- Information
- AI Chat
Foucault K UM 7wk - Explanation
Successful Business Speaking (MGMT - 52C)
Merced College
Preview text
Foucault K
- 1NC...........................................................................................................................................................................
- ***ALTERNATIVES
- Alt Slv.......................................................................................................................................................................
- Criticize....................................................................................................................................................................
- Reject.......................................................................................................................................................................
- Resistance..............................................................................................................................................................
- ***LINKS
- Generic Links.........................................................................................................................................................
- L- Cap.....................................................................................................................................................................
- L- Econ...................................................................................................................................................................
- L- GPS....................................................................................................................................................................
- L-Heg.....................................................................................................................................................................
- L-Militarization......................................................................................................................................................
- L-Nuclear war.........................................................................................................................................................
- L- “Space Pearl Harbor” / Eastern Threat.............................................................................................................
- L- Satellites............................................................................................................................................................
- L- Security.............................................................................................................................................................
- L-Space Heg...........................................................................................................................................................
- L- Space Tech.........................................................................................................................................................
- L-Space Weaponization.........................................................................................................................................
- L-Surveillance........................................................................................................................................................
- L-State...................................................................................................................................................................
- ***IMPACTS
- Loss of Autonomy..................................................................................................................................................
- Enmity Mod...........................................................................................................................................................
- Extinction..............................................................................................................................................................
- Nuclear annihilation..............................................................................................................................................
- Violence.................................................................................................................................................................
- Securitization.........................................................................................................................................................
- Genocide................................................................................................................................................................
- ***AT’S
- AT: Nat Security Checks........................................................................................................................................
- A2: No L- Exploration...........................................................................................................................................
- A2: No L- Science..................................................................................................................................................
- Grassroots/Standpoint Trade-off..........................................................................................................................
- A2: Predictions......................................................................................................................................................
- A2: Chinese ASAT Test..........................................................................................................................................
- ***FRAMEWROK
- Discourse Shapes Politics......................................................................................................................................
- A2: Realism...........................................................................................................................................................
- ***AFF
- Framework............................................................................................................................................................
- Alt Fails..................................................................................................................................................................
- Perm.......................................................................................................................................................................
- AT: Root Cause of War..........................................................................................................................................
- ***MISC.
- Dolman Indicts......................................................................................................................................................
1NC...........................................................................................................................................................................
Power and knowledge are co-productive—while the affirmative would like you to believe that their advantages are objective depictions of the world, these claims are in fact contingent products of a dynamic network of power relations—their attempt to know the world is itself an exercise of control which must be interrogated. Pickett 5 [Associate professor of Political Science at Chaldron State College On the Use and Abuse of Foucault For Politics pp. 10-11] Axel Honneth, among others, points out that Foucault's conception of power is a reworking of Nietzsche's idea of the will to power Power, in this view, is not a fixed property held by one class or group; it is the outcome of conflict between a number of actors. It is not stable; it is continually in flux and any truces must be considered temporary. Power is ubiquitous in the linguistic, bureaucratic, moral, and other structures in which agents act. For instance, although determined by power, the fundamental rules of morality are often seen as natural rather than contingent products of history: "It is true that it is society that defines, in terms of its own interests, what must be regarded as crime: it is not therefore natural.... [But] by assuming the form of a natural sequence, punishment does not appear as the arbitrary effect of human power." By revealing the origins and historical shifts of our basic moral and cultural distinctions, it is possible to show that what seems to be natural and self-evident is in fact contingent and arbitrary. What appears as nature is in fact the workings of power. Furthermore, the will to knowledge is the expression of power. There is a battle for truth; knowledge is the spoils of victory Both Nietzsche and Foucault deny that there is a timeless, a historical truth. Instead, truth is a thing of this world, and as such, it is subject to the contingency, error, mendacity, and struggle that characterize this world. Hence, Nietzsche argues that every philosophy is an expression of the will to power of the philosopher who wrote it Foucault argues that the human sciences operate on the basis of hierarchical relations, such as those between doctor and patient, or teacher and student, and that these sciences in turn have effects of power For these reasons, power must not be considered as an essentially negative force, as something which is "poor in resources, sparing of its methods, monotonous... incapable of invention, and seemingly doomed always to repeat itself."12 Instead, power is capable of producing knowledge, rules of morality, and the basic distinctions and denotations of a language. For Nietzsche power is creative and concerned with the continual increase in force. For Foucault, modern power is the same: unlike power in the classical age, it is inventive and concerned with the increase in social forces. Nietzsche and Foucault's views of power culminate in the claim that power produces identity. Each agent is the creation and expression of power. Both are anti-naturalists; they deny that there is something "natural" at the bottom of who we are. There is no fixed human nature or subjectivity. Instead, power produces agency: it creates animals capable of, for example, promising and confessing. A central aspect of both philosophers' work is an attack on the philosophy of the subject, that is, on some concept of an ahistorical metaphysical agent that is the "doer" behind our thoughts and deeds. Instead of positing a subject which is the foundation of all knowledge and action, philosophy should undermine its attachment to this "subject without a history."13 We need to see the subject as simply the outcome of the correlation of forces, relations, and practices that constitute him.
