Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Gift K

First is Framing
The Role of the Judge is to Analyze the round from the perspective of a specific intellectual –
you should use the ballot to deconstruct oppressive modes of thought

Stephen Gill 1, professor of political science at York University, Questioning Geopolitics, p. 130-131

Too many intellectuals subscribe to or create orthodoxy that simply reinforces


dominant power-knowledge structures. Others simply ignore fundamental
problems of authority and violence and, as such, indirectly subordinate
themselves to dominant power. By contrast, this chapter has been written from the viewpoint of a critical theory that
seeks to develop a new transnational historical materialist approach. So, from a critical perspective, what is the role and duty of

critical intellectuals? First, they must provide a clear and realistic analysis of

the nature and logic of contemporary developments. Second, they must speak
out critically on the basis of their freedom to demand respect for questions
of justice. Third, they must oppose all patterns of domination that destroy
the creative human spirit. And finally, they must find ways to develop new critical perspectives. And at a time of social crisis, where
social and political thought seems to be at an impasse as it stands transfixed before the dilemmas of globalization, intellectuals need to use their
creative imagination. They need to help us to rethink the potentials in society that allow for creativity and greater human possibility.
Second is the Criticism
A is the Link
Affirming is an essential question of gift-giving in the sense that wealthy countries are
providing assistance to other countries
Arrigo 2k (Bruce [PhD Prof of Criminology at UNC] “The (Im)possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority” Journal
of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2000)

the gift is simply as it sounds; something that is given to


The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed. Derrida's concept of

someone by someone else. Gift, however, is a misleading term. Once an award is given to someone, that someone
[they] assumes a debt (of gratitude or a reciprocation of the gift). The giver of the gift, in return, is
"consciously and explicitly" pleased with him- or herself for the show of generosity (Caputo, 1997, p. 141). This
narcissistic, self-eudemonical exchange is in fact increased if the receiver is ungrateful or is unable, through the anonymity of the gift,
to show gratitude. Thus, the offering that is made without expectation of explicit gratitude simply
nourishes the narcissism of the giver. This is the paradoxical dimension of the gift. The sender of the gift,
instead of giving, receives; and the receiver of the gift, instead of receiving something, is in debt (Caputo, 1997). To avoid mobilizing the
circular economy of the gift (the circle of exchange, of reciprocation, and of reappropriation), the gift must not appear as such. Thus, the giver must not be aware that he or she is giving, and the receiver must not be aware that he or she is receiving. Only under those
circumstances would the giver not fuel the fire of narcissistic generosity, and the receiver not assume a debt. As Caputo (1997) notes, the pure gift "could take place only if everything happened below the level of conscious intentionality, where no one intends to give

The agent
anything to anyone and no one is intentionally conscious of receiving anything" (p. 147). Phenomenologists remind us, following Aristotle's (1925) notion of act and intentionality, that the agent always acts for its own good.

always intends to act for its own good; otherwise, it will not act at all (e.g., Heidegger, 1962; Husserl,
1983). Thus, there are always degrees of intentionality —expectation, reciprocation, and reappropriation—on
the part of the giver. The giving of the gift[ing] serves a purpose. It can be traced to narcissism masked
by a facade of generosity, or it can be linked to anticipation of something that will come back
at some point sometime in the future (Derrida, 1997). This is where the notion of economy arises. What fuels the economy are "entities determined and exchanged, of calculation and balanced equations,
of equity and sound reason, of laws and regularities" (Caputo, 1997, p. 146). It is the gift that the community has an affinity for in the name of democratic justice. The justice that the gift does, however, authenticates the reality of a pseudo-democracy. An imitation
(i.e., illusion) of justice that, as an artifact of simulation, is more real that reality itself; one that is (im)possible in the community that we refer to as democratic society.12
B are the Impacts
This leads to narcissistic hegemony in which the giver dominates the receiver in
endless violence.
Arrigo 2 (Bruce [PhD Prof of Criminology at UNC] “The (Im)possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority” Journal
of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2000)

suppose that we have $100.00 and that you have $1.00. If


To ground these observations about gift sending and receiving, the analogous example of a loan may be helpful. Let us

we were to give you some of our money (less than $49 so as not to produce pecuniary equality), we would be subtlely engaged in a number of things. First, following
Derrida (1997), we would be showing off our power (money) by exploiting the fact that we have so much

more money than you do that we can give some away and remain in good fiscal standing. Second, [And]
we would be expecting something in return—maybe not immediately, but eventually. This return could
take several forms. Although we may not expect financial reciprocation, it would be enough knowing that

you know that we [helped] have given currency to you. Thus, you are now indebted to us and forever
grateful, realizing our good deed: our gift. Reciprocation on your part is impossible. Even if one day you are able
to return our monetary favor twofold, we will always know that it was us who [we] first hosted you;
extended to and entrusted in you an opportunity given your time of need. As the initiators of such a charity, we are
always in a position of power, and you are always indebted to us . This is where the notion of egoism or conceit assumes a
hegemonic role. By giving to you, a supposed act of generosity in the name of furthering your cause, we have not
empowered you. Rather, we have empowered ourselves . We have less than subtlely let you know that we
have more than you. We have so much more, in fact, that we can afford to give you some. Our giving becomes, not an
act of beneficence, but a show of power, that is, narcissistic hegemony!

Emperically proven—The US tried to aid in the Haiti earthquake recovery process and made it worse
while making the US feel like they “did something to help.
Cunningham 12, Oliver. “The Humanitarian Aid Regime In The Republic Of Ngos The Fallacy Of ‘Building Back Better’” The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced
International Studies. Summer 2012. Web. 8 Feb 2014. <http://www.du.edu/korbel/jais/journal/volume4/volume4_cunningham.pdf>

“Contrary to what most Americans who donated to the Haiti disaster believe, U.S. foreign
aid benefits Americans [donors]
rather than its supposed beneficiaries (Kushner 2012). This is evident when the interests of donors
are leveraged against those of Haitians, especially in regard to food aid. Immediately after the
earthquake, while infrastructure and supply lines were down, foreign food aid helped alleviate
the provisional needs of displaced people and disaster victims . Its long-term effects, however, were
deleterious to Haitian producers and suppliers. For example , one documentary details the collapse of the rice
supply chain (NPR 2010)—local rice prices fell due to lower priced rice imports, such as ‘Miami
rice,’ ‘WFP rice,’ ‘AMERICAN rice’—and stagnation of the local economy ensued (Webster
2012). Logically it is “hard to get people to buy rice when you are giving it away ” (NPR 2010). Such
examples demonstrate how foreign food aid can be injurious, creating parallel structures that prevent local economies from
rebuilding and breeding dependency. As Ghani contends, creating such parallel structures that support donor.”

By providing aid for other countries, the donor feeds off of their pain and suffering, engaging in a form
of “charity cannibalism” in which Westernized countries feed off of the misfortunes of others.
Baudrillard in 94 [Jean, “The Illusion of the End” p. 66-71]¶

We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the 'other half of the world'
[['autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty -

charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian
reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same
time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials,
but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to
produce a new energy source.¶ We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other,

that material exploitation is only there to


much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis,

extract[s] that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological
nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing .¶

with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The
West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own
history.¶ The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence
also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism:

the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure
playground. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush
them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever

our own efforts to alleviate it (which, in fact, merely


delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of

function to secure the conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market); there, at least, in the order of
moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable : we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic

deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West. In our defence, it might be
said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the
world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous
buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d'
Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne?¶
C is the Alt
The alternative is to reject the affs notion of providing developmental assistance to other nations and
instead respect other nations as sovereign. Maintaining state sovereignty means preserving a state’s
control over itself. State sovereignty is critical to determine how governments ought to act with regards
to national and international obligations.

Sovereignty is essential to the concept of a state and the state system itself
Biersteker 96 [(Thomas, Political Science Professor; and Cynthia Weber) “State sovereignty as a social construct”.
Political Science. Cambridge University Press. 1996]

Traditionally, sovereignty has been characterized as a basic rule of coexistence within the states system, a concept that transcends both ideological differences
. Sovereignty
and the rise and fall of major powers, and it is frequently invoked as an institution that must be both protected and defended

provides the basis in international law for claims for state actions, and its
violation is routinely invoked as a justification for the use of force in international
relations. Sovereignty, therefore, is an inherently social concept. States’ claims to
sovereignty construct a social environment in which they [states] can interact as
an international society of states, while at the same time the mutual recognition of
claims to sovereignty [and] is an important element in the construction of states
themselves.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai