Link: China 5 Link: China 6 Link: China 7 Link: Discourse of Danger 8



Download 441.5 Kb.
Page1/27
Date11.09.2018
Size441.5 Kb.
#65793
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27

KNDI 2010

Viral’s Files Securitay

Link: China 5

Link: China 6

Link: China 7

Link: Discourse of Danger 8

Link: Economics 9

Link: European Stability 10

Link: Failed State 11

Link: International Relations 12

Link: Problem-Solution 13

Links- Hegemony 14

Links – Hegemony 15

Link: Iraq 16

Link: Turkey 17

Link: Middle East 18

Link: NATO 19

Link: NATO 20

Link: Sovereignty 21

Link: State Centrism 22

Link: Terrorism 23

Link: Threats 24

Link: Threats 25

Link: War Between States 26

Links- Positive Peace 27

Links- Positive Peace 28

Cuomo 29

Impact: Biopolitics 30

Impact: Elimination 31

Impact: Violence 32

Impact: Exclusion 33

Impact: Exclusion 34

Biopower Impact- Foucault ‘78 35

Alternative: Powerlessness 36

Alternative: Genealogy 37

Alternative: Performative Resistance 38

Alternative: Performative Resistance 39

Alternative: Kritik 40

Alternative: Kritik 41

Alt - Rejection Solves 42

Alt Solves 43

AT: Postmodern/Poststructural Alternatives Fail 45

AT: Postmodern/Poststructural Alternatives Fail 46

Realism Less Accurate F/L 47

Realism Less Accurate F/L 48

Permutation Answers 49

Permuation Answers 50

Permutation Answers 51

Reps 1st 52

Reps Shape Policy 53

Reps Shapes Reality 56

Discourse Shapes Reality 60

Reps Come First 61

Reps Tied to Speaker and Policy 63

Reps Tied to Policy 64

Gender Stuff 67

Gender Stuff 68

AT: Their Inevitability Claims 69

AT: Their Inevitability Claims 70

AT: Their Inevitability Claims 71


Absent the negatives problemetization of security there will be a violent global governance and serial policy failure. Note: This is still my favorite card.

Dillon and Reid 2K (Michael, Professor of Political Science at Lancaster and internationally renowned author, and Julian, lecturer on international relations and professor of political Science at King’s College in London; from Alternatives, Volume 25, Issue 1: Global Governance, Liberal Peace, and Complex Emergency)

As a precursor to global governance, governmentality, according to Foucault's initial account, poses the question of order not in terms of the origin of the law and the location of sovereignty, as do traditional accounts of power, but in terms instead of the management of population. The management of population is further refined in terms of specific problematics to which population management may be reduced. These typically include but are not necessarily exhausted by the following topoi of governmental power: economy, health, welfare, poverty, security, sexuality, demographics, resources, skills, culture, and so on. Now, where there is an operation of power there is knowledge, and where there is knowledge there is an operation of power. Here discursive formations emerge and, as Foucault noted, in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality.[ 34] More specifically, where there is a policy problematic there is expertise, and where there is expertise there, too, a policy problematic will emerge. Such problematics are detailed and elaborated in terms of discrete forms of knowledge as well as interlocking policy domains. Policy domains reify the problematization of life in certain ways by turning these epistemically and politically contestable orderings of life into "problems" that require the continuous attention of policy science and the continuous resolutions of policymakers. Policy "actors" develop and compete on the basis of the expertise that grows up around such problems or clusters of problems and their client populations. Here, too, we may also discover what might be called "epistemic entrepreneurs." Albeit the market for discourse is prescribed and policed in ways that Foucault indicated, bidding to formulate novel problematizations they seek to "sell" these, or otherwise have them officially adopted. In principle, there is no limit to the ways in which the management of population may be problematized. All aspects of human conduct, any encounter with life, is problematizable. Any problematization is capable of becominga policy problem. Governmentality thereby creates a market for policy, for science and for policy science, in which problematizations go looking for policy sponsors while policy sponsors fiercely compete on behalf of their favored problematizations. Reproblematization of problems is constrained by the institutional and ideological investments surrounding accepted "problems," and by the sheer difficulty of challenging the inescapable ontological and epistemological assumptions that go into their very formation. There is nothing so fiercely contested as an epistemological or ontological assumption. And there is nothing so fiercely ridiculed as the suggestion that the real problem with problematizations exists precisely at the level of such assumptions. Such "paralysis of analysis" is precisely what policymakers seek to avoid since they are compelled constantly to respond to circumstances over which they ordinarily have in fact both more and less control than they proclaim. What they do not have is precisely the control that they want. Yet serial policy failure--the fate and the fuel of all policy--compels them into a continuous search for the new analysis that will extract them from the aporias in which they constantly find themselves enmeshed.[ 35] Serial policy failure is no simple shortcoming that science and policy--and policy science--will ultimately overcome. Serial policy failure is rooted in the ontological and epistemological assumptions that fashion the ways in which global governance encounters and problematizes life as a process of emergence through fitness landscapes that constantly adaptive and changing ensembles have continuously to negotiate. As a particular kind of intervention into life, global governance promotes the very changes and unintended outcomes that it then serially reproblematizes in terms of policy failure. Thus, global liberal governance is not a linear problem-solving process committed to the resolution of objective policy problems simply by bringing better information and knowledge to bear upon them. A nonlinear economy of power/knowledge, it deliberately installs socially specific and radically inequitable distributions of wealth, opportunity, and mortal danger both locally and globally through the very detailed ways in which life is variously (policy) problematized by it.