The affirmative’s reliance on space technology and surveillance internalizes, naturalizes, and shields the modern day panopticon of satellite imagery wielded by the military-industrial complex MacDonald 07 (October, Fraser MacDonald, PhD and Master’s from Oxford, Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh, “Anti-Astropolitik - outer space and the orbit of geography”, in Progress in Human Geography, vol 31, issue 5, proquest, IWren) In post-Cold-War unipolar times the strategic rationale for the United States to maintain the prohibition against weaponizing space is diminishing (Lambakis, 2003), even if the rest of the world wishes it otherwise. In 2000, a UN General Assembly resolution on the ‘Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space’ was adopted by a majority of 163–0 with 3 abstentions: the United States, Israel a n d t h e F e d e r a t e d S t a t e s o f Mi c r o n e s i a (United Nations, 2000). Less than two months later, a US Government committee chaired by Donald Rumsfeld 5 issued a report warning that the ‘relative dependence of the US on space makes its space systems potentially attractive targets’; the United States thus faced the danger, it argued, of a ‘Space Pearl Harbor ’ (Rums feld, 2001 : vi i i ). As spa ce warfare was, according to the report, a ‘virtual certainty’, the United States must ‘ensure continuing superiority’ (Rumsfeld, 2001: viii). This argument was qualified by obligatory gestures towards ‘the peaceful use of outer space’ but the report left little doubt about the direction of American space policy. Any difficult questions about the further militarization (and even weaponization) of space could be easily avoided under the guise of developing ‘dual-use’ (military/civilian) technology and emphasizing the role of military applications in ‘peacekeeping’ operations. Through such rhetoric, NATO’s satellite-guided bombing of a Serbian TV station on 23 April 1999 could have been readily accommodated under the OST injunction to use outer space for ‘peaceful purposes’ (Cervino et al., 2003). Since that time new theatres of
operation have been opened up in Afghani s t an and Iraq, for further trials of space-enabled warfare that aimed to provide aerial omniscience for the precision delivery of ‘shock and awe’. What Benjamin Lambeth has called the ‘accomplishment’ of air and space power has since been called into question by the all too apparent limitations of satellite intelligence in the tasks of identifying Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or in stemming the growing number of Allied dead and wounded from modestly armed urban insurgents (Lambeth, 1999; Graham, 2004; Gregory, 2004: 205). For all its limitations, even this imagery has been shielded from independent scrutiny by the military monopolization of commercial satellite outputs (Livingstone and Robinson, 2003). Yet, far from undermining Allied confi dence in satellite imagery or in a ‘cosmic’ view of war (Kaplan, 2006), it is precisely these abstract photocartographies of violence – detached from their visceral and bloodied ‘accomplishments’ – that have licensed, say, the destruction of Fallujah (Gregory, 2004: 162; Graham, 2005b). There remains, of course, a great deal more that can be said about the politics of these aerial perspectives than can be discussed here (see, for instance, Gregory, 2004; Kaplan, 2006). The geopolitical effects of reconnaissance from space platforms are by no means confined to particular episodes of military conflict. Like the high-altitude spy plane, its Cold War precursor, satellite surveillance also gives strategic and diplomatic powers. Unlike aerial photography, however, satellite imagery is ubiquitous and high-resolution, and offers the potential for real-time surveillance. The emerging field of surveillance studies, strongly informed by critical geographical thought, has opened to scrutiny the politics and spaces of electronic observation (see, for instance, the new journal Surveillance and Society). The writings of Foucault, particularly those on panopticism, are an obvious influence on this new work (Foucault, 1977; Wood, 2003), but they have seldom been applied to the realm of outer space. As Foucault pointed out, the power of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon prison design is enacted through the prisoner– subjects internalizing the disciplinary gaze: the presence of the gaoler was immaterial, as the burden of watching was left to the watched. Similarly, the power of panoptic orbital surveillanc e lies in its normalizing geopolitical effects.
