Neoliberalism Criticism 1NC



Download 330.41 Kb.
Page5/9
Date30.04.2018
Size330.41 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

Framework

The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best critiques capital’s influence on education - Interrogating underlying assumptions is key to prevent error-replication and challenging oppressive structures.


Patrick, 13 [Fiona Patrick – Lecturer @ University of Glasgow in Higher Education, Educational Management, “Neoliberalism, the Knowledge Economy, and the Learner: Challenging the Inevitability of the Commodified Self as an Outcome of Education” http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/108705/)

In order to reclaim education from neoliberalism, one place to begin might be to focus on education as the development of the self, not in accordance with economic imperatives but in accordance with wellbeing and individual flourishing as core aims of education. If education is considered as a transformation of the self of the learner, we may ask what are the processes of teaching and learning that will support individual intellectual, psychological, emotional, and social flourishing? Only in asking this kind of question we might be able to understand how agency can be encouraged in practice—partly as resistance to neoliberalism, but more with the aim of individual wellbeing at its heart. For this is where the real shame of neoliberalism lies: in terms of educational aims, the needs of the individual as a human being have been subjugated to the needs of capital and the economy. Rather than the shaping of learners’ selves in accordance withwhat are perceived to be current economic imperatives,” schools, colleges, and universities should support practices that enable individuals to develop in ways that are consonant with “their sense of their own existence” [46, page 358]. The ways in which teachers in all education sectors can support these practices is open to debate, but debate needs to be there if neoliberal educational practices are to be rethought. One site of this debate should be in universities generally, and in teacher education institutes specifically. Through engagement with debate on what the aims of education should berather than acceptance of a set of curriculum assumptions about these aims—teachers might be encouraged to consider deeply and critically what education is for in terms of individual children and young people. Educators should be encouraged to realise that they have a choice of whether or not to accept neoliberal education practices at the classroom level. Curricula may be set, examinations and tests may dominate, but teachers’ individual pedagogic choices and classroom cultures need not be beholden to neoliberalist ideology even though this doctrine continues to shape wider education policy. There is much that can be done to encourage pupils and students to think, to be critical, and to imagine possible selves. It is the sense of education enabling the development of human selves that holds possibilities for engendering humane approaches to education and learning in schools, colleges, and universities. We can place human development at the heart of learning through the humanities, and perhaps we should pause to remember why the humanities were and are so called, even if it has become unfashionable to champion liberal education rather than more radical approaches such as critical pedagogy. But we can place human development at the core of all curricular areas. It is time to reclaim teaching across the disciplines, and this reclamation can be done at the level of the individual educator. While the agency of individual students needs to be valued and reasserted, so too does the agency of teachers. They are teachers who can make pedagogic choices that will benefit their students by enabling the development of individual capabilities with a view to enhancing individual agency and wellbeing. Perhaps it is not just the self of the learner that has to be reclaimed, but the self of the teacher.

We must remain skeptical of the affirmative’s truth claims – systems of neoliberalism mediate society’s interaction with information to obscure crises of capital.


Klein, 14 (Naomi; Canadian author, award-wining freelance journalist, activist, and environmental researcher, Penguin House, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate,” https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Skb-ch_k7psDm90Q/Naomi%20Klein%20-%20This%20Changes%20Everything_djvu.txt)

More impressive, though left unspoken, are all the news stories that were never published and never aired. The years leading up to the gathering had seen a precipitous collapse of media coverage of climate change, despite a rise in extreme weather: in 2007, the three major U.S. networks— CBS, NBC, and ABC— ran 147 stories on climate change; in 2011 the networks ran just fourteen stories on the subject. That too is the denier strategy at work, because the goal was never just to spread doubt but also to spread fear — to send a clear message that saying anything at all about climate change was a surefire way to find your inbox and comment threads jammed with a toxic strain of vitriol. 11 The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to "promoting free- market solutions," has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And at the time of the gathering, the strategy appeared to be working. In his address, Morano — whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that helped sink John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid — led the audience through a series of victory laps. Climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: dead! The U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projected on a screen a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorted the audience to "celebrate!" The only things missing were balloons and confetti descending from the rafters. When public opinion on the big social and political issues changes, the trends tend to be relatively gradual. Abrupt shifts, when they come, are usually precipitated by dramatic events. Which is why pollsters were so surprised by what had happened to perceptions about climate change in just four years. A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would alter the climate. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 201 1 the number was down to 44 percent — well under half the population. Similar trends have been tracked in the U.K. and Australia. Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, described the statistics in the United States as "among the largest shifts over a short period of time seen in recent public opinion history."


The only workable framework is one that attempts an escape from neoliberalism – we have been culturally primed to accept systems and structures of neoliberalism


Klein, Awarded Author & Freelance Journalist, ’14 (Naomi; Canadian author, award-wining freelance journalist, activist, and environmental researcher, Penguin House, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate,” https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Skb-ch_k7psDm90Q/Naomi%20Klein%20-%20This%20Changes%20Everything_djvu.txt)

Yale law professor Dan Kahan, the lead author on this study, attributes the tight correlation between "worldview" and acceptance of climate science to "cultural cognition," the process by which all of us — regardless of political leanings — filter new information in ways that will protect our "preferred vision of the good society." If new information seems to confirm that vision, we welcome it and integrate it easily. If it poses a threat to our belief system, then our brain immediately gets to work producing intellectual antibodies designed to repel the unwelcome invasion.^ As Kahan explained in Nature, "People find it disconcerting to believe that behavior that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behavior that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it." In other words, it is always easier to deny reality than to allow our worldview to be shattered, a fact that was as true of die-hard Stalinists at the height of the purges as it is of libertarian climate change deniers today. Furthermore, leftists are equally capable of denying inconvenient scientific evidence. If conservatives are inherent system justifiers, and therefore bridle before facts that call the dominant economic system into question, then most leftists are inherent system questioners, and therefore prone to skepticism about facts that come from corporations and government. This can lapse into the kind of fact resistance we see among those who are convinced that multinational drug companies have covered up the link between childhood vaccines and autism. No matter what evidence is marshaled to disprove their theories, it doesn't matter to these crusadersit's just the system covering up for itself. This kind of defensive reasoning helps explain the rise of emotional intensity that surrounds the climate issue today. As recently as 2007, climate change was something most everyone acknowledged was happening — they just didn't seem to care very much. (When Americans are asked to rank their political concerns in order of priority, climate change still consistently comes in last.)




Download 330.41 Kb.

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




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page