New Affs 1NC

Download 27.11 Kb.
Size27.11 Kb.
New affs bad (1)
New affs bad (1)

New Affs


New affs are a voting issue -- vote negative to waste the affective labor [name of school] put into making this 1AC -- this card is actually pretty specific to the way the 1AC attempts to re-intervene into the folds of history

Ellen E. Berry 2000, Professor and Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Madison and Carol Siegel, Professor at Washington State University, “Rhizomes, Newness, and the Condition of Our Postmodernity: An Editorial and a Dialogue,” Journal of Rhizomes, Summer 2000, [AB]

Discontinuous histories and multiple temporalities surely co-exist within the restless landscapes of the global postmodern. Yet the term postmodernism itself, and therefore its critical temper, remain curiously static. It is forever mired in definition by negation, in belatedness (as an afterthought to modernism) or in "an eternal present and much further away an inevitable catastrophe,” as Fredric Jameson memorably puts it (Jameson 72). We find ourselves alive after the end of history, philosophy, and metaphysics; the death of the subject, the author, and the book; the waning of the historical avant gardes, the bankruptcy of Enlightenment promises of progress through rationality. We affirm our suspicion of metanarratives, foundational assumptions, totalizing theories, utopian ambitions, large-scale pronouncements of any kind. Art speaks in pastiche, repeating the forms of the past since, as Raymond Federman puts it, "imagination does not invent the SOMETHING-NEW we often attribute to it but rather now ... merely imitates, copies, repeats proliferates, plagiarizes ... what has always been there" (Federman, 565). We find it difficult to believe in the progressive possibilities arising from our "new" world order and we lack a sense of agency; therefore the desire to pursue what might be genuinely new becomes more and more difficult to actualize. Within the condition of postmodernity, the future presents itself as foreclosed if it presents itself at all; to update Baudrillard, the year 2050 has already happened. In pointing to this postmodern sense of an ending, of living after the future or suspended in a perpetual present, I don’t mean to suggest the fundamental illegitimacy of any of the positions characterized above. Postmodern critiques have been vitally necessary and, arguably, socially transformative (at least in their intentions). But I do want to suggest why it has become so difficult for contemporary progressive thinkers to posit the new — in exact inversion of their modernist counterparts and in absolute contradiction to a self-identity as progressive — and, perhaps more importantly, to speculate on some of the consequences arising from this refusal First, postmodern challenges to the Western rationalist universalist paradigm have been widespread — affecting virtually all branches of knowledge — broadly-based, and impossible to ignore if not utterly devastating. Whether such critiques emerge from post-structuralist, feminist, queer, neo-Marxist, ethnic or postcolonial critics, and whether or not they have materially altered the negative consequences of Western logics, the radical critical and political analyses of the last 30 years have fundamentally redefined the intellectual project of Western critical thinkers. They have succeeded only too well in demonstrating that we are blocked by ethically bankrupt systems whose horizons we cannot think beyond, systems that have failed but perhaps cannot be overcome. In part, these critiques have emerged from a recognition that some of the bloodiest carnage of the 20th C[entury] was carried out in the name of bringing newness into the world. This disastrous legacy of "utopian" ambitions has rendered the term itself highly suspect, simply a synonym for the will to power, the intellectual fantasy of total control, or the desire to escape history itself. Secondly, the very concept of newness has been commodified by postmodern consumer culture to such an extent that genuine innovation seems increasingly difficult to imagine. In the face of a steady supply of new and improved cars, dish detergents, (fill in the blank), newness itself becomes a ruined word, only a repetition of the idea of newness in which nothing actually is novel. Fredric Jameson considers this one of the fundamental paradoxes of postmodernism and one of the greatest problems for contemporary thinkers: "the equivalence between an unparalleled rate of change on all levels of social life and an unparalleled standardization of everything ... that would seem incompatible with just such mutability. ... The supreme value of the New and of innovation ... fades away against the steady stream of momentum and variation that at some outer limit seems stable and motionless ... [W]here everything now submits to the perpetual change of fashion and media image, nothing can change any longer. ...