Biopolitics allows the government to determine who is worthy of life and who can be killed. Dean 2001 (Dean Mitchell Professor of Sociology and Dean of the Division of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy at Macquarie University, Australia, “Demonic Societies” in “States of Imagination” p. 57-58) National Socialism is one contingent, historical trajectory of the development of the biopolitical dimension of the social, medical, psychological, andhuman sciences that occurs tinder a particular set of historical circumstances should not underestimate the factors operative in German society, thehistorical legacy of war and revolutionary movements, the nature of Germanpolity, or the economic crises of the early twentieth century. Nevertheless,Peukert and Foucault would both agree that the kind of state racism practicedby the Nazis that would lead to the Final Solution was quite different fromtraditional anti-Semitism insofar as it took the form of a "biological politics."as the German historians call it, that drew on the full resources of the human,social, and behavioral sciences. In this regard, Peukert's retrieval of the process by which the human sci-ences move from a concern with "mass well-being" to acting as the instrument of "mass annihilation" remains extremely interesting. In the ease of"social-welfare education," he identifies a number of phases (1993: 243- 45). First there was a formulation of the problem of the control of the youth in the late nineteenth century within a progressivist discourse in which every child had a right to physical, mental, and social fitness. This was followed by a phase of a phase of routinization and a crisis of confidence exemplified by the failureof legal schemes of detention or protection of those who were "unfit" or"ineducable." The third phase, coinciding with the final years of the WeimarRepublic, has disturbing overtones for our own period. Here there were aseries of scandals in young people's homes and a debate about the limits ofeducability coupled with welfare stare retrenchment. This debate introduceda new cost-benefits trade-oft with services allocated on the basis of immediate return, and the criterion of "value" was brought into the calculative frame-work. Value at this stage may or may not be determined on the basis of raceor genetics, but the ineducable were excluded in 1932 from reform schooleducation. After ig those who opposed the racial version of determiningvalue were forced into silence, compulsory sterilization of the genetically Un-healthy was practiced, and concentration camps for the racially inferior established. However, even this program faced a crisis of confidence and the utopian goals came up against their limits and the catalogue of deviance becamegreater and more detailed. The positive racism of youth welfare provision110W met the negative radicalization of a policy of eradication of those who,in the language of the order that represents the crucial step in the Final Solution, are deemed "unworthy of life" (lebensunwertes Leben). The biopoliticalgovernment of life had arrived at the point at which it decided who was worthliving. With the technology of murder up and running, the social and humansciences "are engaged in a parallel process of theoretical and institutionalgeneralization that is aimed at an all-embracing racist restructuring of socialpolicy, of educational policy, and health and welfare policy'' (Peukert 1993:245). The term Gemeinschaftsfremde
Alt Slv.......................................................................................................................................................................
Don’t tie your ballot to the same old political truths that create conditions for violence,
their universalizing approach to the political can only reproduce the trauma’s they seek
to scientifically master—that’s edkins.
The universal intellectual practice of the aff merely serves to buttress biopolitics – only
becoming a specific intellectual, using your decision to mark the crude points of the 1AC’s discourse – can make debate a space to challenge regimes of truth and power Owen ’ 94 (David Owen , Professor of Social and Political Philosophy @ University of Southampton Morality and Modernity, 1994, pp 208-210; swp) The ‘universal’ intellectual, on Foucault’s account, is that figure who maintains a commitment to critique as a legislative activity in which the pivotal positing of universal norms (or universal procedures for generating norms) grounds politics in the ‘truth’ of our being (e. our ‘real’ interests). The problematic form of this type of intellectual practice is a central concern of Foucault’s critique of humanist politics in so far as humanism simultaneously asserts and undermines autonomy. If, however, this is the case, what alternative conceptions of the role of the intellectual and the activity of critique can Foucault present to us? Foucault’s elaboration of the specific intellectual provides the beginnings of an answer to this question: I dream of the intellectual who destroys evidence and generalities, the one who, in the inertias and constraints of the present time, locates and marks the weak points, the openings, the lines of force, who is incessantly on the move, doesn’t know exactly where he is heading nor what he will think tomorrow , for he is too attentive to the present (PPC p. 124) The historicity of thought, the impossibility of locating an Archimedean point outside time, leads Foucault to locate intellectual activity as an ongoing attentiveness to the present in terms of what is singular and arbitrary in what we take to be universal and necessary. Following from this, the intellectual does not seek to offer grand theories but specific analyses, not global but local criticism. We should be clear on the latter point for it is necessary to acknowledge that Foucault’s position does entail the impossibility of ‘acceding to a point of view that could give us access to any complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limits’ and, consequently, ‘we are always in the position of bargaining again’ (FR p. 47). The upshot of this recognition of the partial character of criticism is not, however, to produce an ethos of fatal resignation but, in so far as it involves a recognition that everything is dangerous, a ‘ hyper and pessimistic activism’ (FR p. 343). In other words, it is the very historicity and particularity of criticism which bestows on the activity of critique its dignity and urgency. What of this activity then? We can sketch the Foucault account of the activity of critique by coming to grips with the opposition he draws between ideal critique and real transformation. Foucault suggests that the activity of critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are but rather of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, uncontested modes of thought the practices we accept rest (PPC p) The genealogical thrust of this critical activity is ‘to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident is no longer accepted as such’ for ‘as soon as one can no longer think things as one formerly thought them, transformation becomes both very urgent, very difficult, and quite possible’ (PPC p. 155). The urgency of transformation derives from the contestation of thought (and the social practices in which it is embedded) as the form of our autonomy, although this urgency is given its specific character for modern culture by the recognition that the humanist grammar of this thought ties us into the technical matrix of biopolitics. The specificity of intellectual practice and this account of the activity of critique come together in the refusal to legislate a universal determination of ‘what is right’ in favour of the perpetual problematization of the present. It is not a question, for Foucault, of invoking a determination of who we are as a basis for critique but of locating what we are now as the basis for reposing the question ‘who are we?’ The role of the intellectual is thus not to speak on behalf of others (the dispossessed, the downtrodden) but to create the space within which others can speak for themselves. The question remains,
***ALTERNATIVES
however, as to the capacity of Foucault’s work to perform this crucial activity through an entrenchment of the ethics of creativity as the structures of recognition through which we recognize our autonomy in the contestation of determinations of who we are.
