Framework/Etc
Ontology 1st
Ontology determines the results of political science inquiries
Stanley 12 Liam Stanley, Rethinking the Definition and Role of Ontology in
Political Science, Politics, Vol. 32 (2), p. 93-99, 2012
In contrast, ontology in political science concerns the implicit and simplifying
assumptions about political reality that underpin explanations of political
phenomena. The analysis and discussion of ontological assumptions should therefore be considered a
second-order endeavour. Consequently, ontology should not be defined as the world as it actually is but instead as
science is the parsimonycomplexity trade-off (see Hay, 2002, pp. 2937). This trade-off is an epistemological
concern since justifications for parsimony or complexity are often driven by the kind of knowledge desired. While
rational choice researchers may be keen to make simplified ontological assumptions about utility-maximising actors
in order to build more parsimonious explanations, some cultural anthropologists disregard the idea of parsimonious
even a cultural
anthropologist will have to make some form of simplifying (ontological)
assumption, perhaps that culture and identity constitute social reality. No matter where placed
on the parsimoniouscomplexity trade-off, ontological assumptions are
logically simplifying to some extent. Lay explanations highlight the role of
simplifying assumptions. For instance, a popular factor often given to explain
the electoral success of Barack Obama is that of his excellent oratory
skills and charisma. For this explanation to be possible it is assumed that
actors personal skills and abilities can, in part, cause important political
events. In other words, it is committing to a position within the structure and
agency debate. Ontological assumptions cannot be divorced from
epistemological and methodological concerns. No ontologically neutral
epistemological claims can be made: to commit oneself to an epistemology is also to commit
explanations altogether in favour of contextually specific rich interpretations. However,
oneself to a position on a range of ontological issues (Hay, 2007, p. 117). The directional dependence model (Hay,
2002) highlights this relationship. Showing this connection is important for the argument made later on; that is,
to
assumptions should logically precede epistemological and methodological assumptions creating a path of
dependency, meaning that all three sets of assumptions are conceptually linked and realistic. Likewise, within this
model it is deemed logically impossible to make an ontologically neutral epistemological decision due to this
directional dependence. However, what this means in practice is rather simpler and different. For example, if a
researcher were inclined to generate causal knowledge claims, possibly through the use of explanatory quantitative
methods, then it would not be logical for this researcher then to assert that political reality is constituted through
meaning and language. This model relates to the parsimonycomplexity trade-off. The chances of creating a
simplified generalisable explanation of politics (an epistemological assumption) is increased if simplifying
literature problematically defines ontology as what exists in reality. This implies that ontological dualisms such as
structureagency may allow researchers some first-order analytical purchase. In contrast, a distinctively secondorder definition of ontology would not make similar implications. Instead, ontological dualisms would be considered
as useful heuristic devices for making sense of the assumptions behind existing explanations and approaches. This
is consistent with what I have described as second-order political science.
Epistemology 1st
Epistemic commitments determine ontological outlooks and
predictive resultsprior critique is necessary to stave off banal
instrumentality and institutional bias
Stanley 12 Liam Stanley, Rethinking the Definition and Role of Ontology in
Political Science, Politics, Vol. 32 (2), p. 93-99, 2012
The literature says very little directly on the subject of how ontological assumptions emerge (Hay, 2005, p. 41). In
many ways, this is unsurprising, particularly because it is not possible to conduct such an analysis without first
committing to a series of ontological and epistemological assumptions (which I, of course, must also make in the
remainder of the article). This inescapable irony is noted, but should not prevent the endeavour altogether because
otherwise such discussions would not even be possible. Nevertheless, in regard to how political scientists make
ontological assumptions some preliminary answers can be gathered from reading the literature from in between the
lines. While the literature often rightly claims that ontological dualisms are perennial problematiques with no
solution (Hay, 2006, p. 82; Jenkins, 2005, p. 6), they also tend somewhat paradoxically to offer conceptual
refinements to these unsolvable dichotomies: e.g. structureagency (McAnulla, 2002), material ideational (e.g.
if ontological dualisms
cannot be solved then why do political scientists seek to offer increasingly
complex conceptualisations? It is presumably because such
problematiques allow political scientists to reflect on their own
assumptions, as well as the assumptions of others, and avoid making the
simplistic structuralist or intentionalist mistakes of yesteryear. Such
simplistic underpinnings should indeed be critiqued on the basis of
unrealistically limiting the potential for human agency or failing to
consider how structures favour certain actors and strategies . But the value of
Marsh, 2009), mindbody (e.g. Jenkins, 2005). So, the question becomes,
incrementally more complex conceptualisations is rarely justified through this. Furthermore, in tandem with the
ideal-type of the directional dependence, this aspect of the literature also implies that ontological assumptions
should emerge from engagement with philosophically oriented literature. Yet there is little reflection on whether this
ideal-type accurately reflects academic practice and, more importantly, whether this would have any implications
for foundations of their arguments. A second reading of the directional dependence model could also imply that
ontological assumptions sometimes derive from epistemological decisions (Hay, 2006, p. 92). This is why the
seemingly
innocuous epistemological or methodological decisions can influence
assumptions about social reality. If some ontological assumptions are inextricably tied up with
directional dependence model outlined earlier is important, because it demonstrates how
epistemological decisions, then the next step should involve the analysis of the process that, in part, gives rise to
the adverse affects of searching for generalisable knowledge (an epistemological decision) on the ontological
(2007) argues that the quantitativequalitative paradigm wars have been superseded by a certain ontological and
epistemological pragmatism in which philosophical reflection is rendered obsolete in the pursuit of further funding
and publications. When interviewing a number of leading social scientists Bryman (2007, p. 17) found that: when
asked about how far epistemological and ontological issues concerned them, most interviewees depicted
themselves as pragmatists who felt it necessary to put aside such issues to secure funding for their research
Language 1st
Linguistic decisions matterthey shape symbolic interaction
with the world
Boshoff 12 Anl Boshoff, Law and Its Rhetoric of Violence, International
the question whether we can escape metaphor, Roland Barthes gave a definite no, no sooner is a form seen than it must resemble something: humanity
seems doomed to analogy [as cited in [11]]. Lakoff and Johnson explain a further feature of rhetoric as persuasive speech, which brings it closer to what
we might call ideology, namely that it is for the most part invisible [12]. This implies that we are also mostly unaware of the symbolic influence and
effect, or even the existence, of these persuasive and value-laden figures of speech. Chandler [13] explains: Such transparency tends to anaesthetize us
to the way in which the culturally available stock of tropes acts as an anchor linking us to the dominant ways of thinking within our society. Our repeated
exposure to, and use of, such figures of speech subtly sustains our tacit agreement with the shared assumptions of our society.23 Barthes goes much
further than the innocence of Chandlers subtly sustaining tacit agreements, and describes a semiological process whereby a sign is appropriated,
emptied of historical meaning, and then purposely used to imply an emotively strong but conceptually empty signification. This he calls mythology, or
Myth] abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of
organises a world which
is without contradictions because it is without depth, a world wide open
and wallowing in the evident, it establishes a blissful clarity: things
appear to mean something by themselves.24 Barthes points out that the process of
second-level signification (or producing so-called myths) is never without a motive, although the
motive is often very fragmentary. It plays on the analogy between the meaning and the
concept, but this analogy is always partial, emotive and rather vague. Barthes
goes so far as to say that a complete image/analogy would exclude myth: [I]n general, myth prefers to work with poor,
incomplete images, where meaning is already relieved of its fat, and ready
for a signification, such as caricatures, pastiches, symbols, etc .25 This point can be
second-level signification. He describes the process as follows: [
essences, it does away with all dialectics, with any going back beyond what is immediately visible, it
explained by taking a sideways step in the argument and looking, albeit briefly, at Susan Sontags illustration of the potent and harmful effects of the
metaphors of violence and destruction, both on the body and on the body politic. In Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors [14], she aims at, in
her words, find[ing] a more truthful way of regarding illness one most purified of, more resistant to metaphoric thinking.26 Her main concerns are,
first, that the controlling metaphors of illness (cancer, in particular, as that from which she suffered), are drawn from the language of warfare and, second,
that illnesses, in turn, are used as metaphors in modern politico-legal discourse and that they thereby carry their melodramatic and simplistic rhetoric over
into the public sphere. Sontag illustrates, from first-hand experience, the militaristic and distinctly paranoid flavour of current medical terminology. A few
examples will suffice: Cancer cells do not simply multiply, they are invasive27 Cancer cells colonize from the original tumor to far sites in the body,
first setting up tiny outposts whose presence is assumed, though they cannot be detected. Rarely are the bodys defenses vigorous enough to obliterate
a tumor However radical the surgical intervention, however many scans are taken of the body landscape, most remissions are temporary; the
prospects are that tumor invasion will continue, or that rogue cells will eventually regroup and mount a new assault on the organism.28 Cancer
treatment, likewise, suggests strategies of modern military combat. During radiotherapy patients are bombarded with toxic rays and chemotherapy is
quite literally chemical warfare.29 Cancer treatment inevitably also harms or even destroys healthy cells, thereby causing collateral damage, but
strategically it is thought that nearly any damage to the body is justified for the greater good of saving the patients life. Like in war, the strategy often
does not work and the patient has to be killed to be saved from the disease.30 Looking at it from the opposite direction, medical analogies have long been
used to explain societal problems (symptoms) and to justify politico-legal intervention (treatment). Unlike earlier rhetorical use, she argues, where it was
assumed that illness/disorder can in principle be managed or treated, modern diseases like AIDS and cancer are more loathsome and fatal and thus are to
be attacked. Similarly, we no longer have localised unrest, political differences or regional instabilitywe have an all-out global attack on civilization31;
an incurable and fatal illness, which must be destroyed before it destroys the world. No political view has a monopoly on the use of this metaphor. In
speeches on the Jewish problem throughout the 1930 s, European Jewry was repeatedly analogized to syphilis and to a cancer that must be excised
chillingly, the prescribed cure was a complete surgical removal, often also cutting out the healthy tissue around it.32 Winston Churchill remarked in 1929
that the Germans transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland into Russia.33 Trotsky, often seen as the most talented
communist polemicist, described Soviet bureaucracy under Stalin as a cancerous growth on the body of the working class.34 In 1970 s USA John Dean
explained Watergate to Nixon: We have a cancer withinclose to the Presidencythats growing.35 Sontag argues, correctly in my view, that war-making
and its associated vocabulary is often used in an inappropriate and harmful way, and often for purposes of mass ideological mobilization.36 It is a useful
metaphor, or myth in Barthess vocabulary, for all sorts of ameliorative campaigns whose goals are cast as the defeat of an enemy.37 She explains
that in a capitalist society decisions and actions are normally subject to calculations based on self-interest and profitability. All-out war, however, is to
some extent exempted from the language of realistic and practical decision making. It is regarded as an emergency situation where normal rules and
safeguards are suspended, an Ausnahmenzustand, in Schmitts words. It is a situation where no sacrifice is too much, not even sacrifice of the law itself.
