MGW 11 - Framework

Whitman College 1
Tournament 2009 File Title

1NC Framework Shell
A. Interpretation: The affirmatie mu!t pre!ent an" "efen" the h#potheti$al
implementation of %plan& '# the (nite" State! fe"eral goernment.
An") *+e!ole", proe! the framework for the re!olution i! to ena$t a poli$#.
Wor"! an" -hra!e! ./ -ermanent 0"ition
1efinition of the wor" *re!ole), given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as it was
resolved by the legislature; It i! of !imilar for$e to the wor" *ena$t), which is defined by Bouvier as meaning *to
e!ta'li!h '# law,.
An") The (SF2 i! the goernment in Wa!hington 1.C.
0n$arta 3nline 0n$#$lope"ia 2k http:44en$arta.m!n.$om
*The fe"eral goernment of the (nite" State! i! $entere" in Wa!hington 1C,
5. 6iolation: -lan "oe! not "efen" the fiat an" implementation of plan through the (SF2
C. Thi! interpretation i! 'e!t 7
A. If we win thi! argument) the affirmatie i! not topi$al 'e$au!e the# "o not "efen"
the re!olution) that8! a oting i!!ue to pre!ere $ompetitie e9uit# an" :uri!"i$tional
integrit#
5. Fairne!! ; if the affirmatie "oe! not "efen" the re!olution) there are an infinite
num'er of non7fal!ifia'le) unpre"i$ta'le) totali<ing) an" per!onal $laim! the# $an make ; it
i! impo!!i'le to 'e negatie
C. Topi$alit# 'efore a"o$a$# 7 #ou $an ote negatie to en"or!e their pro:e$t ;
there i! no rea!on wh# oting affirmatie i! important) an" #our ote !ignifie! that #ou "o
not 'eliee that the# are topi$al) not that #ou "on8t 'eliee in their pro:e$t
An") Thi! i! a prior 9ue!tion that mu!t 'e re!ole" fir!t ; it i! a pre7$on"ition for "e'ate to
o$$ur
Shiel#) 2k (Assistant rof olitical !cience at "exas A#$% &uth 'essl% artisan olitics and olitical "heory% p( )*)+,-./!
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must re0ect and limit+some ideas
and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to
the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they mu!t re$ogni<e the role of agreement in politi$al
$onte!t, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one(
The mi!take i! in thin1ing that agreement mark! the en" of $onte!t7that consensus kill! "e'ate ( But this is true
only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. 2n most cases% however% our agreement!
are highl# imperfe$t. We agree on !ome matter! 'ut not on other!, on generalities but not on specifics% on
principles but not on their applications, and so on. nd thi! kind of limited agreement i! the !tarting $on"ition of
contest and "e'ate. s !ohn "ourtney #urray writes$ We hol" $ertain truth!= therefore we $an argue a'out
them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when
agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true( There $an 'e no argument e>$ept on the premi!e% and
within a context% of agreement( %#urray &'(), &)* 2n other words% we $annot argue a'out !omething if we are not
$ommuni$ating: if we $annot agree on the topi$ an" term! of argument or if we hae utterl# "ifferent
i"ea! a'out what $ount! a! ei"en$e or good argument( At the very least% we mu!t agree a'out what it i! that i!
'eing "e'ate" 'efore we $an "e'ate it. /or instance% one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who
thin1s euthanasia is a musical group( +ne cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one,s target audience simply thinks everyone is
resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor $an one "emon!trate re!i!tan$e to a poli$# if no one
know! that it i! a poli$#. In other wor"!) $onte!t i! meaningle!! if there i! a la$k of agreement or
communication a'out what i! 'eing $onte!te"( &esisters% demonstrators, and "e'ater! mu!t hae some !hare"
i"ea! a'out the !u':e$t and3or the terms of their "i!agreement!( The participants and the target of a sit-in must share
an understanding of the complaint at hand. nd a demonstrator4s audience must 1now what is being resisted( In short% the
Whitman College 2
contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other
words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
An") ?imit! are ke# ; their interpretation woul" allow @limitle!!@ $onte>t! for a"o$a$#
that onl# tangentiall# relate to the topi$. The 'rea"th of politi$al theor# magnifie! the
importan$e of limit! on "i!$our!e
?ut< 2k (5onald !( rofessor of olisci at 6ouston% olitical "heory and artisan olitics p( 78+9:-./!
Aristotle notes in the olitics that politi$al theor# simultaneously pro$ee"! at three levels;"i!$our!e a'out the i"eal%
about the best possible in the real world% an" about e>i!ting politi$al !#!tem!(9 ut another way% $omprehen!ie politi$al
theor# mu!t a!k !eeral "iffer ent kin"! of 9ue!tion! that are lin1ed% yet distinguishable( 2n order to understand the interloc1ing set of
<uestions that political theory can as1% imagine a $ontinuum stretching from left to right( At the en"% to the right% i! an i"eal
form of government% a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination( At the other en" i! the perfect "#!topia% the
most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce( Stret$hing 'etween the!e two e>treme! i! an infi nite
!et of po!!i'ilitie!% merging into one another% that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end
points( /or example% a political system defined primarily by e9ualit# woul" hae a perfectly inegalitarian !#!tem described
at the other en"% and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied e<uality(
An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes( =f course% i!ion! of the
i"eal often are inevitably more $omple> than these single+value examples indicate% but it is also true that in or"er to imagine
an i"eal !tate of affair! a kin" of !impli fi$ation i! almost always re9uire" since normal states of affairs invariably
present themselves to human consciousness as complicated% opa<ue% and to a significant extent indeterminate( A non+ironic reading of
lato4s &epublic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characteri>es political philosophy( "his is not the
case( Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. 3ne :o' of politi$al philo!oph# i! to a!k the
9ue!tion AI! thi! i"eal worth pur!uingBA 5efore the 9ue!tion $an 'e pur!ue" ) howeer) the i"eal !tate of
affair! mu!t 'e $larifie"% e!pe$iall# with re!pe$t to conceptual precision and the logi$al relation!hip 'etween
the propo!i tion! that "e!$ri'e the i"eal( Thi! pre+theoretical anal#!i! rai!e! the vision of the i"eal from the
mun"ane to a leel where true philosophical analysis% and the careful $ompari!on with e>i!ting !#!tem! $an
pro$ee" fruitfull#( "he process of pre+theoretical analysis% probably because it wor1s on clarifying ideas that most capture the
human imagination% too often loo1s to some li1e the entire enterprise of political philosophy(? 6owever% the value of .ean+.ac<ues
&ousseau4s concept of the @eneral Will% for example% lies not in its formal logical implications% nor in its compelling hold on the
imagination% but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of actual political systems(
An") A'an"oning politi$! $e"e! it to the elite! ; $au!e! war) !laer#) an" authoritariani!m
5ogg! 2k (AA&=' B=@@!% / ='2"2AA' !A2BCAB D !=E"6B&C AA'2/=&C2A% ::% "6B BC5 =/ ='2"2A!% ,?:+)-
But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism( While 3ake!hott "e'unk! politi$al me$hani!m! and rational planning%
a! either useless or "angerou!) the actually e>i!ting power !tru$ture+replete with its own centrali>ed state apparatus%
institutional hierarchies% conscious designs% and indeed% rational plans+remain! full# inta$t) in!ulate" from the minimali!t
$riti9ue. 2n other words% ideologies and plans are perfectly acceptable for elites who preside over established governing systems% but not
for ordinary citi>ens or groups anxious to challenge the status <uo( !uch one+sided minimali!m gie! $arte 'lan$he to elite!