Criticize
. The outright rejection, criticism and resistance to traditional modes of biopolitics solves through exposing the injustices committed in the status quo. This enables a large scale resistance in which the “new intellectual” emerges from the political struggle empowered amidst the knowledgeable masses. Pickett 5 [Associate professor of Political Science at Chaldron State College 2005 On the Use and Abuse of Foucault For Politics pp. 40-41] A prominent aspect of humanism, one which Foucault is particularly concerned with attacking, involves references to
a 'normal' individual based upon the scientific discourses of psychiatry or criminology. By legitimating what is
done in prisons and asylums, the categories of humanism "dispel the shock of daily
occurrences." 26 Humanism is also the legitimating force behind liberal democracy. It tells people
that although they do not have power, they are still the rulers: "In short, humanism is everything
in Western civilization that restricts the desire for power: it prohibits the desire for power and
excludes the possibility of power being seized."27 Because of its effects, Foucault argues that it is
necessary to undermine the categories and central concepts of humanism. One of the most
effective ways of doing this, Foucault claims, is to learn from those who have been the direct targets
of power and repression, learn how they were "divided, distributed, selected, and excluded in the
name of psychiatry and of the normal individual, that is, in the name of humanism." 28 Their
memories, histories, and knowledges are concerned with power and struggles, not with the
categories of humanism. This insurrection of subjugated knowledges unmasks previously hidden
techniques of power. Since Foucault believes that power is only acceptable to the degree that it is hidden, this
insurrection of knowledge will lead to direct action against the central institutions of
contemporary culture. At the heart of humanism, according to Foucault, is the theory of the subject.
Foucault means two things by 'the subject.' The first is the subject of a hierarchical political order. This is the
humanist notion of the 'sovereign' individual who is subjected to the laws of society, nature, truth,
and God. The subject, even though he exercises no power, is the sovereign. The humanistic theory
of the individual rests, Foucault contends, upon a subjected will to power. That is, the very desire for
power is to be eradicated from the individual in the name of truth, nature, and society. In order to
achieve the "'desubjectification' of the will to power," that is in order to liberate the desire to take power, it is
necessary to engage in political struggle During the early 1970s Foucault repeatedly emphasized that one
does not struggle against power because it is morally just; instead it is simply a struggle to take
power. 30 The notion of the individual as subject, as fixed within a series of hierarchies that limit
and constrain, is overthrown through this war for power. The second aspect of the theory of the subject is
the reference to a 'normal' subject. Modern definitions of normalcy are invariably constructed by the
human sciences. This fiction of what a normal person is like has important effects, according to
Foucault, in courtrooms, prisons, and various other institutions such as universities. The attack on
the normal subject is achieved through breaking the various taboos placed upon the individual.
Drug experimentation, communes, and disregard for gender lines are all possible examples of
this Another source of struggle against humanism, and the mechanisms of power that it supports, is what Foucault
envisions as a 'new intellectual.' In contrast to the traditional theorist, who formulated a totalizing
theory apart from the masses and led them with it, the new intellectual does not aspire to guide the
masses. He does not impart knowledge to them. Indeed, the masses know better than he, which is
why the intellectual must learn from those most exposed to power. The theories constructed from the
memories and struggles of factory hands and inmates are local, not global. The new intellectual is not the
bearer of truth; instead his theory is merely one more tool in the struggle against power.
Furthermore, Foucault argued that it is dangerous to formulate a universalistic theory. Struggle must
not be made in the name of a new Utopia. "I think that to imagine another system is to extend our
participation in the present system."33 There is a strong temptation to describe a certain human nature, argue
Voting negative turns this debate into a cite of resistance—use your ballot as both a concrete agitation and ideological critique, destabilizing the utopian metanarratives which form the unquestioned foundation of the affirmative—only our localized criticism can present a viable strategy for challenging dominant power relations. Pickett 5 [Associate professor of Political Science at Chaldron State College 2005 On the Use and Abuse of Foucault For Politics pp. 42-43] The ultimate goal of these various tactics and techniques, such as genealogy or learning from those most affected by power, is the incitement of local struggles against the modern power system. These actions must be led by those most subject to their constraints. Students must fight a "revolutionary battle" against schools; prison inmates should revolt and thereby be integrated into the larger political struggles Only those directly involved in the battle can determine the methods used. Three institutions are most important to Foucault in this period. The revolt against these institutions must simultaneously involve concrete agitation and ideological critique. First, schools are important primarily because they transmit a conservative ideology masked as knowledge. Second, psychiatry is important precisely because it extends beyond the asylum into schools, prisons, and medicine: in short, "all the psychiatric components of everyday life which form something like a third order of repression and policing."42 Finally, and probably most importantly to Foucault, there is the judicial system since it relies upon the fundamental moral distinction of guilt/innocence. This allows "the most frenzied manifestation of power imaginable" to masquerade as "the serene domination of Good over Evil, of order over disorder." 