&in! old re"edies to new illnesses% or to wander Mn vain in our own s"u! conceptualit& Jwhi5h has <e5ome

nothing <7t ineffe5t7al FargonE% we "ust re"e"ber that we scholars need to appl& a "i# of !ood sense% hu"ilit& and

theoretical radicalis".0his will !ive us arenewed capacit& for observation and anal&sis % Political philosoph&

should not institute itself pri"aril& as a public elaboration of criteria of ud!"ent% or as the rational

production of a set of !uidin! values to be put into practice it should not seek to be a discourse internalto the

Cit&. Before it takes on these tasks% it "ust first be!in the radical deconstruction of its own concepts it "ust

clear the rubble of the odern off the !round Nfor toda&% that rubble hinders "ore than it helps.

Revolutionar& fra"in! of Lavar'edeh ev i!nores the adaptabilit& of >1 st centur& capitalis"%

!ets coopted b& the s&ste".

$e Cock et al% @O [Christian (e Co5D, Professor of !rgani=ation St76ies at Swansea Universitywhere he also a5ts as 6ire5tor of the MB# :rogramme. )e re5eive6 his MS5. an6 Ph(. (egreesfrom the Man5hester B7siness S5hool; Peter "leming, University &e5t7rer in !rgani=ationSt76ies at the 76ge B7siness S5hool, University of Cam<ri6ge. )e has :revio7sly hel6a5a6emi5 :osts at Mel<o7rne University J#7straliaK an6 !tago University J'ew ealan6K; #lfehn, 5hair of management an6 organi=ation at Q<o #Da6emi University, an6 is a :rofessor ofentre:rene7rshi: an6 innovation at the oyal Instit7te of Te5hnology, Sto5Dholm, #'( is a6evote6 fan of the 6ivine Patsy Cline; “!rgani=ing revol7tion?0; M#'#*EME'T R!*#'I#TI!'#& )IST!+ Gol 1J1K, 1224

Revolution see"s a constant in the world of business. Tet<ooDs talD a<o7t Taylorism an6 "or6ism as revol7tions. )ammer an6

Cham:ys infl7ential <ooD eengineering the Cor:oration ha6 as a s7<title # Manifesto for B7siness evol7tion. *7y $awasaDi wrote 7les for evol7tionaries, an6 *ary )amel is &ea6ing the evol7tion. TM, <ran6s, hair-5are :ro675ts, :art-time worD an6 F7st a<o7t every single

invention in the fiel6 of information te5hnology have <een 6es5ri<e6 as revol7tionary. All this would co"e as no !reat surprise to

ar#. 0o -uote Jone more timeK a famo7s :assage fro" the Co""unist anifesto2 0he bour!eoisie cannot e#ist

without constantl& revolutioni'in! the instru"ents of production% and with the" the relations of productionConstant revol7tioni=ing of :ro675tion, 7ninterr7:te6 6ist7r<an5e of all so5ial relations, everlasting 7n5ertainty an6 agitation, 6isting7ish the

<o7rgeois e:o5h from all earlier ones... All fi#ed% fast3fro'en relations% with their train of ancient and venerable

preudices and opinions% are swept awa&% all new3for"ed ones beco"e anti-uated before the& can ossif&. All

that is solid "elts into air% all that is holy is :rofane6, an6 men at last are for5e6 to fa5e... the real 5on6itions of their lives an6 their

relations with their fellow men JMar an6 Engels 3L1, V@K. Capitalis" % ar# re"inds us% is an inherentl& trans!ressive



force% perpetuall& a!itatin!% disruptin!% and dissolvin! it is a s&ste" which can survive onl& b& constantl&

revolutioni'in! its own conditions. Capitalis" is not ust a historical epoch a"on! others2 the properl&

capitalist "ode of production @repro!ra"s and utterl& restructures the values% life rh&th"s% cultural habits

and te"poral sense of its subects’ Jameson 122, 1@9K. /hat is im:ortant to :oint o7t here is the enth7siasti5 tone in ar#s

writing; he considers the d&na"is" of capitalis" a crucial force in the dialectical process. Berman J3L@, L9K

s7mmari=e6 Mars thinDing th7s% 0he revolutionar& activit& that overthrows bour!eois rule will be an e#pression of

the active and activistic ener!ies that the bour!eoisie itself has set free. Mar <egan <y :raising the <o7rgeoisie, not <y

<7rying it; <7t if his dialectic works out% it will be the virtues for which he praised the bour!eoisie that will bur& it

in the end. 7et% the dialectic hasn’t -uite worked out the wa& ar# e#pected. In our >1st centur& capitalist

societ& the notion of revolution has beco"e linked to a uni-uel& pressin! need for stabilit& % thus creatin! a

"ost peculiar fusion of d&na"is" and stasis J5f. (e Co5D et al. 122, 9@VLK. #s Eagleton J122, LK remarDs% Revolution is

still with us% and its na"e is the status -uo . 0his social order "ust s-uare its drive for stabilit& with the fact

that% uni-uel& a"on! historical re!i"es% its revolution never ends. +ince the d&na"ics of capitalis"

under"ine ever& stable fra"e of representation% a crucial task that is nor"all& perfor"ed b& critico3political

activit& V under"inin! the representational fra"e of the do"inant ideolo!ical for" V is alread& perfor"ed b&

capitalis" itself . This :oses vario7s :ro<lems for s5holars of a 5riti5al :ers7asion, s755in5tly 5a:t7re6 <y Wi=WeDs J1229, 13K 7estion%

ow, then are we to revolutioni'e an order whose ver& principle is constant self3revolutioni'in!?’ It should

co"e as no great surprise then that the concept of @revolution’ has beco"e less and less fashionable in these

ti"es of @ludic’ post"odern radicalis" in acade"e. If @5"ancipation al"ost alwa&s "eans enslave"ent for

so"ethin! or so"eone’ J/!BS 1223, ivK, is the closest we can approach revolutionar& passion a carnivales-ue

e#plosion or strate!ies of resistance? Can a ran!e of for"s of resistance based on "icro3strate!ies take theplace of a concerted atte"pt at @overthrow’ or a violent act of revolt? as resistance Je.g. against glo<ali=ationK

beco"e a viable alternative to revolution% or does it "erel& create re!ulator& instances that control the worst

e#cesses of capitalis"% thus in effect beco"in! a @less i"portant sideshow’ which acts as a safet& valve for late3

capitalis"? Perha:s c&nicis" about the whole notion of @revolution’ is the appropriate response after all?

Radical theorists and activists may enFoy a great 6eal of free6om to 6o their worD V to rea6, write, s:eaD, meet, organi=e. B7t

they may find the"selves cast in the parado#ical role of "erchants and pro"oters of

revolution% which then beco"es a co""odit& like ever&thin! else.

wake forest cronin lopez aff ceda round1

Documents