Attempts to regulate disorder inevitably fail to do anything but legitimate statist institutions and the escalation of biopolitical violence
Bell in 2005(colleen, Biopolitical Strategies of Security:

Considerations on Canada’s New National Security Policy, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/documents/WP34-Bell.pdf)


As an instrument of governance, security operates quite separately from discipline and law. As Agamben

writes, “While disciplinary power isolates and closes off territories, measures of security lead to an opening

and to globalization…security intervenes in ongoing processes to direct them;” while it is the goal of

discipline to bring about order, “security wants to regulate disorder.” These attempts to regulate disorder 110



through mechanisms of security allow for security to become the sole criteria for the legitimation of state

activity. This neutralization of politics to security, which very much coalesces around ‘risk,’ he notes, also

contains its own essential risk. “A state which has security as its sole task and source of legitimacy is a

fragile organism,” he writes, “it can always be provoked by terrorism to become itself terroristic.”111

Baudrillard similarly contends that as terrorism and the repression of terrorism hold the same

unpredicitablity, it is difficult to distinguish between them. The regulations enforced by security measures, 112

he argues, are an internalization of defeat in a state of absolute disorder. With the culmination of war as 113

an activity only among states or aspiring states, “it becomes clear that security finds its end in globalization,

argues Agamben, because “it implies the idea of a new planetary order which is in truth the worst of all



disorders.” This disorder is liberal globalization manifested in its opposite form, writes Baudrillard, “a

police-state globalization, a total control, a terror based on ‘law and order’ measures.” The compatibility 115

of security and terrorism ends in a legitimation of the actions of each other, forming “a single deadly

system.” 116

This relationship between security and terror signifies deeper qualities about biopower and the

connection it posits between life and death. According to Foucault, biopower is centred on life essentially

to the exclusion of death such that death becomes taboo, privatized, and is pushed outside of the power

relationship. The right to end life is diminished through biopower’s interventions that make live and 117

improve life “by eliminating accidents, the random element, and the deficiencies” such that “death becomes,

insofar as it is the end of life, the term, the limit, or the end of power too.” Yet, a certain formulation of 118

the power to kill still remains operative within this technology. According to Foucault, biopolitics motivates



racism to intervene as the precondition for the right to kill. Racism, he writes, is “the break between what

must live and what must die” by “fragmenting the field of the biological that power controls…to subdivide

the species it controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races.” It functions by establishing a

biopolitical relation of war organized around the maxim that “In order to live, you must destroy your

enemies.” With the aim of improving life, racism establishes a biological rather than a warlike relationship 120

between one’s life and the death of another. Killing thus becomes acceptable in the biopower system, not for



political victory, but only if it eliminates threats to the biological health of a race or species. Rather than 121

political adversaries, the enemies that are to be done away with are posited in evolutionary terms as internal

or external ‘threats’ to the population. “Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can

justify the murderous function of the State,” says Foucault, because racism “is bound up with the workings

of a State that is obliged to use race, the elimination of races and the purification of the race, to exercise its

sovereign power.” Such a state of affairs is unlikely to come as much of a surprise to critical security and 122

surveillance scholars who have long claimed that the issue of ethnicity has been pivotal to grasping the

Canadian security regime since its inception. 123

The hinging of social and political rights on the biological existence of a population, in contrast to

the association of rights with the capacities and obligations of individuals, raises yet more problems. As

security derives power from constant reference to a state of exception, it also simultaneously depoliticizes

society and ultimately, renders security mechanisms and democracy irreconcilable. This effect means that

political negotiations are neutralized and sites for instigating challenges to existing political arrangements,

such as the need for a ‘war against terrorism,’ or the need for risk factors to stand as the organizing principle

of a society, become imperceptible. Because threats and risks are constituted in biological terms, the ultimate

goal of a society as Baudrillard puts it, is “zero death,” unseating the role of politics, political life, and ethical interrogations as meaningful criteria for decision-making. As Walker has observed, the possibility

of uttering security has become unresolvably linked to “our ability speak about and be many things other than

secure, and not least of our ability to be citizens, democrats, or even humans.”



Download 441.5 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2022
send message

    Main page