43 The judiciary actually blocks direct action through the construction of an allegedly neutral structure that stops real struggle in the here and now and instead arbitrates in the realm of the ideal. Moreover, the judicial system performs a number of functions which prevent revolution, such as controlling the most volatile people who might spearhead a revolt and introducing internal divisions within the masses so that one group will see the other as "dangerous" or "trash." For these reasons it is vital that the judiciary be attacked. Foucault gives examples of the "thousands of possibilities" for "anti-judicial guerilla operations," including escaping from the police and heckling in the courts Ultimately, Foucault calls for "the radical elimination of the judicial apparatus."45 Yet agitation cannot be limited to prisons, schools, and asylums; it must extend into factories and streets. This raises an essential point. Totalizing theory is rejected, but Foucault does support total revolution. If theory is to be local and discontinuous, how is revolutionary action to gain its larger coherence? "The generality of the struggle specifically derives from the system of power itself, from all the forms in which power is exercised and applied."46 The diffuse yet unitary nature of power allows for these various agitations across society to finally achieve coherence, thereby eliminating the need for imagining a new system. Although Foucault criticizes those who still feel this need for a global theory and its Utopia, he himself occasionally gives suggestions about what a better system would look like. Most prominent here is a desire for a lack of hierarchy, including class divisions. For instance, when speaking about the events of May 1968, Foucault said, "It is of the utmost importance that thousands of people exercised a power which did not assume the form of a hierarchical organization."47 A second feature of a better society appears to be a radical pluralism bordering on anarchy. Foucault strongly disagrees with those who invoke "the whole of society" when formulating plans for revolutionary action Such an ideal, he contends, itself arises from a Utopian dream. It also has the detrimental effect of limiting possible avenues of struggle. If prisoners feel that they must take over their prison, they are not to be dissuaded from this because of what is thought to be best for the whole of society. Only those directly involved at each local site of action can determine the methods used and the goals sought. "The whole of society is precisely that which should not be considered except as something to be destroyed. And then, we can only hope that it will never exist again." 49
Reject
Resistance to power only functions in the context of widespread, total rejection. Pickett 5 [Associate professor of Political Science at Chaldron State College 2005 On the Use and Abuse of Foucault For Politics pp. 24-25] Foucault also describes the growth of an individualizing political rationality "whose role is to constantly ensure, sustain, and improve the lives of each and every one."71 This rationality develops into a system that he calls 'pastoral
power.' The issue in this system is the relationship between the leader and the led and how it is to
be conceptualized. Foucault traces the origins of pastoral power back to Hebraic and early Christian
writings, where the leader is the shepherd and the led are the sheep. According to these writings,
obedience is a virtue, and the knowledge about each individual sheep by the shepherd is essential.
The shepherd, who should be ever-watchful, must know what goes on in the soul of each one. This
account is contrasted with the Greek view that focused upon the relation between the city and the
citizen. Instead of the leader involving himself with individuals, he is to seek the unity and flourishing of
the state as a whole. It is not that the Greek view has been superseded by the Judeo-Christian one; instead the two
have grown together: "Our societies proved to be really demonic since they happened to combine
those two games—the city-citizen game and the shepherd-flock game—in what we call the modern
states."72 Two elements are pivotal to this combination. First, individuals must be governed by their own
truth. We hold a certain conception of ourselves and attempt to live in accordance with it. We
think of our identities as something deep and natural and hence relate to ourselves as the bearers
of a truth. One principal mechanism through which this is expressed is our sexuality. Again, this is seen
as something natural and therefore as something to which we ought to be true. If a man is not sure about the
truth of his sex, he may go to a psychiatrist who interprets what he says and explains his truth back to him.
The conceptual preconditions of such a relationship are, first, that there is a truth about one's sex, and second, that
one may be incapable of understanding that truth but that another, through one's confession, can.
Self-awareness, self-discipline, and self-correction are at the heart of this conceptualization. It is
simply a later instance of Christian techniques of self-mortification, techniques which introduced this linkage between obedience, knowledge of oneself, and confession The second central element of this modern political rationality is
the fostering of individual lives in a way that adds to the strength of the state Healthy, productive,
docile citizens are essential to that strength. This is, in one sense, the pinnacle of disciplinary power.
The forces of individuals must be maximized in a manner that adds to the outcome of the
disciplinary institution itself. The same is true with the state, supported by all of these various disciplinary
practices within society, but in turn supporting them. It is a network of power, beginning with the lowly but ubiquitous practices of discipline, the techniques and strategies of bio-power, all producing the sort of individual who can live within the modern state and who in turn maintains that state as it supports those disciplinary and bio-power practices
and institutions. Since modern power produces individuals, it is useless to attempt to subvert that
power through an appeal to individualism or an assertion of the rights of the individual. Through a
historical analysis of the rationality specific to the art of governing modern states, it is clear that those states have
been both individualizing and totalitarian from the very beginning Hence Foucault's claim:
"Opposing the individual and his interests to it is just as hazardous as opposing it with the
community and its requirements." 76 The liberal individual, his normative intuitions, and the rights
that he bears are the effects of power, and therefore the liberal individual cannot be the basis for
an attack on the modern power regime.
the military technologies used to defend it. Finally from a more conceptual position, Penny Griffin takes perhaps the most divergent approach, arguing that we need to consider the gendered nature of outer space discourse and understand how this approach again enables us to consider the socially constructed nature of this realm.