It is a rousing call-to-arms to fight an insidious enemy. The problem, however, is that in creating the analogy, in the process of mythification, the sign
(war/fighting) is appropriated and separated from its historical context. But it nevertheless retains some confused and shapeless associations that sustain
the fiction of a context-rich factual situation. It therefore seems possible, however absurd (if seen from outside the system), for the enemy to be an
abstract notion, such as world hunger or international terror, a notion so vague that attacking it makes no sense. It also makes it appear possible for
dealing with the huge complexities38 inherent in these problematic situations to be simplified to one-dimensional acts of attack and to reach a definite
and irreversible outcome, namely destruction.39 The question is whether it is possible, particularly for legal and political language, which is so prone to
corrupt and ostentatious justifications, to be purified of metaphor, or to, at least, show some resistance to metaphoric thinking. The question itself is
highly problematic because it assumes that there is some form of pure, untainted or innocent meaning that can be excavated from under the ideological
distortions, something akin to Habermass ideal speech situation [15]. Unfortunately however, we are confronted with Foucaults linguistic determinism
where the dominant tropes within the discourse of a particular historical period determine what can be knownconstituting the basic episteme of the age
Facts Bad
Cold facts are worthless. We have to surpass matters of fact to
make facts matter.
Schlag 13 Pierre Schlag, Facts (The), his blog, 1/28/2013,
http://brazenandtenured.com/2013/01/28/facts-the/
But let me explain about the facts. First, notice, that the most factish of facts (apologies to Latour)
are actually factoidstrivial data bits shorn of any actual narrative. CNN had
it down cold: America has had five presidents who ate fish for breakfast .
What, I ask you, could you possibly do with that qua fact? Still, Americans like facts. It was
Joe Friday on Dragnet who first said, all we want are the facts, maam. Really? Thats all? I dont think so. He was
on a mission. He wanted facts on a mission. And we, the viewers, did too. So I have to say, as a preliminary matter,
Well, ironically its because theyre not functioning as just facts, but
something more.
IR Bad
IR scholarship is distorted by systemic certainty bias
contestation key to pragmatism and accuracy
Widmaier and Park 12 Wesley W. Widmaier, Susan Park, Differences
example, with respect to basic theories of organizational design, March and Olsen (1998:964965) stressed the
dangers of competency traps that lead agents to resist the modification of norms and impede the development of
popular consent derived from utilitarian performance and analytic argumentation can only last as long as policy
more than just critique, but I enjoyed it for the following response to demands for programmatic solution: Normally,
when you challenge the conventional wisdom--that the current economic and political system
is the only possible one--the first reaction you are likely to get is a demand for a detailed
architectural blueprint of how an alternative system would work, down to
the nature of its financial instruments, energy supplies, and policies of
sewer maintenance. Next, you are likely to be asked for a detailed program
of how this system will be brought into existence . Historically, this is
ridiculous. When has social change ever happened according to
someone's blueprint? It's not as if a small circle of visionaries in
Renaissance Florence conceived of something they called "capitalism,"
figured out the details of how the stock exchange and factories would
someday work, and then put in place a program to bring their visions into
reality. In fact, the idea is so absurd we might well ask ourselves how it ever
occurred to us to imagine this is how change happens to begin .
diffusion of ideas and the ways in which ideas influence politicians and other policy makers, which back up an
indirect approach to impact. There are broadly two ways whereby impact can occur. I am going to call the first
direct and the second indirect. The direct approach works like this. An academic I shall call A has a new idea or
finding that is relevant. Academic A then mounts a frenzied campaign to convince others of the importance of this
work, which involves making contact with journalists, writing to policy makers, emailing staff in think tanks and
calling up people in the know. The academic summarises the conference or journal paper in easy-to-understand
language and boils the research project down to a list of findings. Academic A accepts an invitation to talk on a local
radio show, then takes a trip to London to attend an event and hands business cards round to those who stay for
the drinks reception afterwards. Academic A decides to get to know key people in government and in the media.
Over time this rising public figure starts to become one of the great and good, getting invited to talk at round
tables and seminars. Academic A uses these venues to plug the research. This expert becomes a specialist adviser
to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and takes the opportunity to mention the research to the
committee clerks and MPs. More media appearances and interviews follow. The indirect approach can happen in the
following way. Academic B has a new idea or finding, but just gives the paper at conferences or gatherings, talks
about it to friends and students, and gets on with the business of publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal. A PhD
student tweets the main findings, which get re-tweeted. The idea circulates round expert circles and starts to
diffuse, becoming common knowledge in overlapping academic circles and among the people who are linked into
them. A researcher for a BBC Radio 4 magazine programme, who takes pride in following academic debates, notices
the tweet, and clicks on the shortened URL to find the pdf of the paper. The researcher reads the title and abstract,
hacks through the literature review, takes a deep breath when presented with the formal model, skips a lot of the
statistical analysis, then finds the discussion of the findings to be very interesting. After musing on the conclusion
and rereading the abstract, the researcher thinks I understand this now. Nothing happens at this point, but the
researcher is talking to a friend who works on another channel and they start a conversation about what is hot in
various fields of activity. The ping pong continues for a bit, and then the first researcher says: You know what
there is this academic's research. The other researcher says: you are right, I have seen something on that too. You
could do a programme on it and take pot shots at government policy. Next day there is a planning meeting for next
year's schedule. The idea of the researcher gets piled in. Academic B is not aware of anything at this stage. The
researcher drops the academic an email and asks for a phone call. This duly happens. The academic finds the
conversation is rather like explaining something to a bright third-year undergraduate and the researcher's questions
are easy to answer. Academic B puts the phone down and goes back to the emails. Then the programme is
commissioned and then Academic B is duly invited to contribute. These hypothetical illustrations could take a
different course. Academic A might in the end get invited to be an expert who helps commission the policy.
Academic B might be a bit pompous and never get invited on to the programme. But if the basic plausibility of the
it is not straightforward to
promote one's own work when there are so many competitors out there,
such as other academics, experts and those working for pressure groups.
Just because an idea is good or interesting, it does not follow that anyone
is going to listen, no matter how well and vigorously it is argued for . The
second and more subtle lesson is that the act of direct promotion of the research
findings might put the recipients off the message. The most powerful
two scenarios is accepted then a few points follow. The first is that
impacts occur when people do not feel they are being persuaded, so the irony
might be that the more academics try to plug their work, the less likely it is that those in public life are going to be
Underground Economist, is a good example of a journalist who adopts this approach. The fourth point is that
ideas circulate in networks, which means that they can come from many
sources, and so appear to be influential because they are being
articulated by different kinds of people across linked networks. When the
idea does not operate on its own, it can be accessed as the property of a
group of scholars or experts and will be accepted more willingly as a
consensus or emerging set of findings.
Blame Theory, Millennium: Journal of International Relations 40, 2012, pp. 526-541,
Sage
Firstly, whether IR is practically relevant depends , in large measure, on the kinds of
questions that animate our research. I am not referring here to the commonly held notion that we
should be addressing questions that practitioners want answered. Indeed, our work will at times be most relevant when we pursue
questions that policymakers and others would prefer left buried. My point is a different one, which I return to in greater detail below.
It is sufficient to note here that being practically relevant involves asking questions of practice; not just retrospective questions
about past practices their nature, sources and consequences but prospective questions about what human agents should do. As I
have argued elsewhere, being practically relevant means asking questions of how we, ourselves, or some other actors (states,
think that political change is driven by material forces, then we are unlikely to see communicative practices of argument and
persuasion as potentially successful sources of change. More than this, though, it is also an issue of epistemology. If we assume that
the proper domain of IR as a social science is the acquisition of empirically verifiable knowledge, then we will struggle to
comprehend, let alone answer, normative questions of how we should act. We will either reduce ought questions to is questions,
Katzenstein and Sils call for a pragmatic approach to the study of world politics, one that addresses real-world problematics by
combining insights from diverse research traditions, resonates with the mood of much of the field, especially within the American
Sil and Katzensteins call would have fallen on deaf ears; the neo-neo debate that preoccupied the American mainstream occurred
within a metatheoretical consensus, one that combined a neo-positivist epistemology with a rationalist ontology. This singular
metatheoretical framework defined the rules of the game; analytical eclecticism was unimaginable. The Third Debate of the 1980s
and early 1990s destabilised all of this; not because American IR scholars converted in their droves to critical theory or
The antifoundationalist critique of the idea that there is any single measure of
truth did not produce a wave of relativism, but it did generate a
widespread sense that battles on the terrain of epistemology were
unwinnable. Similarly, the Third Debate emphasis on identity politics and
cultural particularity, which later found expression in constructivism, did not vanquish rationalism. It did,
however, establish a more pluralistic, if nevertheless heated, debate about ontology, a
terrain on which many scholars felt more comfortable than that of epistemology. One can plausibly argue, therefore, that the
metatheoretical struggles of the Third Debate created a space for even made
possible the rise of analytical eclecticism and its aversion to metatheoretical
absolutes, a principal benefit of which is said to be greater practical
relevance. Lastly, most of us would agree that for our research to be practically relevant,
it has to be good it has to be the product of sound inquiry, and our conclusions have to be plausible. The pluralists
among us would also agree that different research questions require different methods
of inquiry and strategies of argument. Yet across this diversity there are several practices widely
poststructuralism (far from it), but because metatheoretical absolutism became less and less tenable.
recognised as essential to good research. Among these are clarity of purpose, logical coherence, engagement with alternative
arguments and the provision of good reasons (empirical evidence, corroborating arguments textual interpretations, etc.). Less often
and the provision of good reasons, metatheoretical reflexivity is part of keeping us honest, making it practically relevant despite its
abstraction.
knowledge society, European Journal of Social Theory February 2013 16: 3-16,
doi:10.1177/1368431012468801
On the other hand, the relationship between power and knowledge is much more
complex than that assumed by the theory that power is subordinate to
knowledge. At times, in fact, the exact opposite holds: expert knowledge is manipulated
by those in power to justify previously adopted political decisions . In addition,
the world of experts is not generally peaceful or uncontroversial. At times,
political conflicts reproduce the disputes that are taking place in the heart
of the scientific community. Science is rarely able to resolve political
disputes; instead, scientific controversies frequently add fuel to political
disputes. Every expert has a counter-expert, which helps deprive scientific
knowledge of its alleged certainty. Scientific opinion, far from putting an
end to the debate, very often serves to increase the number of
perspectives and consequences that must be taken into consideration . Thus
begins the game with experts on either side, making it clear to the public that, in the case of complex issues with
political and social repercussions,
decisions.
thinking about the frontiers of human knowledge that which is unknown, uncertain, ambiguous, and uncontrollable
encourages us to consider
the possibility of unforeseen consequences, to make explicit the
normative features that are buried within technical decisions, to recognize
the need for collective learning and multiple points of view. In this context,
rather than the traditional image of a science that produces objective
hard facts, pushing back ignorance and telling politics what to do, we
need a type of science that will cooperate with politics in the management of
uncertainty (Ravetz, 1987: 82). For this reason, we must develop a reflexive culture of
uncertainty that does not perceive non-knowledge as the outer limit of the
yet-to-be investigated (Wehling, 2004: 101), but as an essential part of knowledge
and science. We should not regard that which is not known, uncertain
knowledge, the merely plausible, non-scientific forms of knowledge, and
ignorance as imperfect phenomena but as resources (Bonss, 2003: 49). There are
times when, in the absence of undisputed and unambiguous knowledge,
cognitive strategies must be developed in order to take action within the
bounds of uncertainty. Among the most important types of knowledge are risk assessment,
management, and communication. We must learn to operate in an environment where
the relationship between cause and effect is not clear, but fuzzy and
chaotic.
acknowledging the limits on prediction and control. A similar approach
aggressive if she teaches the idea that patriarchy is alive and well, as politically incorrect if she cites the white
supremacist origins of the United States, and as homophiliac if she questions the soundness of heterosexual
is particularly important in the reception of CST in education because of its dense theories and descriptions, and
reason that Said prefers the phrase "historical experience" because it is not esoteric (therefore accessible) but not
without its theoretical moorings that a critical social theorist like Said (2000) proceeds to unpack. Likewise, CST in
education works to build a language of depth hermeneutics and as such maintains its critical edge while at the
same time fashioning it out of people's concrete lives or lived experiences.
AT Agonism
II. Dastardly Deeds The so-called "Good Eris," described in "Homer's Contest," supposedly allowed the unavoidable
urge to strive for preeminence to find expression in perpetual competition in ancient Greek culture. In On the
nations, acquire their identity in their histories of struggles, accomplishments, and moments of resistance. The
complete cessation of strife, for Nietzsche, robs a being of its activity, of its life. In the second essay of the
Genealogy, Nietzsche identifies the notion of conscience, which demands a kind of self-mortification, as an example
of the kind of contest slavish morality seeks: "Hostility, cruelty, joy in persecuting, in attacking, in change, in
destructionall this turned against the possessors of such instinct: that is the origin of the 'bad conscience'" (GM
II:16). Denied all enemies and resistances, finding nothing and no one with whom to struggle except himself, the
man of bad conscience: impatiently lacerated, persecuted, gnawed at, assaulted, and maltreated himself; this
animal that rubbed itself raw against the bars of its cage as one tried to 'tame' it; this deprived creature... had to
turn himself into an adventure, a torture chamber, an uncertain and dangerous wilderness this fool, this yearning
and desperate prisoner became the inventor of the 'bad conscience.' But thus began the gravest and uncanniest
illness... a declaration of war against the old instincts upon which his strength, joy, and terribleness had reached
hitherto (GM II:16). Bad conscience functions in slavish morality as a means of self-flagellation, as a way to vent the
desire to hurt others once external expressions of opposition are inhibited and forbidden. "Guilt before God: this
thought becomes an instrument of torture to him" (GM II:22). In that case, self-worth depends upon the ability to
injure and harm oneself, to apply the payment of selfmaltreatment to one's irreconcilable account with God. It is the
effort expended in one's attempt to make the impossible repayment that determines one's worth. xi The genuine
struggle, that which truly determines value for the ascetic ideal is one in which one destructively opposes oneself
inflicted suffering as a sign of strength. The ascetic ideal celebrates cruelty and
tortureit revels in and sanctifies its own pain. It is a discord that wants to be discordant,
that enjoys itself in this suffering and even grows more self-confident and
triumphant the more its own presupposition, its physiological capacity for
life decreases. 'Triumph in the ultimate agony': the ascetic ideal has always fought under this hyperbolic
sign; in this enigma of seduction, in this image of torment and delight, it recognized its brightest light, its salvation,
its ultimate victory (GM III:28). Slavish morality, particularly in the form of Pauline Christianity, redirects the
competitive drive and whips into submission all outward expressions of strife by cultivating the desire to be "good"
xii in which case being good amounts abandoning, as Nietzsche portrays it, both the structure of the contests he
admired in "Homer's Contest" and the productive ways of competing within them. It does not merely redirect the
goal of the contest (e.g., struggling for the glory of Christ rather than competing for the glory of Athens), rather how
one competes well is also transformed (e.g., the "good fight" is conceived as tapping divine power to destroy
worldly strongholds xiii rather than excelling them). In other words, the ethos of contest, the ethos of the agon is
legacy that Nietzsche strives to articulate in his "Homer's Contest," one that he intends his so-called "new nobility"
must, like Christian agony, be self-directed; its aim is primarily resistance to and within oneself, but the agonythat
is, the structure of that kind of painful strugglediffers both in how it orients its opposition and in how it pursues its
Self-overcoming does not aim at self-destruction but rather at selfexhaustion and self-surpassing. It strives not for annihilation but for
transformation, and the method of doing so is the one most productive in
the external contests of the ancient Greeks: the act of rising above. Selfovercoming asks us to seek hostility and enmity as effective means for
summoning our powers of development. Others who pose as resistances,
who challenge and test our strength, are to be earnestly sought and
revered. That kind of reverence, Nietzsche claims, is what makes possible genuine relationships that
enhance our lives. Such admiration and cultivation of opposition serve as "a bridge to love" (GM I:10)
because they present a person with the opportunity to actively distinguish
himself, to experience the joy and satisfaction that comes with what Nietzsche describes as
"becoming what one is." xvi This, Nietzsche suggests, is what makes life worth livingit is what
goals.
permits us to realize a certain human freedom to be active participants in shaping our own lives. xvii
under one head: philosophical dis-course as formal, rhetorical, figurative discourse, a something to be deciphered.
The end of this Preface will make clear how deeply Derrida is committed to such a notion. Here I shall comment on
Nietzsche
described metaphor as the originary process of what the intellect presents
as "truth." "The intellect, as a means for the preservation of the
individual, develops its chief power in dissimulation." 20 "A nerve-stimulus,
first transcribed [bertragen] into an image [Bild]! First metaphor! The image
again copied into a sound! Second metaphor! And each time he [the creator
of language] leaps completely out of one sphere right into the midst of an
entirely different one." (NW III. ii. 373, TF 178) In its simplest outline, Nietzsche's definition of
the implications of "the decipherment of figurative discourse" in Nietzsche. As early as 1873,
metaphor seems to be the establishing of an identity between dissimilar things. Nietzsche's phrase is "Gleich
machen" (make equal), calling to mind the German word "Gleichnis"image, simile, similitude, comparison,
allegory, parablean unmistakable pointer to figurative practice in general .
not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names
there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms [human weaknessesMenschlichkeiten]."23 As Nietzsche suggests,
course, to the identity between an act (effect) and its purpose (cause) : "Every single time something is done with a
purpose in view, something fundamentally different and other occurs." (WM H. 59, 130; WP 301, 351) The will to
power is a process of "incessant deciphering"figurating, interpreting, sign-ifying through ap-parent identification.
Thus, even supposing that an act could be isolated within its outlines, to gauge the relationship between it and its
important respect, "without him [Nietzsche] the 'question' of the text would never have erupted, at least in the
morality. "Pur-poses and utilities are only signs that a will to power has
become master of something less powerful and has in turn imprinted the
meaning of a function upon it [ihm von sich aus den Sinn einer Funktion auf geprgt hat; this image
of Au f prgungimprinting`figuration' in yet another sense, is most important in Nietzsche, and constantly
chance fashion."25 "All concepts in which an entire process is semiotically telescoped [Zusammenfasst] elude
definition." (NW, VI. ii. 333, GM 8o) Derrida would, of course, suspend the entire notion of semiosis, put the sign
under erasure. It is possible to read such a suspension into Nietzsche's "continuous sign-chains," without origin and
end in "truth." And thus it is possible to discover an affinity between Derrida's practice in Of Grammatology and
Nietzsche's interpretation of value systems as infinite textuality; and to see in Derrida's decipherment of the
negative valuation of writing within the speech-writing hierarchy the mark of a Nietzschean "genealogy."
hermeneutics can accommodate at least one of Nietzsches counter-therapeutic impulses: the rejection of
Conclusive
victory for any antagonist spells the death of the agon: since the agon
precludes both conclusive defeat (destruction) and conclusive victory, it is
repeatable and inconclusive in its very mode of being . As a consequence, the
agon gives an open-ended, inconclusive orientation to transvaluative
discourse. Despite its popular image, Nietzschean critique does not aim to destroy its
opponents (life-negating values or attitudes like ressentiment) and
assert a single-handed victory (conclusive counter-values) over them. Instead, it
serves to open and re-open the question of victory. 14 What would constitute the
asymmetrical (saviour/priest-sinner; master-disciple) relationships voiced by Zarathustra.
overcoming of life-negating values? What would be an affirmative practice beyond ressentiment? In this light,
agonal hermeneutics addresses the most serious threat to a therapeutic reading: the redemptive desire to destroy
therefore resist the lure of finality and the expedient of destroying its
opponents. This does not exclude conflict altogether. The interests of
growing, struggling life require that Nietzsches philosophy practise
conflict or struggle in a form that (a) empowers its opponents, 15 and (b)
remains open-ended or inconclusive; that is, it must practice agonal conflict.
of hubris to compete with the warning of self-restraint with uncertain results. This goes for Nietzsche as well, who
AT: Positivism/Objectivity
Agonism requires that the game isnt decided before it begins
frameworks reliant on absolute objectivity negate this by
recasting the encounter as a question of right
Siemens 1 Herman W. Siemens, Department of Philosophy at Nijmegen
University in The Netherlands, Nietzshces agon with ressentiment: towards a
therapeutic reading of critical transvaluation, Continental Philosophy Review 34:
69-93, 2001, SpringerLink
But there is, it seems, a difficulty here. For it is hard to see how agonal discourse, if non-directional, can promote
the interests of ascending life. How can a non-directional medium be in any sense orientated towards health? The
answer I propose involves the feint of writing, that is, the emphatically fictive style of Nietzsches agonal
confrontations. It was noted earlier how well the agon exemplifies the notion of ascending life advocated in GS 370.
problematic feature of Nietzsches critical and interpretative style is a characteristic movement of saying and
unsaying (Blondel). This can take different forms: as an alternation of appropriation and alienation, 19 of
dominating and freeing the other in turn, or Nietzsches tendency to limit his negations of the other through
subsequent affirmation to name a few. Common to all is a double-movement of Absolutsetzung and NichtAbsolutsetzung 20 whereby Nietzsche contests a position and then retracts his contention, or opposes a claim only
to undo his counter-claim. From a discursive point of view, all this is hard to make sense of, or simply incoherent.
The agon, as we
have seen, precludes destruction of the opponent in favor of a practice of
limited aggression (mutual disempowerment) predicated on mutual empowerment.
From a dynamic perspective in agonal contention, however, it begins to make sense.
If, as I am suggest- ing, Nietzsches textual confrontations are regulated by an agonal regime, then they are bound
to unfold through a dynamic of mutual empowerment-disempowerment. Within this dynamic, saying and
unsaying constitutes a coherent practice of limited aggression. At stake here is how we read Nietzsche: instead of
isolating his judgements or interpretations from one another and identifying them with contradictory positions, we
need to place them within an agonal play of forces that implicates us as readers, not just his chosen adversary, in
a collective contestation of values.
AT Deliberative Democracy
democrats can put forward is one that collapses politics into ethics. In order to remedy this serious deficiency, we
need a democratic model able to grasp the nature of the political. This requires developing an approach, which
places the question of power and antagonism at its very center. It is such an approach that I want to advocate and
whose theoretical bases have been delineated in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.31 The central thesis of the book
citizenship, which correspond to the different interpretations of the ethico-political principles: liberal-conservative,
To make
room for dissent and to foster the institutions in which it can be
manifested is vital for a pluralist democracy and one should abandon the
very idea that there could ever be a time in which it would cease to be
necessary because the society is now well ordered. An agonistic
approach acknowledges the real nature of its frontiers and the forms of
exclusion that they entail, instead of trying to disguise them under the
veil of rationality or morality.
achieved democracy could ever be instantiated, it forces us to keep the democratic contestation alive.
commendable. Against the interest-based conception of democracy, inspired by economics and sceptical about the
virtues of political participation, they want to introduce questions of morality and justice into politics, and envisage
liberal thought: 'In a very systematic fashion liberal thought evades or ignores state and politics and moves instead
in a typical always recurring polarity of two heterogeneous spheres, namely ethics and economics.'ll Indeed, to the
aggregative model, inspired by economics, the only alternative deliberative democrats can oppose is one that
of social order is to operate a displacement of the traditional relation between democracy and power.
Consensus Bad
Denying the paradox between unity and difference produces
consensuses of imperialisminstead we should negotiate this
paradox deconstructively
Mouffe 2k Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, Verso: New York, 2000, p.
92-93
The second issue is another question that concerns the relation between private autonomy and political autonomy.
As we have seen, both authors aim at reconciling the 'liberties of the ancients' with the 'liberties of the moderns'
and they argue that the two types of autonomy necessarily go together. However, Habermas considers that only his
approach manages to establish the co-originality of individual rights and democratic participation. He affirms that
Rawls subordinates democratic sovereignty to liberal rights because he envisages public autonomy as a means to
authorize private autonomy. But as Charles Larmore has pointed out, Habermas, for his part, privileges the
democratic aspect, since he asserts that the importance of individual rights lies in their making democratic selfgovernment possible.19 So we have to conclude that, in this case again, neither of them is able to deliver what they
But this is to miss a crucial point, not only about the primary reality of strife in social life, but also about the
the
specificity of modern democracy lies in the recognition and the
legitimation of conflict and the refusal to suppress it through the
imposition of an authoritarian order. A well-functioning democracy calls
for a confrontation between democratic political positions, and this
requires a real debate about possible alternatives. Consensus is indeed necessary
but it must be accompanied by dissent. There is no contradiction in saying that, as some would
pretend. Consensus is needed on the institutions which are constitutive of democracy. But there will
always be disagreement concerning the way social justice should be
implemented in these institutions. In a pluralist democracy such a
disagreement should be considered as legitimate and indeed welcome. We
can agree on the importance of 'liberty and equality for all', while
disagreeing sharply about their meaning and the way they should be
implemented, with the different configurations of power relations that this
implies. It is precisely this kind of disagreement which provides the stuff of democratic politics and it is what
integrative role that conflict plays in modern democracy. As I have argued through these essays,
the struggle between left and right should be about. This is why, instead of relinquishing them as outdated, we
116
Another, even more worrying consequence of the democratic deficit linked to the
obsession with centrist politics is the increasing role played by populist
right-wing parties. Indeed, I submit that the rise of this type of party should be
understood in the context of the 'consensus at the centre' form of politics
which allows populist parties challenging the dominant consensus to
appear as the only anti-Establishment forces representing the will of the
people. Thanks to a clever populist rhetoric, they are able to articulate
many demands of the popular sectors scorned as retrograde by the
modernizing elites and to present themselves as the only guarantors of
the sovereignty of the people. Such a situation , I believe, would not have been
possible had more real political choices been available within the
traditional democratic spectrum.
is that the cycle of confrontational politics that has been dominant in the West since the French Revolution has
come to an end. The left/right distinction is now irrelevant, since it was anchored in a social bipolarity that has
ceased to exist. For theorists like Anthony Giddens, the left/right dividewhich he identifies with old-style social
democracy versus market fundamentalism - is an inheritance of 'simple modernization' and has to be transcended.
In a globalized world marked by the development of a new individualism, democracy must become 'dialogic'. What
we need is a 'life politics' able to reach the various areas of personal life, creating a 'democracy of the emotions'.
The third
way approach, on the contrary, is unable to grasp the systemic connections
existing between global market forces and the variety of problems - from
exclusion to environmental risks - that it pretends to tackle. Indeed, the main
to confront holistically the systemic problems of inequality and instability generated by capitalism.2
shortcoming of Giddens's analysis is that he appears to be unaware of the drastic measures that would be required
to put most of his proposals into practice.
Topicality Bad
Rational linguistic agreement is impossiblejudging
interpretations as most reasonable is reflective of particular
forms of life which excludes difference. Democracy entails
reaching out to the other, not pushing them away.
Mouffe 2k Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, Verso: New York, 2000, p.
64-66
According to the contextualist approach, Iiberal-democratic institutions
must be seen as defining one possible political 'language-game' -among
others. Since they do not provide the rational solution to the problem of
human coexistence, it is futile to search for arguments in their favour
which would not be 'context-dependent' in order to secure them against
other political language-games. By envisaging the issue according to a Wingensteinian
perspective, such an approach brings to the fore the inadequacy of all
attempts to give a rational foundation to Iiberal-democratic principles by
arguing that they would be chosen by rational individuals in idealized
conditions like the 'veil of ignorance' (Rawls) or the 'ideal speech situation' (Haber- mas). As Peter Winch has
indicated with respect to Rawls, 'The "veil of ignorance" that characterizes his position runs foul of Wittgenstein's
He considers that envisaging democratic advances as if they were linked to progress in rationality is not helpful,
and that we should stop presenting the institutions of liberal western societies as the solution that other people will
necessarily adopt when they cease to be 'irrational' and become 'modern'. Following Wittgenstein, he sees the
putting an exclusive emphasis on the arguments needed to secure the Iegitimacy of liberal institutions, recent
philosophical senses. In his view, 'Our agreements in these judgements constitute the language
of our politics. It is a language arrived at and continuously modified through no
less than a history of discourse, a history in which we have thought about,
as we became able to think in, that language."10
They cannot be seen as rules that are created on the basis of principles and then applied to specific cases.
democracy is unable to grasp because of the sharp distinction that Habermas wants to draw between moralpractical discourses and ethical-practical discourses. It is not enough to state as he now does, criticizing Apel, that a
discourse theory of democracy cannot be based only on the formal pragmatic conditions of communication and that
it must take account of legal, moral, ethical and pragmatic argumentation.
My argument is that, by providing a practice-based account of Rationality, Wittgenstein in his later work opens a
much more promising way for thinking about political questions and for envisaging the task of a democratic politics
fostering of democratic values because it allows us to grasp the conditions of emergence of a democratic
elaborating an alternative to the current model of 'deliberative democracy' with its rationalistic conception of
communication and its misguided search for a consensus that would be fully inclusive. Indeed, I see the 'agonistic
pluralism' that I have been advocating15 as inspired by a Wittgensteinian mode of theorizing and as attempting to
develop what I take to be one of his fundamental insights: grasping what it means to follow a rule. At this point in
my argumentation, it is useful to bring in the reading of Wittgenstein proposed by James Tully because it chimes
with my approach. Tully is interested in showing how Wittgenstein's philosophy represents an alternative worldview
to the one that informs modern constitutionalism, so his concerns are not exactly the same as mine. But there are
several points of contact and many of his reflections are directly relevant for my purpose. Of particular importance
is the way he examines how in the Philosophical lnvestigations, Wittgenstein envisages the correct way to
understand general terms. According to Tully, we can find two lines of argument. The first consists in showing that
contest as legitimate ones. Such an understanding of democratic politics, which is precisely what I
call 'agonistic pluralism', is unthinkable within a rationalistic problematic
which, by necessity, tends to erase diversity. A perspective inspired by Wittgenstein, on the
contrary, can contribute to its formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.
meaning of liberal democratic tolerance, which does not entail condoning ideas that we oppose or being indifferent
This
category of the adversary does not eliminate antagonism , though, and it
should be distinguished from the liberal notion of the competitor with which it is
sometimes identified. An adversary is an enemy, but a legitimate enemy, one with
whom we have some common ground because we have a shared adhesion
to the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy : liberty and equality. But we
disagree on the meaning and implementation of those principles and
such a disagreement is not one that could be resolved through
deliberation and rational discussion. Indeed, given the ineradicable pluralism of value, there is
to standpoints that we disagree with, but treating those who defend them as legitimate opponents.
not rational resolution of the conflict, hence its antagonistic dimension.33 This does not mean of course that
adversaries can never cease to disagree but that does not prove that antagonism has been eradicated. To accept
the view of the adversary is to undergo a radical change in political identity. It is more a sort of conversion than a
process of rational persuasion (in the same way as Thomas Kuhn has argued that adherence to a new scientific
antagonism and distinguishing it from agonism. Antagonism is struggle between enemies, while agonism is struggle
between adversaries. We can therefore reformulate our problem by saying that envisaged from the perspective of
express themselves over issues, which, while allowing enough possibility for identification, will not construct the
opponent as an enemy but as an adversary. An important difference with the model of deliberative democracy, is
that for agonistic pluralism, the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions from the sphere of
the public, in order to render a rational consensus possible, but to mobilize those passions towards democratic
designs.
AT: Coalitions/Krishna
Political viability is a secondary issue behind the project of
identifying a political adversaryotherwise too much ground is
ceded to conservative elites, making social change ineffectual
Mouffe 2k Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, Verso: New York, 2000, p.