who naturall# "e!ire as much space to maneuver as possible( "he flight from abstract principles rules out ethical attac1s on
in0ustices that may pervade the status <uo (!laer# or imperiali!t war!% for example- in!ofar a! tho!e in:u!ti$e! might 'e
seen as too deeply em'e""e" in the !o$ial and institutional matri> of the time to 'e the target of oppo!itional politi$al
a$tion( If politi$! i! re"u$e" to nothing other than a pro$e!! of eer#"a# mu""ling7through) then people
are $on"emne" to a$$ept the har!h realitie! of an e>ploitatie an" authoritarian !#!tem) with no choice but to
yield to the dictates of conventional wisdom( S#!temati$ attempt! to ameliorate oppre!!ie $on"ition! woul"% in
=a1eshottFs view% turn into a politi$al nightmare( A belief that totalitarianism might results from extreme attempts to put society in
order is one thing; to argue that all politici>ed efforts to change the world are necessary doomed either to impotence or totalitarianism
re<uires a completely different (and indefensible- set of premises( =a1eshottFs minimalism poses yet another% but still related% range of
problemsG the !hrinkage of politi$! har"l# !ugge!t! that $orporate $oloni<ation) !o$ial hierar$hie!) or
$entrali<e" !tate an" militar# in!titution! will magi$all# "i!appear from peopleFs lives( /ar from itG the pu'li$
!pa$e a$ate" '# or"inar# $iti<en!% well informed and ready to fight for their interests% !impl# gie! elite! more room to
$on!oli"ate their own power and privilege( Beyond that% the fragmentation and chaos of a Co''e!ian $iil !o$iet#%
not too far removed from the excessive individualism% social 5arwinism and urban violence of the American landscape $oul" open the
"oor to a mo"ern ?eiathan intent on restoring order and unity in the face of social disintegration( Hiewed in this light% the
contemporary "rift towar"! antipoliti$! might !et the !tage for a rea!!ertion of politi$! in more authoritarian
an" rea$tionar# gui!e+or it could simply end up reinforcing the dominant state+corporate system( 2n either case% the state would
probably become what 6obbes anticipatedG the embodiment of those universal% collective interests that had vanished from civil society()I
And either outcome would run counter to the facile antirationalism of =a1eshottFs Bur1ean muddling+through theories(
Whitman College D
2AC Framework Shell
3ur interpretation i! that the negatie get! a $ompetitie poli$# option or the !tatu! 9uo
+ea!on! to -refer
1E -lan fo$u! ; our framework en!ure! a !ta'le lo$u! for link! an" the $ompari!on of alternatie!.
Alternatie framework! whi$h "o not en!ure that the plan i! the !tarting7point of the "e'ate make
$onfu!ion an" :u"ge interention ineita'le.
2E 2roun" ; there are an infinite num'er of unpre"i$ta'le F framework!. For$ing the aff to "e'ate
in the neg framework moot! the 1AC. Their framework "e!tro#! aff groun" 'e$au!e we $an neer
pre"i$t what we8ll hae to $ompare our plan to. 0en if there8! !ome groun" for u! to re!pon" to
their arg) it8! not goo" or pre"i$ta'le.
DE Topi$7!pe$ifi$ e"u$ation ; onl# "e'ate! a'out the plan tran!late into e"u$ation a'out the topi$.
There woul" 'e no rea!on to !wit$h topi$! eer# #ear if not for plan7fo$u! "e'ate. F framework!
en$ourage ultra7generi$! like the G!tate 'a"8 F that are !tale an" une"u$ational.
Failure to engage the politi$al pro$e!! turn! the affirmatie into !pe$tator! who are
powerle!! to pro"u$e real $hange.
+ort# 9H (prof of philosophy at !tanford% &ichard% )88*% achieving our country% g( J+8-./!
!uch people fin" pri"e in Ameri$an $iti<en!hip impo!!i 'le) an" vigorous parti$ipation in ele$toral politi$! pointle!!.
The# a!!o$iate Ameri$an patrioti!m with an endorsement of atro$itie!G the importation of African slaves% the slaughter of Cative
Americans% the rape of ancient forests% and the Hietnam War( $any of them thin1 of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinistsG for the sort of
American who re0oices that America can still orchestrate something li1e the @ulf War% can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses(
When #oung intelle$tual! watch .ohn Wayne war movies after rea"ing Cei"egger) Fou$ault% !tephenson% or !il1o% the# often
'e$ome $onin$e" that the# lie in a iolent) inhuman% corrupt $ountr#( The# begin to think of them!ele! a! a saving remnant+
as the happ# few who hae the in!ight to !ee through nationali!t rhetori$ to the gha!tl# realit# of $ontemporar#
Ameri$a. 5ut thi! in!ight "oe! not moe them to formulate a legislative program% to 0oin a politi$al moement% or to share in a
national hope( "he contrast between national hope and national self+moc1ery and self+disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels li1e !now Arash
and Almanac of the 5ead with socialist novels of the first half of the century+boo1s li1e "he .ungle% An American "ragedy% and "he @rapes of Wrath( "he
latter were written in the belief that the tone of the @ettysburg Address was absolutely right% but that our country would have to transform itself in order to
fulfill 'incoln4s hopes( Tran!for mation woul" 'e nee"e" because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of
America4s first century obsolete( "he authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the
first cooperative commonwealth% the first classless society( "his America would be one in which income and wealth are e<uitably distributed% and in which
the government ensures e<uality of opportunity as well as individual liberty( "his new% <uasi+communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the rogressive
$ovement and the Cew 5eal( 2t set the tone for the American 'eft during the first six decades of the twentieth century( Walt Whitman and .ohn 5ewey% as
we shall see% did a great deal to shape this rhetoric( The "ifferen$e 'etween earl# twentieth7$entur# lefti!t in telle$tual! an" the
ma0ority of their $ontemporar# $ounter part! i! the "ifferen$e 'etween agent! an" !pe$tator!. In the earl# "e$a"e! of
thi! $entur#) when an intelle$tual !teppe" 'a$k from hi! or her $ountr#I! hi!tor# an" looke" at it through !kepti$al
e#e!% the $han$e! were that he or !he wa! a'out to propo!e a new politi$al initiatie( 6enry Adams was% of course% the great
exception+the great abstainer from Kpolitics( But William .ames thought that Adams4 diagnosis of the /irst @ilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral
and political decline was merely perverse( .ames4s pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectators hip which Adams
affected( /or .ames% disgust with American hypocrisy and self+deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud
of itself in the future( The kin" of proto7 Cei"eggerian $ultural pe!!imi!m whi$h A"am! $ultiate" !eeme"% to .ames%
"e$a"ent and cowardly( L5emocracy%L .ames wrote% Lis a 1ind of religion% and we are bound not to admit its failure( /aiths and utopias are the noblest
exercise of human reason% and no one with a spar1 of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croa1er4s picture( L,
Shiel# Car"!