By allowing State institutions attempt to control space and define spaces they pave the way for how we know and see space Foucault 67 [ Michel Foucault ,1967, published by the French journal Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité in October, 1984, “s (1967), Heterotopias” foucault/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html Now, despite all the techniques for appropriating space, despite the whole network of knowledge that enables us to delimit or to formalize it, contemporary space is perhaps still not entirely desanctified (apparently unlike time, it would seem, which was detached from the sacred in the nineteenth century). To be sure a certain theoretical desanctification of space (the one signaled by Galileo's work) has occurred, but we may still not have reached the point of a practical desanctification of space. And perhaps our life is still governed by a certain number of oppositions that remain inviolable, that our institutions and practices have not yet dared to break down. These are oppositions that we regard as simple givens: for example between private space and public space, between family space and social space, between cultural space and useful space, between the space of leisure and that of work. All these are still nurtured by the hidden presence of the sacred. Bachelard's monumental work and the descriptions of phenomenologists have taught us that we do not live in a homogeneous and empty space, but on the contrary in a space thoroughly imbued with quantities and perhaps thoroughly fantasmatic as well. The space of our primary perception, the space of our dreams and that of our passions hold within themselves qualities that seem intrinsic: there is a light, ethereal, transparent space, or again a dark, rough, encumbered space; a space from above, of summits, or on the contrary a space from below of mud; or again a space that can be flowing like sparkling water, or space that is fixed, congealed, like stone or crystal. Yet these analyses, while fundamental for reflection in our time, primarily concern internal space. I should like to speak now of external space.
The United States will continue to increase space exploration to increase their power over weaker nations Williams 2010 (AJ, "Beyond the Sovereign Realm: The Geopolitics and Power Relations in and of Outer Space -Geopolitics, 2010" tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.umich/doi/abs/10.1080/14650041003718358)
In her first substantive chapter, Johnson-Freese offers a historical assess- ment of the development of US space policy from the beginning of the space age until the G. W. Bush administration. She offers both description and analysis of the limits of US space policy, and considers why the US has had problems separating what is technically achievable from what is techni- cally desirable. She points out that the gulf between the two has remained problematic and illustrates the persistent presence of a blurring between fact and fiction that successive US administrations have failed to understand and move beyond focus upon the gulf between the limitations of reality and the desires of the US is developed in more detail in Chapter Three, in which the author focuses specifically upon the facts and fictions of space weapons technology. Here she provides a critical indictment of the way US adminis- trations have failed to acknowledge the gap between desired and achievable technologies and provides a detailed and fascinating account of the extent to which US national security and economic prosperity was increasingly based on plans for space technologies that were far beyond the manufacturing capabilities of the US defence industry. She argues that ever more fantastical claims resulted in, and were the result of, the increasing politicisation of the US space race and its associated industries, culminating in a gap between fact and fiction that politicians were simply not willing to acknowledge, thus increasing the space arms race beyond the US’s actual means to pro- vide. One example she provides is of the missile defence system which, she argues, is “either the nation’s most important moral imperative or it is an unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist, depending on your perspective” (p. 73). Here we can see Johnson-Freese’s perspective, seeking to critique a space arms race that she believes is out of hand and driven by rhetoric rather than actual materiel.
Space exploration only justifies war fighting plans Williams 2010 (AJ, "Beyond the Sovereign Realm: The Geopolitics and Power Relations in and of Outer Space -Geopolitics, 2010" tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.umich/doi/abs/10.1080/14650041003718358) This concern with multilateralism and a need to engage with the wider world is also drawn out in the book’s penultimate chapter which considers the possibilities and problems of outer space–related diplomacy and arms control. Here, the author considers the effects of the US’s opposition to new legal regimes or restrictions on the industrialisation or militarisation of space. She argues that this runs counter to the US’s plans to include outer space squarely within its war- fighting plans. Again Johnson-Freese returns to her key mantra, that of the gap between the facts and the fictions present within the politicisation and militarisation of space, claiming that many of the Bush
administration’s reasons for opposing multilateralism in space diplomacy originate in impossible fictions. In this chapter, several key international forums and treaties are analysed, noting the US’s resistance to each in turn. The author does end this chapter with a note of optimism, noting that Barack Obama was the only presidential candidate to support an international space code of conduct.
accumulated private property. 44 In this way, the US becomes even more than it is now the sovereign state for global capitalism, the global capitalist state.
L- Cap.....................................................................................................................................................................
Economic goals through space promote the United States as a Hegemon Williams 2010 (AJ, "Beyond the Sovereign Realm: The Geopolitics and Power Relations in and of Outer Space -Geopolitics, 2010" tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.umich/doi/abs/10.1080/14650041003718358) Dickens and Ormrod’s second chapter is also concerned with advancing a conceptual position, but here the focus is upon the addition of an “outer spatial fix for capitalism” based on the work of David Harvey. Developing their dialectical approach to humans’ relationship with outer space, this chapter theorises the economic value of outer space. It uses Harvey’s work on the circuits of capital to illustrate how space has become increasingly commodified in recent years and how this relates to the establishment of an outer space hegemon. This chapter enables the authors to posit a concep- tual framework that states that “the humanisation of outer space is a product of economic and social crisis” and “that such humanisation is a means of reasserting hegemonic authority” (p. 77). The remainder of the book sets out to prove these contentions.
