Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
-Crawford K.
1NC
Neoliberalism K
The Deleuzian thesis of the 1AC has been coopted by
neoliberalism
Vandenberghe 8Frdric Vandenberghe, a research professor in sociology at
the Institute of Social and Political Studies, 2008 (Deleuzian Capitalism, Available
online at http://www.academia.edu/859731/Deleuzian_capitalism, Accessed on
7/22/15)
A quarter of a century later, the process of accumulation has accelerated to the
point that capitalism itself has become Deleuzian in form, in style and in content.
This junction is not accidental. As usual, an ironic and profoundly perverse
relationship exists between the romantic ethic and the spirit of capitalism
(Campbell, 1987: 20227). Needless to say that I am not claiming that Deleuzes
libertarian critique of capitalism was anti-critical or phoney from the start and that
Deleuze is somehow the Giddens of the 1970s: a neo-liberal disguised as a
libertarian, or Thatcheron LSD. What I am claiming is, rather, that capitalism has
progressively integrated the critique of capitalism into its mode of functioning, with
the result that capitalism appears stronger than ever, whereas the critique of
capitalism seems rather disarmed
In their magisterial analysis of the new spirit of capitalism, Boltanski and Chiapello
(1999: 24190) have convincingly demonstrated that capitalism has coopted the
postmodernizing critique of the 1960s and 1970s and used it as a way to reorganize
itself and expand innitely. The industrially organized capitalism of the golden
thirties (194573) was essentially Fordist. Bureaucratic, hierarchical, pyramidal and
centrally controlled, planned and taylorized, oriented to the mass production of
standardized goods, it was elephantine, rigid and alienating. The neo-corporatist
arrangement between the state, the employers and the unions guaranteed job
security, an indexed income, a steady career track and apension, but this security
hardly compensated for the employees lack of autonomy. Attacking the
dehumanizing and disciplining, massifying and standardizing nature of the
capitalist-bureaucratic-technical-totalitarian society of planned exploitation and
directed consumption (Lefebvre) in the name of spontaneity, creativity and
authenticity, the libertarian left took over the artistic critique of capitalism of the
bohemians and trans-lated their grievances in a language that was inspired by
surrealism and the masters of suspicion (Marx, Freud and Nietzsche). At rst, the
capitalists reacted to the artistic critique of the soixante-huitards in a traditional
way. They negotiated with the unions about quantitative demands and granted a
pay-rise but, realizing that the critique did not abate in spite of the concessions,
they opened discus-sions with the unions about the qualitative demands . To solve
the moti-vational crisis among the ranks of the disenchanted workers, they started
introducing changes in the workplace that granted more autonomy to the workers.
As the increase of freedom was being paid by a decrease insecurity, the result was
most ambivalent. Through this change of politics, autonomy was somehow
exchanged against security (Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999: 274).
this governmentality must correspond to a conduct that is indivisibly a conduct towards oneself and a conduct towards others. One cannot struggle
against such an indirect mode of conduction by appealing for rebellion against an authority that supposedly operates through compulsion external to
individuals. If politics is nothing more and nothing less than that which is born with resistance to governmentality, the rst revolt, the rst
confrontation,59 it means that ethics and politics are absolutely inseparable. To the subjectivation-subjection represented by ultra-subjectivation, we
such a game could lead the subject, for want of anything better,
to take refuge in a compensatory identity, which at least has the advantage of
some stability by contrast with the imperative of indenite self-transcendence. Far
from threatening the neo-liberal order, fixation with identity, whatever its
nature, looks like a fall-back position for subjects weary of themselves, for
all those who have abandoned the race or been excluded from it from the outset.
Worse, it recreates the logic of competition at the level of relations
between little communities. Far from being valuable in itself,
independently of any articulation with politics, individual subjectivation is
bound up at its very core with collective subjectivation. In this sense, sheer
aestheticization of ethics is a pure and simple abandonment of a genuinely ethical
attitude. The invention of new forms of existence can only be a collective
act, attributable to the multiplication and intensification of cooperative
counter-conduct. A collective refusal to work more, if only local, is a good example of an attitude that can pave the way for such forms
the more so in that
of counter-conduct. In effect, it breaks what Andr Gorz quite rightly called the structural complicity that binds the worker to capital, in as much as
earning money, ever more money, is the decisive goal for both. It makes an initial breach in the immanent constraint of the ever more, ever more
from the task of promoting a different rationality. That is why the belief that the nancial crisis by itself sounds the death-knell of neo-liberal capitalism is
the worst of beliefs. It is possibly a source of pleasure to those who think they are witnessing reality running ahead of their desires, without them having to
move their little nger. It certainly comforts those for whom it is an opportunity to celebrate their own past clairvoyance. At bottom, it is the least
acceptable form of intellectual and political abdication. Neo-liberalism is not falling like a ripe fruit on account of its internal contradictions; and traders
There
are only human beings who act in given conditions and seek through their
action to open up a future for themselves. It is up to us to enable a new
sense of possibility to blaze a trail. The government of human beings can be
aligned with horizons other than those of maximizing performance,
unlimited production and generalized control. It can sustain itself with
self-government that opens onto different relations with others than that
of competition between self-enterprising actors. The practices of
communization of knowledge, mutual aid and cooperative work can
delineate the features of a different world reason. Such an alternative
reason cannot be better designated than by the term reason of the
commons.
will not be its undreamed-of gravediggers despite themselves. Marx had already made the point powerfully: History does nothing.62
wreaks total havoc by simply executing the orders of his superiors in an overzealous
and all-too-literal way (iek 1997: 30, 22, 31).
Case
1. This aff has zero solvencytwo people sitting in a room
affirming life resistance does not make any meaningful change,
and affirming their methodology is not a reason to vote aff.
2. They cant solve for deterritorialization because lines of
flight are static, and even if they do, deterritorialization can
restrict freedom
Bogard 6William Bogard, Raymond and Elsie Gipson DeBurgh Chair in the
Social Sciences, 2006 (Theorizing Surveillance: The panopticon and beyond,
Accessed online at https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=t_J8AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=theorizing+surveillance+the+p
anopticon+and+beyond+d+lyon&ots=gRaZxWldza&sig=jb9tMPT3Od54DLdMY5pCp
be9eiM#v=onepage&q=100&f=false, Accessed on 7/21/15)
Lyon notes that surveillance has a dual function, to both constrain and enable social
relations (in information societies, electronic surveillance is a means of control that
also generates the token trust necessary for social transactions) (Lyon 1994; Lyon
2001: 27). We can also understand surveillance in terms of capture and flight.
Capture involves xing or arresting a flow surveillance as a mode of
territorialization, determination, verication and identication, normalization, and so
on. Surveillance as flight, on the other hand, refers to its role in releasing a flow
escape, deterritorialization, indetermination and resistance. Flight and capture are
not opposed terms, however. Deleuze and Guattari note that some lines of flight can
become xed in their direction, speed, intensity, etc. (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:
2146). Surveillance becomes a police power (in the broad sense) precisely to the
extent that it arrests flows of information. In the same way, deterritorialization does
not always imply freedom. Postpanoptic surveillance has evolved deterritorialized
controls that radically subvert the movement to free societies . Hardt and Negri note,
for instance, that deterritorialized information networks are central to the
production and organization of global civil war and the global policing of society
(Hardt and Negri 2004: 1232).
etc.), and less organized than ever before by the dualisms Of observer and
observed, subject and object, individual and mass. The system of control is
deterritorializing, and the effects of this are to intensify but also, in a very real
sense, to democratize surveillance. The very logic Of information networks that
information must be free to flow between any part of the system, for surveillance
means more ways to observe the Observers, bypass their rewalls, access their
databases and decode their communications. The question today is whether centres
of power states or corporations can control the global networks their Own
information requirements push them to produce. Certainly, they can make some
kinds of information very difficult to access, and this is easier for them the more
networks are like trees (where all branches emanate from a single trunk or central
stem). But if networks are rhizomes, information becomes next to impossible to
secure, and no rewall, password or encryption technology works for long. If
networks are rhizomes, power based on security Or secrecy has good reason to be
concerned.
On the positive side, flows Of information in the global surveillance network are
never completely xed. A network is like a rhizome to the extent that any node in it
must connect to any other (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 7). Ultimately no police
power is capable of controlling the deterritorialization of surveillance , because the
number of virtual connections in a rhizomatic network always exceeds the number
that can actually be monitored (if one path is blocked, another can be found). If
surveillance is about control and the police, it also has these 'anti- police', 'anticontrol' tendencies too, immanent to its deterritorialization. We see these
tendencies at work in resistant practices like le sharing and copying, hacking and
cracking, reverse engineering, spamming, identity theft, communications jamming,
and many more. Of course, these are police practices too, perhaps originally so,
since they are all means of information control. The difference is that the police try
to retain exclusive control of them, or block their use by anti-control forces with
rewalls, encryption, etc. (themselves resistant technologies). The tendency of
surveillance assemblages, information networks, and power relations generally,
however, to develop rhizomatic connections, suggests that exclusionary strategies
of information control are unlikely to succeed.
information systems have destabilized not only traditional forms of private property
and have cut across class divisions, but also race, gender and other hierarchies,
producing a common poverty from which new forms of democratic participation
and social creativity can emerge. It is as if biopower, the system of sovereign
control supported by global surveillance and the culture of war and fear, had
produced the very communicative and geopolitical conditions necessary for the
development of a shared humanity. Hardt and Negri are quick to point out, however,
that the idea of a new common does not imply the sameness of its elements or
some transcendent identity standing over society, but rather consists of
singularities whose differences constitute a heterogeneous multiplicity capable of
spontaneous organization and the power to deconstruct the global sovereign regime
of biopower (Hardt and Negri 2004: 1289). Today, despite differences of class, race,
gender, nation, occupation, language, religion, age, etc., new forms of resistance
are arising grounded in the common subjection of the global population to the
imperatives of biopower, and its common transformation of labour into a global
network of informated production.
2NC
Counter Advocacy
The counter advocacy solves best
Krips 10Henry Krips, the Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Chair of Humanities
and Professor of Cultural Studies at Claremont Graduate University, 2010 (The
Politics of the Gaze: Foucault, Lacan and iek, Available online at
http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v2/a06/cu10v2a6.pdf, accessed on 7/26/15)
What constitutes such strategies of overconformity in the context of a modern
panoptic regime of surveillance? Answer: openly/publicly sticking to the letter of the
law by refusing the cloak of invisibility that shrouds the laws points of failure; in
other words, by refusing to indulge what iek calls the ideological fantasy ,
orchestrating a direct encounter with the objet a qua gaze. To put it in ieks
terms, it is a matter of actively endorsing the passive confrontation with the objet
a, bypassing the intermediate role of the screen of fantas y (iek 1997: 31). To be
specic, it is matter of not merely saying but also acting out publicly what everyone
knows in private but dares not say : not merely announcing in public that the
Emperor is naked, but arresting him for indecent exposure. By Lacanianizing
Foucault, as I have done here, we are able to understand the logic behind such
heterodox strategies for opposing modern regimes of surveillance