[T]he persistence of the Same through absolute Difference ... discredits change ... absolute change equals stasis ... a disorder after the end of history" (Jameson, 15-19). Our current cultural preoccupation with difference — manifested in everything from Benneton ads to identity politics — masks the fact of a "universal weakening and sapping of difference on a global scale," according to Jameson. Despite what may be its ultimate homogeneity, however, the bewildering surface complexity of the postmodern landscape makes any meaningful intervention within it, any real alternatives to it, difficult to imagine, let alone act upon. Thus, as Ernst Bloch writes of his own historical moment, "this world is a world of repetition or of the great Time-And-Again ... What-Has-Been overwhelms what is approaching, the collection of things that have become totally obstructs the categories Future, Front, Novum" (Bloch 6-8). As a consequence, we lose a sense of "anticipatory consciousness," the spirit of "venturing beyond" what currently exists, a spirit without which, as Bloch says, "the New is inconceivable" and the desire for an encounter with genuine difference, with unassimilated otherness, is blocked. The same and the different remain in a state of non-recognition or static polarization rather than of mutual interaction in the absence of any imaginable change, in the absence of what Jameson calls "the immense unthinkable Difference of an impossible future” since being able to encounter difference as different, rather than as a version of what one already knows, is predicated upon the assumption that newness may enter the world. Perhaps contemporary intellectuals experience anxiety in the face of the idea of radical change because we fear projecting only a repetition of our own sullied world under the guise of the new or because we cannot distinguish between the rhythms of change inherent in the system of late capitalism and changes that might actually displace this system by a new one altogether. Whatever the reasons, we remain — for the most part — stuck either celebrating the products of postmodern culture, thereby replicating the giddy rhythms of postmodern "change" itself; endlessly diagnosing the problem, thereby critiquing a system whose failures are by now well known; or enclosing genuinely new situations in past narratives or paradigms of understanding, thereby failing to understand accurately their uniqueness. Rhizomes exists to suggest ways out of this all-too-common paralysis of our critical imaginations by providing sites for the emergence of new thinking, the not-yet-conceived. We see speculative impulses and experimental strategies as vital components of the political agenda of contemporary cultural studies: Today more than ever we require acts of radical imagination and psychic mobility as preludes to the invention of historically new modes of relationship. Although we cannot (and would not wish to) predict the nature of the strange attractions that might migrate to Rhizomes, we are particularly interested in soliciting the following: • creative and critical practices that generate alternative thinking by deliberately pursuing those alternatives embedded in any idea or system, particularly what a system omits or deems unworthy of serious scrutiny. Such thinking prevents any system from promoting itself as definitive and leaves it open to other ways of knowing and being. • creative and critical practices that encourage us to unite ideas that seem most disparate or incompatible, thereby deliberately dislocating us from the known. • creative and critical practices that train us actively to desire multiple differences rather than simply tolerating them or projecting them as objects of analysis. Such practices would be unpredictable, performative, and incomplete. By “hailing” us in ways that permit entry into relation with the other even as we forego full comprehension of him/her, they thereby will also extend our empathetic and ethical capacities. Carol Siegel: Your analysis of some of the forces that discourage new thinking is necessarily rather grim, and perhaps overshadows the hopefulness at the end of your remarks. Could you say a little more about how we might encourage pursuit of the new? Ellen Berry: Well, one way is to solicit it directly — as we’re doing with the Rhizomes project — create a space for it to emerge. Another way might be to adopt modes of analysis that would allow us to read any statement or theory for what it implicitly hypothesizes about new thinking. For instance, the resistance to closure in many contemporary theories, the insistence on partiality and provisionality of definitions (as in say Judith Butler’s desire to leave open the term feminist) could be considered part of a commitment to opening multiple paths to the future so as not to foreclose it in advance. Perhaps we need to evaluate ideas according to their generative capacity and learn to read through extrapolation, by which I mean carrying an idea beyond its own framework, its own implied limits. CS: One thing your comments suggest to me is that new thinking might best be accomplished through incremental change (the old small changes we liked as early feminists) rather than dramatic ruptures which have, as you point out, caused so much horror in the past. What do you think about the possibilities for change created through academic discussion? Academics always get slammed for how slowly our ideas trickle into the rest of the population’s discourses but from the perspective of small changes this is not such a bad thing. It gives us a chance to test ideas out; it’s conducive to peaceful revolution! EB: I think one thing we’d probably need to do is to change first the ways in which academic discussion currently goes onin journal articles, at conferences, in our own home departments. I like what Michel deCerteau says about the need for us all — whatever our institutional locationto become tricksters and les perruques (those who disguise their own activities as work for their employer, who “put one overon the established order on its home ground). This seems especially important given that the US academy is moving ever more toward a model of commodification (of our knowledge, of our time). As Steven Connor puts it (paraphrasing Lyotard): “In the economic structure of thought which dominates the world [including the world of the academy], any activity, or event. . in the present is considered as a form of loan, or investment, which must be paid back, or include within itself the fact of its economic return ...Value, therefore, comes to consist ... not in specific yields or products but in the very speed of the economic process itself — literally the rate [time] of exchange rather than the objects of exchange.” Anything that interrupts smooth operation of this principle of reason — "to rush to its goal with a minimum of delay" — is considered wasteful, nonproductive, a space in which "time remains uncontrolled, does not give rise to work, or at least not in the customary sense of the verb 'to work.’ Within the U.S. academy we are theoretically free to write and publish whatever we wish, and academic freedom is a value we vigorously defend (rightly so) as the very essence of our professional lives. However, our intellectual labor also is traded for profit, whether it be in the form of an annual merit raise, publication in a prestigious journal (the precondition for the raise), or for the very few, a chance to compete in the academic star system (where bidding wars for hot "properties" sometimes begin to rival those involving professional athletes). At the very least, the growing corporatization of the academy and the knowledge-for-profit model make it less likely that we actually will produce new ideas that stray outside dominant paradigms of what sells in the knowledge industry. It might be argued that the mechanisms I describe have always been in operation. While this may be true, I would claim that never has the gap between our ideals (what we say we profess) and the reality of our daily lives in the academy been more nakedly transparent. Never has the knowledge industry functioned more vigorously or efficiently, and never has the academy operated more as a hierarchized class system. I think in order for academic discussion to become a source of genuinely new thinking we would have to devise new wasteful or deliberately nonproductive ways of interacting, modes that would introduce unexpectedness into the academic setting — a kind of distance or estrangement from business as usual. We would need to find different ways of developing our intellectual identities as well as new models of community. Or, to paraphrase deCerteau we need a whole “therapeutics” for what I see as the deteriorating social relations within our intellectual communities. But I see I’ve ended on a less-than-hopeful note again!


We are at the end of art and the end of history -- their academic intervention is the recycling of old knowledge for the purpose of affective reward through the ballot -- voting for the breaking of new affirmatives rewards the research practices of [name of school] that seeks to gain superiority through innovation -- this is the motor of capitalism that seeks to completely produce and make efficient academic thought -- 1NC evidence says that this is the motor that has led to the most destruction capitalist wars of the last century -- we will concede no new affs stagnates debate -- that’s our argument -- we should recycle debate into the point of no-return -- becoming wasteful where nothing has meaning because it has constantly been repeated -- it breaks down the productive functioning of the academy that creates a will to truth and utopian superiority that proves this is an independent link to the critique -- obviously not a contradiction to the critique -- 1NC was reaction to the newness of the 1AC AND we are going for a presumption argument -- the Berry evidence says that newness becomes violent when there is a call for an AFFIRMATIVE action, or a call to initial creation -- the 1NC was merely the response to that which we are impact turning -- AND we are not intellectual labor, the critique is meant to destroy through radical negativitiy, not affirmation

Download 27.11 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page