121-122
Radical politics cannot be located at the centre because to be radical - as
Margaret Thatcher, unlike Tony Blair, very well knew - is to aim at a profund transformation of
power relations. This cannot be done without drawing political frontiers
and defining an adversary or even an enemy. Of course a radical project cannot be successful
without winning over a wide variety of sectors. All significant victories of the left have always been the result of an
alliance with important sectors of the middle classes whose interests have been articulated to those of the popular
people belong to the middle classes: the only exceptions are a small elite of very rich on one side, and those who
129-131
The critique of the consensus approach elaborated in this collection of essays should not be
understood as an endorsement of the view widespread among some 'postmodern' thinkers that democratic politics
deliberative democrats, with their emphasis on impartiality and rational consensus, tend to formulate the ends of
democratic politics in the vocabulary of Kantian moral reasoning, the second view eschews the language of
universal morality and envisages democracy not as a deontological but as an 'ethical' enterprise, as the unending
pursuit of the recognition of the Other. To put it a bit schematically, we could speak of the opposition between
moral-universalistic and ethical-particularistic approaches. The vocabulary of those who defend the 'ethical'
perspective comes from a diversity of philosophical sources: Levinas, Arendt, Heidegger or even Nietzsche, and
from ethical or moral concerns, but that their relation needs to be posed in a different way. I would like to suggest
that this cannot be done without problematizing the nature of human sociability which informs most modern
democratic political thinking. To grasp the shortcomings of the dominant view we need to go back to its origins: the
period of the Enlightenment. A useful guide for such an enquiry is provided by Pierre Saint-Amand in The Laws of
Hostility, a book where he proposes a political anthropology of the Enlightenment. 1 By scrutinizing the writings of
Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and Sade through the perspective developed by Rene Girard, he brings to
the fore the key role played by the logic of imitation in their conception of sociability while, at the same time,
envisaged as aiming exclusively at the realization of the good. This is possible because only one part of the mimetic
of their antagonism. Rivalry and violence, far from being the exterior of
exchange, are therefore its ever-present possibility. Reciprocity and
hostility cannot be dissociated and we have to realize that the social order
will always be threatened by violence. By refusing to acknowledge the
antagonistic dimension of imitation, the Philosophes failed to grasp the
complex nature of human reciprocity. They denied the negative side of
exchange, its dissociating impulse. This denial was the very condition for
the fiction of a social contract from which violence and hostility would
have been eliminated and where reciprocity could take the form of a
transparent communication among participants. Although in their writings many
of them could not completely elude the negative possibilities of imitation,
they were unable to formulate conceptually its ambivalent character. It is
the very nature of their humanistic project - the ambition to ground the
autonomy of the social and to secure equality among human beings - that
led them to defend an idealized view of human sociability.
Violence UQ
AT: PinkerGeneral
Pinker never specifies what violence is
Laws 12 Ben Laws, Against Pinker's Violence, CTheory.net, 3/21/2012,
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=702 typo corrected in brackets
What is striking about a book dedicated to explaining the developments of
violence across time is that [it] does not begin with any kind of formal
definition -- there is a clear absence in fact. It is implicitly assumed that
we the reader know exactly what constitutes a violent act. Pinker references a
number of historical trends, events and literary sources that suggest the past was a remarkably vicious and brutal
time to have lived -- the Greeks, Romans, the Hebrew bible and early Christendom all feature to support this. But
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=702
Pinker subscribes to a certain voice of 'Truth', namely one which flights
the steady decline of violence over time. Yet, if we take a 'perspectivist'
stance in relation to matters of truth would it not be possible to argue the
direct inverse of Pinker's historical narrative of violence? Have we in fact become
even more violent over time? Each interpretation could invest a certain
stake in 'truth' as something fixed and valid -- and yet, each view could be
considered misguided. What would this alternative history look like? It
could be equally as systematic; it could be equally scientific, full of
'reasoned' argument and as enchanted with modernity, as Pinker's thesis. It could
start by stating that in fact the devils of our nature have outmanoeuvred
the angels. As evidenced by the multiple atrocities of the 20th century -the only century where the world's great powers declared war on each
other, twice. It is estimated that over 70 million combatants were armed
and sent to fight in the First World War, and new advancements in
technology allowed massive losses of life on an unprecedented scale . Some
twenty years later, World War II signalled the biggest conflict (in terms of death
toll) to be historically recorded -- and what separates it from other great
historical wars is the sheer concentration of deaths (estimates of 60
million are common) in the space of only 6 years. Mines, bombs, nuclear
warfare, increasingly accurate projectiles, gas and chemicals, jets and
apaches effectively created an expanded spectrum of ways to inflict death
from a greater distance.
Pinker argues that a shift towards democratic rule and increased wealth in the west has directly correlated with the
AT: PinkerFoucault K
History is a matter of interpretationPinkers reductionist
account of violence conceals instances of violence excessive of
classic explication and erases essential historical differences
Laws 12 Ben Laws, Against Pinker's Violence, CTheory.net, 3/21/2012,
http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=702 typo corrected in brackets
What do we achieve by placing our morality and values onto the Romans,
Greeks, Egyptians, Victorians, Byzantines, Mayans etc? Is it attempting to
compare the incomparable? But, is this not, how a misguided history
[begins]? It assumes that 'words have kept their meaning, that desires
still pointed in a single direction, and that ideas retained their logic, [and
it ignores the fact that] the world of speech and desires has known
invasions, struggles, plundering, disguises, ploys. ' [8] Indeed, to comprehend
and interpret the ideas of a period we have to stare into the face of the
singularity of individual events -- without sating that tempting urge for
finality, for grand themes across the evidence. To return to violence, which Pinker does not
openly define, we can intuit (roughly) from his chapters that he means physical force (murders, torture, hand-to-
Pinker's undefined
definition and approach to violence enables his quantification of it -- so
that across centuries and millennia certain forms and intrusions of
violence can be correlated, evaluated and (re)interpreted. It is this
scientific quantification project and statistical reduction that forms the
basis of his thesis. He will use graphs, charts and tables to reiterate a
numbers game -- all echoing decrease. But what would it mean to be a
violent Roman compared to a violent Victorian? And how can we begin to
compare this to a violent modern man? To each historical period there
must be a corresponding understanding and comprehension of exactly
what it meant to be violent. If we look back at history through a modern
lens we are destined to find horrific images at every turn: we see the
alien, the depraved. For each historical age (and the hazy less-discussed boundaries in-between)
we would have to resist the urge to look at violence so directly. By trying
to look for answers in a straight line, we forget to turn. We reveal the all
too 'rational' and 'reasoned' methods of our times. Pinker's science -- and
science as a whole -- is not a value free practise; the way he applies and defends
his position is through the application of a science laden with his ideopolitical position on the spectrum (statistics, logical argumentation, quantification and
reasoning). To understand a specific period we would do better to locate those
sources that surrounded, influenced and were affected by violence:
perhaps we would assemble discordant fragments and a complex
patchwork of effects and sociological trends. We would find that the
nature of violence has not evolved on a stable or constant line. To validate
such transformations our definition(s) of violence must also react and
evolve in an equally intricate way. We might be hard-pressed to find instruments of physical
hand conflicts and assaults, rapes, conquests and wars) doled-out to others. Crucially,
torture in the modern world (speaking in terms of the 'developed' west) and certain kinds of hand-to-hand
omits, it carries a burden of care, but by staring too directly it fails to see
the vastness and enormity of the problem.
Generic Links
Despite the popularized discourses about globalization and geo-economic integration, states continue to prioritize
national interests through reconfiguring their capacities (see eg Ross 1999; Sassen 2008; Sparke 2006). In this
regard, the prospects of inter-state conflict continue to loom in the background of geo-economic processes aimed at
broadening spaces of/for capital accumulation beyond national confines. Echoing Kant, Waltz (2000:8) argues that
the natural state remains the state of war: under the conditions of international politics, war recurs; the sure way
to abolish war, then, is to abolish international politics. As far as the past decade goes, Waltz's observation
appears prescientwars continue to be waged between and within nation-states, with the primary aim of either
As Scott and Carr (1986:83) put it: Let us characterize the responsibility the state owes to its citizenry as the
obligation to manage international uncertainty in the best interest of the citizenry. The obligation, of course, is owed
to the state's citizenry, but it gives purpose and direction to the state's foreign policy. It seems appropriate, then, to
describe the state as the advocate of its citizen's interest in the international world. Inter-state relationships
correspondingly should be regarded as relationships between advocates charged with pursuing the interests of their
limitations of nation-based geopolitik, Beck (2005) argues that a cosmopolitan politics of golden handcuffsone
that recognizes the importance of international economic interdependency and the corresponding need to
overcome national differencescould in fact better sustain national interests. Within East Asia, geo-economic
strategizing offers a twist to Ross's (1999) geographically deterministic analysis of the regional power of balance
that the physical geographies of East Asia are likely to prevent conflictbecause geo-economics gets at the way in
which a more or less geopolitical phenomenon (of imagining territory as a mode of political intervention and
governance) is closely articulated with a whole series of economic imperatives, ideas and ideologies (Sparke
1998:69). Then again, this does not mean that states are necessarily retreating vis--vis pressures from the global
system of capitalism (paceStrange 1996; cf Sassen 2008). While Harvey and Scott (1989:222, 224) contend that
developments in political economy are fundamentally reducible to a stubborn logic of capitalism shaped by the
real universal qualities of capitalism, the influential role states undertake to contour the form of spaces of/for
capitalist accumulation through geo-economic integration indicates the necessary imbrication of state power in this
China Link
China threat mongering is dangerous, counterfactual, and
hypocriticalhikes tensions and overwhelms potential for
cooperation
Lim 12 Kean Fan Lim, What You See Is (Not) What You Get? The Taiwan Question,
Geo-economic Realities, and the China Threat Imaginary, Antipode, Volume 44,
Issue 4, pages 13481373, September 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.14678330.2011.00943.x
The identification of national-level threats is never straightforward; it is
often effected on emotional rather than evidential grounds. Within the US,
Japan bashing emerged during the 1980s vis--vis domestic fears of the
waning economic competitiveness of the US and its seeming inability to
confront a flexible post-Fordist future. More recently, the US decision in 2003
to attack Iraq on the premise that it possessed weapons of mass
destruction proved ultimately groundless: no such weapons were found,
while Iraq slipped into anarchy and arguably became a hotbed of terrorist
activities only since (see Fallows 2006; Gregory 2004; Tuathail 2004). Mandel (2008:40) thus rightly
cautions how [t]he political manipulation of enemy images by both government
officials and members of the mass public clouds over the stark realities
surrounding any international enemy predicament. Together, these patterns
create both ambiguity and confusion in dealing with the enemy
component of global threat. In the context of this paper, the critical question is
whether a China threat imaginary is actually produced by forces beyond
China; whether what you see is indeed what you get. Even though the US formally
recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a state in 1979, the recognition was arguably conditioned by
latent suspicions. As Feldman (2007:np) puts it, the Reagan administration continued to put little trust in Chinese
promises to adhere to a peaceful solution regarding Taiwan even as it prepared to sign the 1982 communiqu2
with China. This little trust, Feldman (2007) adds, explains why Reagan gave Taiwan Six Assurances and also
inserted a secret memo in the National Security Files noting that Taiwan's defensive capabilities must be maintained
at a level relative to China's. Reagan's legacy of little trust seems to have permeated subsequent policy
considerations. In 1999, the Pentagon presented several scenarios in its Asia 2025 study that portrayed China as
the most significant threat to American interests in the Asia-Pacific by 2025. A decade on, the US Defense Secretary
Robert Gates offers this analysis of China: In fact, when considering the military-modernization programs of
countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the US symmetrically
fighter to fighter or ship to shipand more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our
strategic options Investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, and ballistic
missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacificin particular our
Gates
geographical imagination of China in this speech is predicated on two interrelated assumptions that exemplify a political realist way of seeing. First,
China is not recognized as an ally of the US, although it is clear that the
US is the key driver of such politics of recognition in the first place.
Furthermore, it appears that US military protection is a precondition to qualify as
an ally, a logic which automatically casts states without such
protection as suspect. Second, China's military-modernization process is
ostensibly a threat because such efforts could, in Gates terms, disrupt the
strategic options of the US in East Asia, even when it is entirely
plausible that increased defense spending is to fulfil other valid purposes,
such as replacing obsolete military equipment to address new threats by
terrorists and maritime pirates, and enhancing remuneration packages for
soldiers. Third, America wants to project power on its own terms, which is
forward air bases and carrier strike groups (US Department of Defense 16 September 2009).
modernization policies is thus necessary before it can be ascertained whether a China threat exists. First, while
China is not recognized as a US ally, it does not justify its defense modernization programs through anti-US
then, the massive power gap between China and the US should suffice to allay concerns about the former's so-
the US and
Chinese economies are inextricably intertwined as the Chinese
government currently generates effective demand for US Treasury
financial instruments and holds significant US dollar reserves . In addition,
China's growing geo-economic influence worldwide is contingent on a
strategic investment of its foreign reserves, which means it has every
economic incentive to ensure stability in the global monetary system (see
discussion in Lim 2010). Within the US, however, it is possibly this very geo-economic
integration with China (especially the US Treasury's increasing dependence on Chinese financial capital and
China's importance as an offshore outsourcing destination for US transnational corporations) which triggers
suspicions of China's intentions and which then generate certain reactive
measures to deflect attention from the US economy's deep-seated
problems. In an insightful analysis, Cohen and DeLong (2010:1213) argue that the US has had a wonderful
called threat (cf Al-Rodhan 2007). Second, it is interesting that whilst not allies in name,
opportunity to create new sectors of the future because of the willingness of developing countries like China to
lend it money; what was created, however, was a finance sector that almost bankrupted the economy and
deepened the need for foreign backing to support its quantitative easing monetary solution. Because the need to
borrow more money from abroadand China is so far the biggest creditorcould lead to the end of the global
politico-economic influence of the US, it is perhaps unsurprising that some political actors choose to politicize this
phenomenon. As Waltz (2000:15) puts it, With zero interdependence, neither conflict nor war is possible. With
knowledge that China views such arms sales as a clear show of support for what it considers its own province.
Intriguingly, the US framing of its relations with Taiwan could actually be due to an implicit distrust of putative allies
in the East Asian region. Cha (2010:158) theorizes post-World War II US geopolitical alliances with South Korea,
Taiwan and Japan as a form of bilateral powerplay designed to suppress not only the Soviet threat, but also: to
constrain anticommunist allies in the region that might engage in aggressive behavior against adversaries that
could entrap the United States in an unwanted larger war. Underscoring the U.S. desire to avoid such an outcome
was a belief in the domino theorythat the fall of one small country in Asia could trigger a chain of countries falling
to communism. This strategy arguably applies in the present day, despite the demise of the Soviet Union and
China's peaceful integration into the global political economy. For instance, Christensen (1999:50) sees US military
presence in East Asia as resolving a security dilemma triggered by a tendency for one country, affected
profoundly by historically based mistrust, to overreact to another country's acquisition of ostensibly defensive
military equipment. What Christensen (1999) does not emphasize, however, is that the US is also a major exporter
of such equipment, which makes the powerplay logic a doublethink ratiocination. This echoes Cowen and Smith's
(2009:42) aforementioned caveat that geopolitical calculation is always available when deemed necessary. Even
though the Cold War is officially over, Johnson's analysis (2005, in Asia Times Online) strongly suggests that the
powerplay approach remains in full swing: Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States has
repeatedly pressured Japan to revise Article 9 of its constitution (renouncing the use of force except as a matter of
self-defense) and become what US officials call a normal nation America's intention is to turn Japan into what
Washington neo-conservatives like to call the Britain of the Far Eastand then use it as a proxy in checkmating
North Korea and balancing China. Cha's (2010)powerplay thesis thus illustrates how collaborating with the US
through bilateral alliances already implies subjugation to broader US interests, although the US need not
necessarily view subjugation as non-threatening. Asymmetrical bilateral alliances (between a large power and a
smaller ally), as Cha (2010:164) puts it, are actually power instruments of control through which the larger
patron enjoys a great deal of leverage. Such alliances are preferred when larger powers do not want to lose power
vis--vis smaller allies, which highlight the implicit distrust prior to alliance formation. After all, as Bartelson
(1995:164) writes, [s]ecurity
China Framework
Discourse about China shapes perceptions of future actions
and constrains policy responses
Johnston 13 Alastair Iain Johnston, The Governor James Albert Noe and Linda
Noe Laine Professor of China in World Affairs at Harvard, How New and Assertive Is
Chinas New Assertiveness? International Security, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Spring 2013), pp.
748
Why should policymakers and scholars worry about a problematic characterization of Chinese foreign policy?
Putting aside the intellectual importance of accurately measuring the dependent variable in the study of a major
a key contradiction
persists: we maintain dualistic ways of talking about things (human
impacts, human interaction with environment, anthropogenic climate
change, cultural landscapes, social-ecological systems), while the empirical
evidence increasingly demonstrates how inextricably humans have become
embedded in earth surface and atmospheric processes .
to the identification of anthropogenic climate change in the palaeoclimatic record. So,
Terminally implicating climate change in terms of thresholdcrossings is a counterproductive totalization which conceals
ongoing violence and constrains policy and local responses
Cupples 12 Julie Cupples, Wild Globalization: The Biopolitics of Climate Change
and Global Capitalism on Nicaragua's Mosquito Coast, Antipode, Volume 44, Issue
1, pages 1030, January 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00834.x
In the first world, in both everyday and scientific discourse, climate change is
frequently posited as a transcendent and teleological megahazard , caused by
the prime movers greenhouse gases, which have the potential to wreak havoc and undermine our way of life. While
it is often
described in first world contexts as a future-oriented problem, as one
which will affect future generations if we fail to act . For example, Giddens (2009:1)
both scientists and ordinary people also talk about climate change in a range of tenses,
starts his recent book on climate change by describing it as something which has potentially devastating
consequences for the future. A recent Bolivian blog states that Oxfam America made a serious mistake in its
recent report on indigenous peoples and climate change by tensing its warnings in the future tense (duderino
argument about globalization around the concept of de-coca-colonization, urges us to shift: our focus away from an
external sovereign globalization-as-object to be grasped and wielded. Rather we must imagine a nonsovereign
production of the global that is as increasingly immanent in, and emergent through our day-to-day thoughts and
we don't
need to think of globalization as an abstraction because it is embedded in
everyday practices. We should therefore understand places, even those not deemed to be world cities,
actions as it is in the mass movement of capital, information and populations. According to Flusty,
and the activities of everyday life as sites in which globality is constituted and from which it is extended, and
marginalized groups of people around the world as practising revolutionary forms of insubordination even as they
engage in exploitative labour practices in order to survive. Furthermore, such people are really only excluded in
part from the global order because, as (potential) members of the multitude, they embody a double character of
poverty and possibility (Hardt and Negri 2004:129, 153). An immanent approach to the climate changeglobal
capitalism coupling is therefore crucial. I care about this thing we refer to as climate change but I refuse to
modelled, the BwO is one possible way to welcome and better incorporate into our discourse and action the
molecular multiplicities which are part of the shifting practices, debates and policies that surround climate change.
to suggest that climate is a quantity wholly disembodied from its multiple and contradictory meanings (Hulme,
2008: 6) and called for the intervention of social scientists to understand more about human impacts and responses
(Hulme, 2009; see Moser, 2010; Slocum, 2009). However, even a cursory glance at the pages of the journal Climatic
Change, to take but one example, will show that this work has been ongoing for some time through research which
attempts to describe, evaluate, quantify and model perceptions of climate change, understandings of risk and
construction of policy (to name but three topics; see, for example, Berk and Schulman, 1995; Jaeger et al., 1993;
Rayner and Malone, 1998; Smit et al., 1996). Although reconstructing the genealogy of climate change in the social
sciences and humanities is not the work of this paper, it is notable that back in 1993 Jaeger et al. were able to
identify work on the human dimensions of global climatic change, albeit at an early stage. More recently, Batterbury
(2008) sketches out a history of work on global warming in anthropology dating from the mid-1990s. Nevertheless,
despite the now substantial literature that is informed by the methods, theories and epistemologies of social
relations and knowledges more generally, are: Clark, 2000, 2005, 2007; Ingold, 2006; Ingold and Kurttila, 2000;
Slocum, 2004, 2009). Recent sessions at the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Annual Conference in 2009 on
such topics as Cultural Spaces of Climate and Geographies of the Seasons confirm the salience of a more critical
and contextual approach. Further, a recent special issue of the Journal of Historical Geography (Bravo, 2009; Daniels
and Endfield, 2009; Hamblyn, 2009; Liverman, 2009) marks a trend in histories of science towards histories of
(Bostrom et al., 1994; Hanski, 2008; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Manzo, 2010). The relative neglect of this theme lies, as
geography
is the natural home of research which takes a more interpretative
approach to climate change while at the same time offering a critical
reading of the natural sciences . . . informed by a spatially contingent view
of knowledge (Hulme, 2008: 5; see also Demeritt, 2009; Harrison et al., 2004). In this paper, we show that
geography for over 80 years is, curiously, elided. This is despite the claims of geographers that
there is now an opportunity to explore how individuals and communities understand climate and the ways it might
change in the context of local landscapes and environmental challenges, researched as a lived experience with a
unique set of geographies, lay knowledges, and participative practices. In so doing, we build on the work of Slocum
(2004) and Hinchliffe (1996) among others who have examined local environmental knowledge in the context of
everyday life. In this paper we foreground landscape as an organizing concept. We explore this in more detail in the
next section, before moving on to look at the importance of future-orientated temporalities and lay knowledges to
our focus on familiar landscape.
In this paper we identify and bring together several threads in recent human geography that could help shape
debate on climate change in the social sciences and more broadly. Human and environmental geographers have a
climate vulnerability
cannot be separated from underlying social and political dimensions (e.g.
Bohle et al., 1994). There are many geographic contributions to grounded studies
of place, local diversity and the difference this makes to issues like
adaptive capacity (Adger et al., 2005, 2009; Barnett and Campbell, 2010). Increasing
recognition of the social and cultural dimensions of climate change has led
to greater (and perhaps belated) interest in the sociocultural research tradition in
geography and cognate disciplines (e.g. Hulme, 2008; OBrien, 2011). Our specific argument is
that human geographys combination of both deconstructive and empirical
compulsions, found in co-existing emphases on critical theory and
ethnographic type research methods that focus on material, embodied
practices, provides a unique possibility to be both unsettling and
generative/creative. We believe this is exemplified best in the ideas of Gibson-Graham (2006, 2008),
long history of contributing to climate change discussions, and emphasising that
whose work we use to think through how to reframe the politics of climate change in response to, and beyond,
reframed in this way by drawing attention to the persistence of the human/nature binary in climate change debates
(section II). We subsequently explore how relational frameworks can contribute to the reframing, putting knowledge
back together differently.
change our
understanding is to change the world, in small and sometimes major
ways. A starting point is looking for productive or progressive spaces in
unlikely places (Lewis, 2009), to crack open new ways to converse. Throughout the
paper we draw on diverse examples where this can and might be done, using a refreshed conception of scale and
power that avoids locking down territories as containers of action. In the process of becoming, and becoming
understood as, a global problem, climate change has become recognised as a hybrid assemblage constituted as
more-than-climate, comprising discourses, bureaucracies and texts as well as atmospheric gases (Demeritt, 2001;
Hulme, 2008). The emerging critical analysis of climate-change-as-assemblage has much in common then with the
critique of related concepts like neoliberalism (Castree 2008a, 2008b; Dean, 1999; Peck, 2004), modernity and the
economy (Mitchell, 2002), colonialism (Anderson, 2007; Thomas, 1994) and capitalism (Gibson-Graham, 1996,
difference, however. The above scholarly critique has usually pulled the various threads of modern industrial
capitalism apart in order to imagine how subsistence might be constituted differently, and with more attention to
concerned as are others that academic deconstruction of the climate change assemblage may run the risk of
unwittingly buttressing reactionary sceptics and a range of vested interests. The step that has not yet been taken in
relation to climate change is to go from the ontological reframing to the generative possibilities. We seek here to
outline some possible directions.
The accounts of the Atlantic Coast that we find in NGO and journalistic publications are on one level understandable
and defensible as they aim in part to call the first world, where most climate change emissions are produced, to
explicit attempt in such accounts to understand how such forms of biopower are contaminated by everyday forms
of biopolitical production in the Miskito Keys themselves, or to consider how the subjects targeted by biopower
engage in creative forms of biopolitics to resist this tendency (Corva 2009:172; see also Hardt and Negri 2004).
Hardt and Negri (2000:30) conceptualize biopolitics as a life politics, the living
development of productive labour in society which includes not just the
communicative and the intellectual, but also the corporeal and the
affective. This paper considers the conceptual gains that might accrue from tackling growing concerns about
climate change in the so-called third world through a focus on everyday immanent biopolitical production, as it is
developed in the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1987) and Hardt and Negri (2000, 2004).3 While a number of recent
publications have emphasized the need not to understand globalization in disempowering ways as something out
there to which locals can merely react but rather as a messy, contingent and unpredictable process in which global
power is frequently disrupted (Allen 2003; Flusty 2004; Hart 2002; Ong 1987; Tsing 2005), Hardt and Negri's
Deleuzoguattarian inspired approach is particularly useful for my case study because of the emphasis it places on
the immanent and biopolitical production of new figures of subjectivity, in both their exploitation and their
revolutionary potential (Hardt and Negri 2000:29). In addition, Deleuze and Guattari's emphasis on becoming
enables us to think beyond dominant approaches to climate change. Not only does it put capitalism more firmly in
the picture, but it also disrupts the concept of adaptation as something which people now need to do in response to