L- Econ...................................................................................................................................................................
GPS systems mark a pervasive intrusion into every aspect of social life—the individual relinquishes to the panoptic authority the ability to track and punish pets, pedophiles, and entire populations at the whim of the military MacDonald 07 (October, Fraser MacDonald, PhD and Master’s from Oxford, Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh, “Anti-Astropolitik - outer space and the orbit of geography”, in Progress in Human Geography, vol 31, issue 5, proquest, IWren) If the geopolitics of surveillance is particularly evident at the level of the state, it applies also to the organization of the daily activities of its citizens (Molz, 2006). GPS technology is perhaps the most evident incursion of space- enabled military surveillance systems into everyday lif e , becoming an indispensable means of monitoring the location of people and things. For instance, the manufacturer Pro Tech, riding the wave of public concern about paedophilia in Britain, has developed systems currently being trialled by the UK Home Offi ce to track the movements of registered sex offenders (see also Monmonier, 2002: 134). Somewhat predictably, given the apparent crisis in the spatialities of childhood (Jones et al., 2003), children are to be the next subjects of satellite surveillance. In December 2005, the company mTrack launched i-Kids, a mobile phone/GPS unit that allows parents to track their offspring by PC or on a WAP enabled mobile phone. Those with pets rather than children might consider the $460 RoamEO GPS system that attaches to your dog’s collar, should walkies ever get out of hand. It will surprise no one that the same technology gets used for less savoury purposes: a Los Angeles stalker was jailed for 16 months for attaching a GPS device to his ex-girlfriend’s car (Teather, 2004). What is more startling, perhaps, is that one does not need to be a GPSuser to be subject to the surveillant possibilities of this technology. Anyone who leaves their mobile phone unattended for five minutes can be tracked, not just by the security services, but by any individual who has momentary access to enable the phone as a tracking device. For the purposes of a newspaper story, the Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre ‘stalked’ his girlfriend by registering her phone on one of many websites for the commercial tracking of employees and stock (Goldacre, 2006). The exercise revealed how easily everyday technologies like the mobile phone can be reconfigured for very different purposes. Even this modest labour in tracking a mobile phone will become a thing of the past. Phones will be more specifically configured as a tracking device: Nokia is due to release a GPS phone in 2007, while the Finnish company Benefon has already launched its Twig Discovery, a phone that has a ‘finder’ capability that locates and tracks other contacts in your address book. Should the user come within range of another contact, the phone will send a message asking whether you are willing to reveal your location to this contact. If both parties are agreeable, the phones will guide their users to each other. In this way, the gadgetry of space- enabled espionage is being woven into interpersonal as well as interstate and citizen–state relations. If the movements of a car can be tracked by a jealous boyf riend, they can also be tracked by the state for the purposes of taxation : this is surely the future of road tolls in the UK. A British insurance company is already using satellite technology to cut the premiums for young drivers if they stay off the roads between 11pm and 6am, when most accidents occur. Information about the time, duration and route of every single journey made by the driver is recorded and sent back to the company (Bachelor, 2006). The success of geotechnologies will lie in these ordinary reconfi gurations of life such as tracking parcels, locating stolen cars, transport guidance or assisting the navigation of the visually impaired. Some might argue, however, that their impact will be more subtle still. For instance, Nigel Thrift locates the power of new forms of positioning in precognitive sociality and ‘prereflexive practice’, that is to say in ‘various kinds of culturally inculcated corporeal automatisms’ (Thrift, 2004b: 175). In other words, these sociotechnical changes may become so incorporated into our unconscious that we simply cease to think about our position. Getting lost may become diffi cult (Thrift, 2004b: 188). Perhaps we are not at that stage yet. But one can easily envisage GPS technologies enhancing existing inequalities in the very near future, such as the device that will warn the cautious urban walker that they are entering a ‘bad neighbourhood’. In keeping with the logic of the panopticon, this is less ‘Big Brother’ than an army of little brothers: the social life of the new space age is already beginning to look quite different. And it is to this incipient militarization of everyday life that the emerging literature on ‘military geographies’ (Woodward, 2004; 2005) must surely turn its attention.
L-Nuclear war.........................................................................................................................................................
The threat of nuclear annihilation is a tool the state uses to justify emergency powers and control over the right to life Bussolini 2008 - Associate Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, College of Staten Island (Jeffrey “Nuclear State of Exception: Reading and Extension of Foucault's Concepts of Biopower and Biopolitics in Agamben and the Nuclear Age” Abstracts: Foucault Circle 2008) Near the beginning of Stato de eccezione , Giorgio Agamben includes a very telling quotation from Rossiter: “Nell’era atomica in cui il mondo sta ora entrando, è probabile che l’uso dei poteri di emergenza costituzionale divenga la regola e non l’eccezione. (In the atomic era into which the world is now entering, it is likely that the use of constitutional emergency powers will become the rule rather than the exception).” Studying the atomic age along these lines, as well as those of the earlier considerations on biopolitics in Agamben’s Homo Sacer and Michel Foucault’s lecture courses at the College de France from 1976-1979 (including the crucial concepts of permanent war and the importance of conquest and colonization in contemporary state structures), bears out Rossiter’s quotation—the advent of nuclear technology has indeed coincided with an augmentation of biopolitics and continued hostility both between and within states**.** By any reckoning nuclear weapons are major artifacts of geopolitics and biopolitics. They are inherently geopolitical tools that emerged from a history of intense inter-state conflict, and their scope and effects make any use a geopolitical event (despite repeated attempts to fashion smaller ‘battlefield’ or ‘tactical’ nukes and come up with scenarios for their employment). The nuclear age is characterized by distrust and hostility between states as well as suspicion of a state’s own citizens and populations (as foreign agents, active threats, or as insufficiently disciplined to handle the secrets and necessary actions of security). Lending credence to the notion that the atomic age is closely linked to a state of exception as nationalist norm, all countries that have developed nuclear arms have substantial secret institutions devoted to developing them and devising plans for their possible use. Nuclear secrets are among the most closely guarded of national security matters. In the United States, all information about nuclear arms is ‘born classified’ and automatically subject to strict controls, the only such category in U. classification. The 1947 Smyth Report on the Manhattan Project and U. nuclear science says that the secrets of the weapons “must remain secret now and for all time.” Clearly these are regarded as central pillars of geopolitics. The very real threat of Armageddon from these weapons easily gives way to thinking of expediency and triage which instrumentalizes certain populations The fate of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the continuing collection of data about them by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, has been described in Robert Jay Lifton’s Death in Life. Thousands of soldiers and scientists from different nations have been exposed in tests and research. Indigenous people from the American southwest to the Pacific Islands, Kazakhstan, and Algeria have been forcefully relocated to make room for atomic tests, exposed to radiation, or both. Groups such as prisoners and mental patients have been subjected to radiation experiments against their will or knowledge, supposedly for the purpose of building up crucial knowledge about nuclear effects, as documented in Eileen Welsome’s Plutonium Files and Department of Energy reports on Human Radiation Experiments. These weapons, then, are intimately tied to power over life and death and the management of subject populations. As such, it seems that the exigency related to nuclear thinking justifies (or is the expression of) significant sovereign power over bare life. In the histories mentioned here, survival and protection of the population at large was seen to validate causing death or illness among smaller subsets of that population**.** One can note that, given their scale, nuclear weapons force consideration of population-level dynamics, as whole populations are placed at risk. In this respect, these arms follow on and accentuate the massive strategic bombing of World War II in which enemy populations were targeted as vital biopolitical resources.
L- “Space Pearl Harbor” / Eastern Threat.............................................................................................................
The notion of a “Space Pearl Harbor” or looming arms race is founded in the drive to extend contemporary power relations to Outer Space—interrogating this rhetoric is key
MacDonald 07 (October, Fraser MacDonald, PhD and Master’s from Oxford, Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh, “Anti-Astropolitik - outer space and the orbit of geography”, in Progress in Human Geography, vol 31, issue 5, proquest, IWren) There is also, I think, scope for a wider agenda on the translation of particular Earthly historical geographies into space, just as there was a translation of early occidental geographies onto imperial spaces. When Donald Rumsfeld talks of a ‘Space Pearl Harbor’, there is plainly a particular set of historicogeographical imaginaries at work that give precedence, in this case, to American experience. Rumsfeld has not been slow to invoke Pearl Harbor, most famously in the aftermath of 11 September 2001; notably, in all these examples – Hawaii in 1941; New York in 2001; and the contemporary space race – there lurks the suggestion of a threat from the East. 9 All of this is a reminder that the colonization of space, rather than being a decisive and transcendent break from the pas t, is merely an extension of long-standing regimes of power. As Peter Redfield succinctly observed, to move into space is ‘a form of return’: it represents ‘a passage forward through the very pasts we might think we are leaving behind’ (Redfield, 2002: 814). This line of argument supports the idea that space is part and parcel of the Earth’s geography (Co s g r o v e , 2 0 0 4 : 2 2 2 ). We can conceive of the human geography of space as being, in the words of Doreen Massey, ‘the sum of relations, connections, embodiments and practices’ (Massey, 2005: 8). She goes on to say that ‘these things are utterly everyday and grounded, at the same time as they may, when linked together, go around the world’. To this we might add that they go around and beyond the world. The ‘space’ of space is both terrestrial and extraterrestrial: it is the relation of the Earth to its firmament. Li s a Pa r k s and Ur sul a Biemann have described our relationship with orbits as being ‘about uplinking and downlinking, [the] translation [of] signals, making exchanges with others and positioning the self ’ (Parks and Biemann, 2003). It is precisely this relational conception of space that might helpfully animate a revised geographical understanding of the Outer Earth.
Foucault K UM 7wk - Explanation
Course: Successful Business Speaking (MGMT - 52C)
University: Merced College
- Discover more from:
