We’ve come here today to provide an answer to the great question: to compete, or to cooperate? As
such, my philosophy is that cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence.
I’ll be explaining this to you in 4 basic contentions: why the affirmative’s rhetoric regarding competition
is detrimental, and how cooperating can prevent said rhetoric’s effects.
My argument is that welfarereform was legitimated in part by politically questionable concerns about economic
globalization. I do not deny that economic globalization was occurring; instead, I am arguing that what I am calling globalization
discourse helped make it seem in the United States that economic globalization of necessity required
scaling back the welfare state in the name of being able to compete internationally. Welfare state
retrenchment was made possible in no small part because the issue was framed in the United States in terms
of a crisis narrative on the necessity of welfare policy retrenchment in the face of growing international
economic competition, making it seem unavoidable that the United States retrench welfare provision. U.S. globalization discourse
had created its own specter of a debilitating global economic competition that required welfare state
retrenchment as part of the necessary response.
First of all, what is biopolitics? In the work of Michel Foucault, biopolitics is the style of government
that regulates populations through biopower. Biopower is the application and impact of political power
on all aspects of human life.
Second, what exactly was Sanford Schram talking about? Schram mentioned the U.S. and a state of
welfare retrenchment. Simply put, he’s talking about how the U.S. used economic rhetoric regarding
competition to justify a permanent welfare system. This permanent welfare system was one of the many
possible manifestations of biopolitics. This application of biopolitics was used to justify securitizing
discourse of globalization. This ties in well with
position as a concerned party who must share the narrative’s sense of urgency and must accept that
drastic actions need to be taken to avoid the impending catastrophe before it arrives. Therefore,
irrespective of how much increased global economic activity was occurring, the crisis narrative of
welfare states had actually already entered into what has been called a race to the bottom stemming from
global economic competition, the idea has created anticipation to the point that the retrenchment in social welfare protections that did take
place has increased the currency of the very same idea to the point that scaling back has become what has to be done in order to compete successfully in a
new global economy. In a vicious cycle, globalization discourse makes itself real.
Now what is he talking about? Again, he refers to a retrenchment of a welfare state. What he’s getting at
is that the crisis narrative, or competition rhetoric, similar to the rhetoric used by the affirmative speaker,
is used to justify drastic governmental actions. It is further justified by a sense of false urgency that must
be accepted. This vicious cycle of globalization and competition rhetoric makes globalization a reality –
we can see the very evidently in the world today – already there are treaties out there that would
establish a global government in response to crisis situations such as global warming. This is a fitting
time to move on to
What Agamben is talking about here is biopolitics in its ultimate application: biopolitics directly allows
those in power to choose whose life is worthy and whose isn’t, thus devaluing live and justifying the
extermination of most of the species. Now, how do we stop it? What is the alternative to biopoliticis? In
actuality, it’s very simple, and it leads us to
In conclusion, the choice before you today is thus: to embrace biopolitics or cooperative construction as
an individual ontology. With biopolitics comes the entrenchment of the welfare state - justifications of
globalization rhetoric, which justifies the extermination of the species. With cooperative construction
comes the destruction of biopolitical applications, which prevents this. The choice is clear. Thank you.