Thi! i! a "7rule ; impo!!i'le to 'e negatie without prior agreement on the term! of the
re!olution
Shiel# 2k (&uth 'essl% Assoc rof olisci at "exas A#$% Political Theory and Partisan Politics p( )*,+7-
"he point may seem trite% as surely the ambiguists would agree that 'a!i$ term! mu!t 'e !hare" 'efore the# $an 'e
re!i!te" and problemati>ed( 2n fact% they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approachG the paradoxical or LparasiticL need of the subversive for an order to
subvert( But admitting the paradox is not helpful if% as usually happens here% its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy
fixture of human life( /or what the para"o> !houl" tell u! is that !ome kin"! of harmonie! or or"er! are) in fa$t) goo"
Whitman College /
for re!i!tan$e= and some ought to be fully supported( As such% it !houl" $oun!el again!t the kin" of $arele!!
rhetori$ that lump! all or"er! or harmonie! together a! ar'itrar# an" inhumane. Alearly !ome 'a!i$
a$$or" a'out the term! of $onte!t i! a ne$e!!ar# groun" for all further $onte!t. 2t may be that if the ambiguists wish to
remain full+fledged ambiguists% they cannot admit to these implications% for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary% is to
open the door to some sort of rationalism( erhaps they might 0ust continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic% but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real
business of subversion(Met difficulties remain( /or and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements( /or "e'ate an" $onte!t are form! of
"ialogueG that is% they are activities premi!e" on the 'uil"ing of progre!!ie agreement!. 2magine% for instance% that two people
are having an argument about the issue of gun control( As noted earlier% in any argument% certain initial agreements will be needed 0ust to begin the discussion( At the very least% the
two discussants must agree on basic termsG for example% they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing about it; what facts are being
contested% and so on( "hey must also agree;and they do so simply by entering into debate;that they will not use violence or threats in ma1ing their cases and that they are willing to
listen to% and to be persuaded by% good arguments( !uch agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation(
3ur argument "oe!n8t pre$lu"e reolutionar# $on$eption! of the re!olution ;groun"ing
ra"i$al a$tii!m in the rule! of politi$al $onte!t i! the onl# trul# !u'er!ie a$t
Shiel# 2k (&uth 'essl Assoc rof olisci at "exas A#$% olitical "heory and artisan olitics p( )*:-
4"hus far% 2 have argued that if the am'igui!t! mean to 'e !u'er!ie about anything% the# nee" to be conservative about
some things( "hey need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and democracyG willing to say LnoL to certain forms of
contest; willing to !et up certain $lear limitation! about acceptable behavior( "o this% finally% 2 would add that if the ambiguists
mean to stretch the boundaries of behavior;if the# want to 'e reolutionar# and disruptive in their s1epticism and
iconoclasm;they need first to be firm believers in !omething( Which is to say% again% the# nee" to !et $lear limit! a'out
what the# will an" will not !upport% what they do and do not believe to be best( As @( N( Ahesterton observed% the true
revolutionary has always willed something Ldefinite and limited(L /or example% L"he .acobin could tell you not only the system he
would rebel against% but (what was more important- the system he would not rebel against(((L 6e Ldesired the freedoms of democracy(L
6e Lwished to have votes and not to have titles ( ( (L But A'e$au!e the new re'el i! a !kepti$AJ'e$au!e he $annot
'ring him!elf to will !omething "efinite an" limite"J Ahe $annot 'e a reolutionar#.A /or Lthe fact that he
wants to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anythingL (Ahesterton )8?8%9)-( "hus% the most radical
s1epticism ends in the most radical conservatism( 2n other words% a refu!al to :u"ge among i"ea! and activities i!% in the end% an
en"or!ement of the !tatu! 9uo( "o embrace everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action% for to embrace a particular plan of action is to
re0ect all others% at least for that moment( $oreover% as observed in our discussion of openness% to embrace everything is to embrace self+contradictionG to hold to both one4s purposes
and to that which defeats one4s purposes;to tolerance and intolerance% open+mindedness and close+mindedness% democracy and tyranny( 2n the same manner% then% the
ambiguists4 refu!al! to will !omething Ldefinite and limite"A un"ermine! their reolutionar# impul!e!. In their
refu!al to !a# what the# will not celebrate and what they will not re'el again!t) the# "en# themselves (and eer#one
else in their political world- a parti$ular plan or groun" to work from( By refusing to deny incivility% they deny themselves a civil public
space from which to spea1( "hey cannot say LnoL to the terrorist who would silence dissent( "hey cannot turn their bac1s on the bullying of the white supremacist( And% as such% in
refusing to bar the tactics of the anti+democrat% they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat( 2n short% then% to be a true ambiguist% there mu!t 'e !ome limit to
what is ambiguous( To fully !upport politi$al $onte!t) one mu!t fully !upport some uncontested rule! and reasons( To
generally re:e$t the silencing or e>$lu!ion of other!) one mu!t !ometime! silence or e>$lu"e tho!e who re:e$t
$iilit# an" "emo$ra$#(
Whitman College K
Coer!tone: 1e'ate 3a!i!
1e'ate mu!t 'e i!olate" from the pu'li$ !phere to effe$tiel# tea$h the !kill! that are
$riti$al to !u$$e!! in the pu'li$ !phere
Alan Coer!tone% B&2''2AC" 5BBA"B "6B=&2!"% 199K% LAn 2nward @lanceG A &esponse "o $itchell4s
=utward Activist "urn%L 5&@% E&'G httpG33www(wfu(edu3!tudent+
organi>ations3debate3$isc!ites35&@Articles3Aoverstone)88?Ahina(htm
$itchell4s argument underestimates the nature of academic debate in three ways( Fir!t) "e'ate train! !tu"ent! in the er#
!kill! re9uire" for naigation in the pu'li$ !phere of the information age( 2n the past% political discourse was
controlled by those elements who controlled access to information( While this basic reality will continue in the future% its essential
features will change( Co longer will mere possession of information determine control of political life( 2nformation is widely available(
/or the first time in human history we face the prospect of an entirely new threat( "he ris1 of an information overload is already shifting
control of political discourse to superior information managers( 2t is no longer possible to control political discourse by limiting access to
information( 2nstead% control belongs to those who are capable of identifying and delivering bits of information to a thirsty public(
$itchell calls this the Ldesertification of the public sphere(L
The pu'li$ !en!e! a "eep "e!ire for the a'ilit# to manage the information aroun" them. Let) the# are
un!ure how to pro$e!! an" make !en!e of it all. In thi! enironment) !nake $harmer! an" $harlatan!
a'oun"( "he popularity of the evening news wanes as more and more information becomes available( eople reali>e that these half
hour glimpses at the news do not even come close to covering all available information( "hey desperately want to select information for
themselves( !o they watch ACC until they fall asleep( @avel to gavel coverage of political events assumes top spots on the Cielsen
charts( 5esperate to decide for themselves% the public of the twenty+first century drin1s deeply from the well of information( When they
are finished% they find they are no more able to decide( "hose who ma1e decisions are envied and glorified(
1e'ate tea$he! in"ii"ual "e$i!ion7making for the information age. No other a$a"emi$ a$tiit#
aaila'le to"a# tea$he! people more a'out information gathering) a!!e!!ment) !ele$tion) an" "elier#.
Mo!t importantl#) "e'ate tea$he! in"ii"ual! how to make an" "efen" their own "e$i!ion!( 5ebate is the
only academic activity that moves at the speed of the information age( "ime is re<uired for individuals to achieve escape velocity(
Academic debate holds tremendous value as a space for training(
$itchell4s reflections are necessarily more accurate in his own situation( =ver a decade of debate has well positioned him to participate
actively and directly in the political process( Met the s1ills he has did not develop overnight( -roper training re9uire! time.
While there i! a tremen"ou! ariation in the amount of training re9uire" for effe$tie naigation of the
pu'li$ !phere) the relatie i!olation of a$a"emi$ "e'ate i! one of it! irtue!( 2nstead of turning students of
debate immediately outward% we should be encouraging more to enter the oa!i!. A thir!t# pu'li$) "runk on
the pro"u$t of an#one who $laim! a "e$i!ion) nee"! to "rink from the pool of "e$i!ion7making !kill!.
Tea$hing the!e !kill! i! our irtue.
105AT0 M(ST 50 N3N-3?ITICA? T3 0FF0CTI60?L T0ST I10AS.
Alan Coer!tone% B&2''2AC" 5BBA"B "6B=&2!"% 199K% LAn 2nward @lanceG A &esponse "o $itchell4s
=utward Activist "urn%L 5&@% E&'G httpG33www(wfu(edu3!tudent+
organi>ations3debate3$isc!ites35&@Articles3Aoverstone)88?Ahina(htm
As we enter the twenty+first century% let us ta1e pride in the uni<ue activity in which we engage( 1e'ater!)
more than an# other !egment of Ameri$an !o$iet#) are $apa'le of fun$tioning effe$tiel# in the politi$al
worl". 5ebaters ac<uire superior s1ills in information management and decision+ma1ing( 5e$au!e our
a$tiit# i! non7politi$al) !tu"ent! re$eie the !pa$e the# nee" to te!t i"ea!) opinion!) an" 'elief!. Thi!
te!ting pro$e!! i! put at ri!k '# an outwar" a$tii!t turn. Let) een more "angerou! i! the potential for
new form! of "omination within our a$a"emi$ oa!i!. We must be careful not to replace domination by
media3government elites with domination with our community elite(
$itchell4s call for activism% as well as his examples of thriving participation should raise our awareness of
both our responsibilities and opportunities( 2ndividuals who have learned to ma1e and defend their own
political decisions will continue to move easily into political life( 'et us do nothing to lessen that impact(
?et u! en$ourage greater inolement in "e'ate. Su$h inolement hol"! greater potential for
reinigoration of politi$al "i!$our!e than "ire$t ma!! a$tii!m. ?et u! not !toop to the leel of mo"em
politi$al "i!$our!e% but elevate that discourse to our own level of deliberation
Whitman College .
A2 +ule! 5a"
-re"i$ta'le rule! are goo"J"e'ating within a !et of tra"itional limit! allow! u! to fo$u! on the topi$! an" our
$ommon intere!t!Jmem'er!hip in an# "e'ate organi<ation i! a $hoi$e) !o we !houl" ma>imi<e our "i!$u!!ion
of the topi$) not the rule!
M$13NA?1 199. (Nelly% some comm person% Argumentation and Advocacy% /all-
As long held practices% traditions become entrenched by ritual and re+enactment( 5ebate societies sponsor
tournaments and create guidelines which% almost by definition% become institutionali>ed( "his habituation of forms
of communion is liberating to the extent predictability eliminates uncertainty or unwillingness to participate( 6abits%
as .ames reminds us% are helpful in that they free us from conscious attention to particular matters and allow us to
concentrate on other factors( As members of debate and forensics organi>ations we must ma1e the best of the
liberation which our tradition affords( $embership in a particular organi>ation is an issue of choice( resumably the
program to which one is affiliated represents their interests( @reater 1nowledge of our interests and the interests
represented by diverse forensic communities is a first step to realignment of those solidarities( "he import of our interests
and subse<uent decisions is underscored by Anthony @idden4s when he argued% Cone the less actors have interests by virtue of their membership
of particular groups% communities% classes% etc( "his is why it is so important not to treat wants and interests as e<uivalent conceptsG interests may
imply potential courses of action% in contingent social and material circumstances( ()8J8% p( )*8-
+ule! an" !wit$h !i"e "e'ate are ne$e!!ar#Jthe pro$e!! of "e'ate it!elf preent! them from 'e$oming
authoritarian
STANNA+1 200. ($att% 5epartment of Aommunication and .ournalism% Eniversity of Wyoming% !pring ,::I /aculty !enate !pea1er
!eries !peech% April )*% httpG33theunderview(blogspot(com3,::I3:93deliberation+democracy+and+debate(html-
2t is important to remember that 6abermas is resisting both absolutism and relativism( 6e does not propose a communicative free+for+all( &ules
are important% but it is e<ually important that the rules be co+created by the participants and not serve to preserve already+existing hierarchies(
$ethodology% science% and rationality are all important% but they must belong to the people rather than being imposed as a matter of metaphysical
necessity from above( Corms% and truth itself% must be created from the ground up( 2n a dialogue with .ohn &awls% he writesG
Ender the pragmatic presuppositions of an inclusive and noncoercive rational discourse among free and e<ual participants% everyone is
re<uired to ta1e the perspective of everyone else% and thus pro0ect herself into the understandings of self and world
of all others; from this interloc1ing of perspectives there emerges an ideally extended we+perspective from which all
can test in common whether they wish to ma1e a controversial norm the basis of their shared practice; and this should
include mutual criticism of the appropriateness of the languages in terms of which situations and needs are interpreted( 2n the course of
successfully ta1en abstractions% the core of generali>able interests can then emerge step by step(
+ule! an" !tru$ture are ne$e!!ar# for goo" "e'ate;the# are $riti$al for e"u$ation an" groun" an" thi! al!o
turn! their !olen$# $laim!
SCI60?L 2000 &uth% professor of political science at "exas A#$ Eniversity% olitical "heory and artisan olitics% edG ortis% p( )*)+)*,-
2n the same manner% then% the ambiguists4 refusals to will some thing Ldefinite and limitedL undermines their revolutionary
impulses( 2n their refusal to say what they will not celebrate and what they will not rebel against% they deny themselves (and everyone else in
their political world- a particular plan or ground to wor1 from( By refusing to deny incivility% they deny themselves a civil public space from
which to spea1( "hey cannot say LnoL to the terrorist who would silence dissent( "hey cannot turn their bac1s on the bullying of the white
supremacist( And% as such% in refusing to bar the tactics of the antidemocrat% they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat( 2n short% then% to be
a true ambiguist% there must be some limit to what is ambiguous( "o fully support political contest% one must fully support some
uncontested rules and reasons( "o generally re0ect the silencing or exclusion of others% one must sometimes silence
or exclude those who re0ect civility and democracy( !AM2C@ LMB!L "= B&!EA!2=C "he re<uirements given thus far are
primarily negative( "he ambiguists must say LnoL to+they must re0ect and limit+some ideas and actions( 2n what follows% we will also find that
they must say LyesL to some things( 2n particular% they must say LyesL to the idea of rational persuasion( "his means% first% that they must
recogni>e the role of agreement in political contest% or the basic accord that is necessary to discord( "he mista1e that the ambiguists ma1e here is
a common one( "he mista1e is in thin1ing that agreement mar1s the end of contest++that consensus 1ills debate( But this is
true only if the agreement is perfect++if there is nothing at all left to <uestion or contest( 2n most cases% however% our agreements are
highly imperfect( We agree on some matters but not on others% on generalities but not on specifics% on principles but not
on their applications% and so on( And this 1ind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate( As .ohn
Aourtney $urray writesG We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them( 2t seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence
by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached( 2n a basic sense% the reverse is true( "here can be no argument except on
the premise% and within a context% of agreement( ($urray )8I:% ):- 2n other words% we cannot argue about something if we are not
communicatingG if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about
what counts as evidence or good argument( At the very least% we must agree about what it is that is being debated
before we can debate it( /or instance% one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thin1s
euthanasia is a musical group( =ne cannot successfully stage a sit+in if one4s target audience simply thin1s everyone is resting or if those
doing the sitting have no complaints( Cor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one 1nows that it is a policy( 2n
Whitman College N
other words% contest is meaningless if there is a lac1 of agreement or communication about what is being contested(
&esisters% demonstrators% and debaters must have some shared ideas about the sub0ect and3or the terms of their
disagreements( "he participants and the target of a sit+in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand( And a demonstrator4s audience
must 1now what is being resisted( 2n short% the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go
about intelligibly contesting it( 2n other words% contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony(
A2 +ule! O 6iolent
Conention! of $ommuni$ation are not a matter of iolent e>$lu!ion 'ut rather the
pre$on"ition! for $on!en!u!.
$ary 1iet<% rofessor of olitical !cience at the Eniversity of $innesota% 2000% olitical "heory and artisan
olitics p( ),7+9
6abermas4s distinction between LpureL communicative action and strategic action raises many difficulties%
not the least of which is its adherence to an ideali>ed model of communication that% as 6abermas himself
ac1nowledges% does not fit a great deal of everyday social interaction ($cAarthy )88)%)7,-( $achiavelli4s
famous riposte to those thin1ers who Lhave imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen
or 1nown to exist in realityL ($achiavelli )8?:% ?I- seems pertinent here% for the ideali>ed model that
6abermas imagines and the distinction that supports it appear boldly to deny the $achiavellian insight that
Lhow we live is so far removed from how we ought to live% that he who abandons what is done for what
ought to be done% will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservationL (?I-( 2 will return to this
point as it relates to politics later( /or now% it is important to underscore that 6abermas relies upon the
communicative+strategic distinction to do at least two thingsG first% to show that on the leel of lingui!ti$!)
$ommuni$atie a$tion en:o#! an Aoriginar#A priorit# oer !trategi$ an" all other mo"e! of lingui!ti$
u!age) whi$h are them!ele! Apara!iti$L (&asmussen )88:% 7*- or LderivativeL ($cAarthy )88)% )77- upon
the former(), !econd% on the level of political theory% 6abermas introduces the distinction in order to limit
the exercise of threats and coercion (or strategic action- by enumerating a formal+pragmatic system of
discursive accountability (or communicative action- that is geared toward human agreement and mutuality(
5espite its thoroughly modern accouterments% $ommuni$a tie a$tion aims at something li1e the twentieth+
century discourse+e<uivalent of the chivalric codes of the late $iddle Ages; as a normative system it
arti$ulate! the $onention! of fair an" honora'le engage ment 'etween interlo$utor!( "o be sure%
6abermas4s concept of communicative action is neither as refined nor as situationally embedded as were the
protocols that governed honorable combat across Buropean cultural and territorial boundaries and between
Ahristian 1nights; but it is nonetheless a (cross+cultural- protocol for all that( The entire framework that
Ca'erma! e!ta'li!he! i! an attempt to limit human iolen$e '# ela'orating a $o"e of $ommuni$atie
$on"u$t that i! "e !igne" to hol" power in $he$k '# $hanneling it into per!ua!ion) or the Aunfor$e"A
for$e of the 'etter argument (6abermas )887b% )I:-(O
Whitman College H
A2 5a" -oli$#maker!
-oli$# "e'ate! are $riti$al to e"u$ation a'out goernment a$tion) whether #ou like the !tate
or not ;7 refu!al to "e'ate !pe$ifi$ poli$ie! $e"e! the whole "i!$u!!ion to elite!
Walt 891 (!tephen% rofessor D E Ahicago% 2nternational !tudies Puarterly% 7?-
A second norm is relevance% a belief that een highl# a'!tra$t line! of in9uir# !houl" 'e gui"e" '# the goal of
!oling real7worl" pro'lem!. 5e$au!e the alue of a gien approa$h ma# not 'e apparent at the beginning+
game theory is an obvious example+we $annot in!i!t that a new approa$h 'e imme"iatel# appli$a'le to a specific
research pu>>le( =n the whole% however% the 'elief that !$holar!hip in !e$urit# affair! !houl" 'e linke" to real7
worl" i!!ue! ha! preente" the fiel" from "egenerating into !elf7in"ulgent intelle$tuali<ing. And from the
@olden Age to the present% !e$urit# !tu"ie! ha! probably ha" more real7worl" impa$t% for good or ill% than most areas of
social science( /inally% the renaissance of !e$urit# !tu"ie! ha! 'een gui"e" '# a $ommitment to "emo$rati$
"i!$our!e. &ather than confining discussion of security issues to an elite group of the best and brightest% scholars in the renaissance
have generally welcomed a more fully informed debate( "o paraphrase Alemenceau% i!!ue! of war an" pea$e are too
important to 'e left !olel# to in!i"er! with a vested interest in the outcome( "he growth of !e$urit# !tu"ie! within
universities i! one sign of 'roa"er parti$ipation) along with in$rea!e" aaila'ilit# of information an" more
a$$e!!i'le pu'li$ation! for intere!te" $iti<en!. Although this view is by no means universal% the renaissance of !e$urit#
!tu"ie! ha! 'een !hape" '# the 'elief that a well7informe" "e'ate i! the 'e!t wa# to aoi" the "i!a!ter!
that are likel# when national poli$# i! monopoli<e" '# a few !elf7intere!te" partie!(
0ngagement with !tate poli$# i! $riti$al to influen$e the goernment an" preent war
Walt 891 (!tephen% rofessor D E Ahicago% 2nternational !tudies Puarterly% 7?-
A recurring theme of this essay has been the twin dangers of separating the study of security affairs from the academic world or of
shifting the focus of academic scholarship too far from real+world issues( The "anger of war will 'e with u! for some time to
come% an" !tate! will $ontinue to a$9uire militar# for$e! for a variety of purposes( Enless one believes that ignorance is
preferable to expertise% the alue of independent national security !$holar! !houl" 'e apparent( 2ndeed% history suggests that
$ountrie! that !uppre!! "e'ate on national !e$urit# matter! are more likel# to 'lun"er into "i!a!ter)
'e$au!e mi!gui"e" poli$ie! $annot 'e ealuate" an" !toppe" in time( As in other areas of public policy%
a$a"emi$ e>pert! in security studies $an help in several ways( 2n the short term% a$a"emi$! are well pla$e to ealuate
$urrent program!% because they face less pressure to support official policy( The long+term effe$t! of a$a"emi$
inolement ma# 'e een more !ignifi$ant: a$a"emi$ re!ear$h $an help !tate! learn from pa!t mi!take!
and can provide the theoretical innovations that produce better policy choices in the future( /urthermore% their role in training the new
generation of experts gives academics an additional avenue of influence( Assuming they perform these tas1s responsibly% a$a"emi$!
will hae a positive+albeit gradual+impa$t on how !tate! "eal with the problem of war in the future(
Whitman College 9
+ole7-la#ing 2oo"
a. 1eil8! a"o$ate ; "e'ating 'oth !i"e! for$e! u! to un"er!tan" the argument! that our
opponent! make ; thi! refine! our !trategie! an" improe! a"o$a$# ; Mal$olm P8! pri!on
"e'ate! proe thi!
5ranham 9K (&obert% rofessor &hetoric at Bates Aollege% Argumentation and Advocacy% LQ2 Was @one =n
5ebating4G $alcolm R4s rison 5ebates And ublic Aonfrontations%L Winter% vol( 7)% no( 7% p())J-
A! Mal$olm P !ought new outlet! for hi! heightened politi$al $on!$iou!ne!!) he turne" to the wee1ly formal
"e'ate! sponsored by the inmate team( LM# rea"ing ha" m# min" like !team un"er pre!!ure)A he recounted;
LSome wa#) I ha" to !tart telling the white man a'out him!elf to hi! fa$e. I "e$i"e" to "o thi! '# putting
my name down to "e'ateL ()8I?b% p( )*9-( Mal$olm PI! prison "e'ate e>perien$e allowe" him to 'ring hi! newly
ac<uired historical 1nowledge and $riti$al i"eolog# to bear on a wi"e ariet# of !o$ial i!!ue!( LWhichever side of the
selected sub0ect was assigned to me% 24d trac1 down and study everything 2 could find on it%L wrote $alcolm R( LII" put m#!elf in
m# opponentI! pla$e an" "e$i"e how II" tr# to win if I ha" the other !i"e= an" then II" figure out a wa#
to kno$k "own tho!e point!A ()8I?b% p( )*9-( reparation for each debate included four or five practice sessions(
'. +ole7pla#ing i! uni9uel# empowering 777 thi! imagination i! $riti$al to un"er!tan" how
the goernment rea$he! "e$i!ion!) how to hol" it a$$ounta'le an" "etermine how we !houl"
a$t
+awl! 99 (.ohn% rofessor Bmeritus D 6arvard Eniversity% "he 'aw of eoples% p( ?9+J-
5eveloping the 'aw of eoples within a liberal conception of 0ustice% we work out the i"eal! and principles of the foreign policy of
a reasonably 0ust liberal people( 2 distinguish between the public reason of liberal peoples and the public reason of the !ociety of
eoples( The fir!t i! the pu'li$ rea!on of e<ual citi>ens of domestic society "e'ating the $on!titutional e!!ential! and
matters of basic 0ustice concerning their own goernment; the !e$on" i! the pu'li$ rea!on of free an" e9ual
li'eral people! "e'ating their mutual relation! a! people!( "he 'aw of eoples with its political concepts and
principles% ideals and criteria% is the content of this latter public reason( Although these two public reasons do not have the same content%
the role of public reason among free and e<ual peoples is analogous to its role in a constitutional democratic regime among free and
e<ual citi>ens( olitical li'erali!m propo!e! that% in a constitutional democratic regime% comprehensive "o$trine! of truth
or of right are to 'e repla$e" in pu'li$ rea!on '# an idea of the politically reasonable addressed to citi>ens as $iti<en!(
6ere note the parallelG public reason is invo1ed by members of the !ociety of eoples% and its principles are addressed to peoples as
peoples( "hey are not expressed in terms of comprehensive doctrines of truth or of right% which may hold sway in this or that society% but
in terms that can be shared by different peoples( I(,( 2deal of ublic &eason( 1i!tin$t from the i"ea of pu'li$ rea!on i! the
i"eal of pu'li$ rea!on. In "ome!ti$ !o$iet# thi! i"eal i! reali<e"% or satisfied% wheneer 0udges% legi!lator!% chief
executives% and other government officials% as well as candidates for public office% a$t from and follow the i"ea of pu'li$
rea!on and explain to other citi>ens their reasons for supporting fundamental political <uestions in terms of the political conception of
0ustice that they regard as the most reasonable( 2n this way they fulfill what 2 shall call their duty of civility to one another and to other
citi>ens( 6ence whether 0udges% legislators% and chief executives act from and follow public reason is continually shown in their speech
and conduct( 6ow is the ideal of public reason reali>ed by citi>ens who are not government officialsS In a repre!entatie
goernment) $iti<en! ote for repre!entatie!+chief executives% legislators% and the li1e+not for particular laws (except at a
state or local level where they may vote diTrectly on referenda <uestions% which are not usually fundamental <uesTtions-( "o answer this
<uestion% we say that% i"eall#) $iti<en! are to think of them!ele! a! if the# were legi!lator! an" a!k
them!ele! what !tatute!% supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity% the# woul" thin1 it most
reasonable to ena$t(Jl When firm and widespread% the "i!po!ition of $iti<en! to iew them!ele! a! i"eal legi!lator!%
and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason% form! part of the political and social
'a!i! of li'eral "emo$ra$# and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor( "hus in domestic society citi>ens fulfill their duty of
civility and support the idea of public reason% while doing what they can to hold government officials to it( "his duty% li1e other political
rights and duties% is an intrinsically moral duty( 2 emphasi>e that it is not a legal duty% for in that case it would be incompatible with
freedom of speech(
Whitman College 10
A2 Mit$hell
Mit$hell $hange" hi! min". Fiat7oriente" "e'ate i! 'etter than the a$tii!t mo"el.
@ordon Mit$hell% debate coach at ittsburgh% Cov :8 2002% httpG33www(ndtceda(com3archives3,::,))3:)7I(html
olitically I hae moe" 9uite a 'it !in$e 199H) when I wrote that "e'ate in!titution! !houl" pa# more
attention to argumentatie agen$#% i(e( cultivation of s1ills that facilitate translation of critical thin1ing%
public spea1ing% and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment( Bac1 then I wa!
highl# !kepti$al of the Ala'orator# mo"elA of Apreparator# pe"agog#)A where !tu"ent! were kept) '#
fiat) in the proer'ial pe"agogi$al 'ullpen( Now I re!pe$t mu$h more the alue of a prote$te" !pa$e
where #oung people $an e>periment politi$all# '# taking imaginar# po!ition!% "riing the heuri!ti$
pro$e!! '# arguing again!t their $oni$tion!( 2n fact% the integrit# of thi! !pa$e $oul" 'e $ompromi!e"
'# Aa$tii!t turnA initiatie! "e!igne" to 'ri"ge $onte!t roun" a"o$a$# with politi$al a$tii!m. The!e
"a#! I hae mu$h more $onfi"en$e in the importan$e an" ne$e!!it# of !wit$h7!i"e "e'ating) an" the
heuri!ti$ alue for "e'ater! of arguing again!t their $oni$tion!. I think fa!hioning $ompetitie "e'ate
$onte!t roun"! a! i!olate" an" politi$all# prote$te" !afe !pa$e! for $ommuni$atie e>perimentation
make! !en!e. 6owever% 2 worry that a narrow diet of competitive contest round debating could starve
students of opportunities to experience the rich political valence of their debating activities(
105AT0 SC3(?1 50 IS3?AT0177ATT0M-TS T3 0P-AN1 INT3 TC0 -(5?IC
S-C0+0) CA(S0 0?IT0 C3?3NIQATI3N 3F 105AT0) C+(SCIN2 -3?ITICA?
1ISC3(+S0.
Alan Coer!tone% B&2''2AC" 5BBA"B "6B=&2!"% 199K% LAn 2nward @lanceG A &esponse "o $itchell4s =utward Activist "urn%L
5&@% E&'G httpG33www(wfu(edu3!tudent+organi>ations3debate3$isc!ites35&@Articles3Aoverstone)88?Ahina(htm
!econd% $itchell4s argument underestimates the ris1s associated with an outward turn( In"ii"ual! traine" in the art an"
pra$ti$e of "e'ate are) in"ee") well !uite" to the ta!k of entering the politi$al worl"( At some unspecified
point in one4s training% the same motivation and focus that has consumed $itchell will also consume most of us( At that point% political
action becomes a proper endeavor( Coweer) all of the mem'er! of the a$a"emi$ "e'ate $ommunit# will not
rea$h that point together. A politi$al outwar" turn threaten! to $orrupt the oa!i! in two wa#!. It make!
our oa!i! a target) an" it threaten! to politi$i<e the training pro$e!!. A! long a! "e'ate appear! to 'e
fo$u!e" inwar"l#) politi$al elite! will not feel threatene". Let one of Mit$hellI! primar# $on$ern! i!
re$ognition of our oa!i! in the politi$al worl". In thi! worl" we fa$e well traine" information manager!.
Sen!ing a threat from A"e'ate)A the# will 'egin to infiltrate our !pa$e( &eady made information will
increase and debaters will eat it up( Not #et a'le to trul# "i!$ern the relatie alue! of information) #oung
"e'ater! will eentuall# 'e influen$e" "ramati$all# '# the infiltration of politi$al elite!. +etaining our
pre!ent anon#mit# in politi$al life offer! a 'etter hope for reinigorating politi$al "i!$our!e. A! perhap!
the onl# trul# non7parti!an !pa$e in Ameri$an politi$al !o$iet#) a$a"emi$ "e'ate hol"! the la!t real
po!!i'ilit# for training a$tie politi$al parti$ipant!. Nowhere el!e are people allowe") let alone
en$ourage") to te!t all manner of politi$al i"ea!( "his is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they
believe it( 2n many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community( An example should help illustrate this idea(
'i1e many young debaters% 2 learned a great deal about socialism early on( "his was not crammed down my throat( &ather% 2 learned about the issue in the
free flow of information that is debate( "he intrigue of this% and other outmoded political arguments% was in its relative unfamiliarity( &eading socialist
literature avidly% 2 was ready to ta1e on the world( Met 2 only had one side of the story( 2 was an easy mar1 for the present political powers( Cevertheless% 2
decided to fight Aity 6all( 2 had received a par1ing tic1et which 2 felt was unfairly issued( Enable to convince the par1ing department to see it my way% 2
went straight to the top( 2 wrote the $ayor a letter( 2n this letter% 2 accused the city of exploitation of its citi>ens for the purpose of capital accumulation( 2
presented a strong $arxist criti<ue of par1ing meters in my town( "he mayor4s reply was simple and straightforward( 6e called me a communist( 6e said 2
was being silly and should pay the tic1et( 2 was completely embarrassed by the entire exchange( 2 thought 2 was ready to start the revolution( 2n reality% 2
wasn4t even ready to spea1 to the $ayor( 2 did learn from the experience% but 2 did not learn what @ordon might have hoped( 2 learned to stop reading
useless material and to 1eep my opinions to myself(
5o we really want to force students into that type of situationS 2 wrote the mayor on my own( 5ebaters will experiment with political activism on their own(
"his is all part of the natural impulse for activism which debate inspires( Met% in the a'!en$e of such in"ii"ual motiation) an
outwar" turn threaten! to !hort $ir$uit the learning pro$e!!. 1e'ate !houl" $apitali<e on it! i!olation.
We $an tea$h our !tu"ent! to e>amine all !i"e! of an i!!ue an" rea$h in"ii"ual $on$lu!ion! 'efore we
for$e them into politi$al e>$hange!. To prematurel# turn "e'ater! out threaten! to un"o the po!itie
potential of inolement in "e'ate.
Whitman College 11
Swit$h7Si"e 1e'ate 2oo"
Swit$h7!i"e "e'ate reign! in e>tremi!m an" $hallenge! iolent *(!7Them, "i$hotomie!
Mit$hell 200N (@ordon% Associate rofessor of Aommunication at the Eniversity of ittsburgh% 5ebate as a Weapon of $ass 5estruction%
Aommunication and Aritical3Aultural !tudies% Hol( 9% Co( ,% .une-
Within this context% the !peech Association of America (precursor to todayFs Cational Aommunication Association- invited
thousands of college students to debate the relative merits of an American diplomatic recognition of the eopleFs
&epublic of Ahina in )8?9( Anxiety spread about the ability of students to engage the topic safely; every team would
be as1ed to defend both sides of this resolution% a common tournament procedure 1nown as switch+sidesFF debate ( !ome
argued that the practice would indoctrinate AmericaFs youth% while giving aid and comfort to the enemy( /or even a small segment of American
college students to rise at this time to the defense of this Aommunist @overnment would be sweet music to the ears of $oscow and eiping%FF
wrote debate instructor Aharles &( Noch% as he pulled his own team from competition in protest() @iven the switch+side norm of
academic debate and the highly controversial nature of the resolution% the E! $ilitary Academy % the E! Caval
Academy and% subse<uently% all of the teacher colleges in the state of Cebras1a refused to affirm the resolution (FF, A predominant military
concern was that% a pro+recognition stand by men wearing the countryFs uniforms would lead to misunderstanding on the part of our friends
abroad and to distortion by our enemies(FF7 Narl Wallace% then president of the scholarly organi>ation that now sponsors this 0ournal% was
pressured heavily to change the Ahina topic(9 6is firm and principled resistance is documented in an official statement emphasi>ing that
inherent in the controversyFF over the )8?9 debate resolution is an alarming distrust of the processes essential to a free society(FF? "he fierce
controversy even drew in 0ournalist Bdward &( $urrow% who bac1ed WallaceFs position in an edition of the !ee it Cow television program seen
by millions( !ome complained that discussions of this topic were channeled to bring out criticismFF of $cAarthy
himself(I "he timing of the red+baiting senatorFs political implosion% which followed shortly after the Wallace and
$urrow statements% suggests that the great )8?9 debate about debateFF indeed may have helped rein in
$cAarthyism run amo1( But this outcome seems paradoxical( 6ow can an activity that gives voice to extreme views
moderate extremism S !peech professor .effrey AuerFs )8?9 statement may hold the 1eyG A person% because he supports the recognition of
Aommunist Ahina% isnFt a communist% any more than because he supports the recognition of Aommunist Ahina% he is a Ahinaman(FFJ .ust as
wal1ing a mile in unfamiliar shoes lends perspective% switch+side debating increases appreciation of contrary
opinions as the debater tries onFF an unfamiliar idea rather than relying on simplification% reduction% or re0ection( 2n
fact% debating both sides encourages participants to dismantle absolutist us versus themFF dichotomies( "his may
explain why those invested in the stability of such polar categories find debate so threatening (
Failure to engage the oppo!ite !i"e $reate! an e$ho $ham'er that $ut! off an# po!!i'ilit# for $hange
2IT?IN 200D ("odd% rofessor of .ournalism and !ociology at Aolombia and /ormer resident of !tudents for a 5emocratic !ociety%
'etters to a Moung Activist% ),:+),)-
@reen rectitude is one case of a larger pitfallG self+enclosure( When you belong to a small minority;as 2 did in the sixties;on the one
hand% itFs a comfort to share your life with fellow believersG to read the same articles% get the same references% wince at
the same insults% pass around the same 0o1es( Hery much on the other hand% disbelievers are a drag( Why bother tal1ing to
them when thereFs so much they donFt getS When you live in an echo chamber where your cheers boom and cheerleading
substitutes for thought% you enclose yourself in a sect% though you may call it a movement( "he world of the saved
substitutes for the world as it is% full of the unsaved( !o 2 appeal to youG ersevere% but donFt bury yourself in an
army of the right+minded( Beware the perilous rapture of shrin1ing your world to the tribe of the saved% the
cheerleading good guys who brandish the same slogans% curse the same enemies% thrill to the same saints% whether
their names are Ahe% /idel% 6o% $alcolm% 6uey% Coam% whomever(
Swit$h7!i"e "e'ate i! $riti$al to make real $hangeJargument! will onl# 'e a$$epte" if we engage their
oppo!ite! an" proe them wrong
2IT?IN 200D ("odd% rofessor of .ournalism and !ociology at Aolombia and /ormer resident of !tudents for a 5emocratic !ociety%
'etters to a Moung Activist% )?8+)I:-
Whoever exacted vengeance for that young womanFs audacity was stomping on democratic ideals% failing to understand that <uestioning is
precisely what authority needs( =nly in an autocracy is doubt a breach of decorum( "he ruler is absolute and infallible;end of
discussion( 2n a democracy% however% authority needs to be convincing( 2t cannot be convincing% cannot care for the
public good% unless pressed to defend itself( "his is what .ohn !tuart $ill meant in On Liberty when he wrote that even if one and
only one person dissented% the dissent should be heard% for two reasons( /irst% the dissenter might always be right( !econd%
the authority of the ma0ority opinion;even if close to unanimous;is heightened by having to confront its
contraries( 2n the light of free competition% arguments only improve( !o the expression of rival views is necessary
for practical as well as principled reasons(
Whitman College 12
A2 2reene R Ci$k!
An") Ci$k! an" 2reene are wrongJ!wit$h7!i"e "e'ate i! goo" an" an# alternatie link! wor!e to their
$riti$i!m of "e'ate
2f it is indeed true that debate inevitably produces other+oriented deliberative discourse at the expense of students4 confidence in their first+order
convictions% this would indeed be a trade+off worth critici>ing( 2n all fairness% 6ic1s and @reene do not overclaim their criti<ue% and they ta1e care
to ac1nowledge the important ethical and cognitive virtues of deliberative debating( When represented as anything other than a political+ethical
concern% however% 6ic1s and @reene4s criti<ue has several problemsG /irst% as my colleague .(( 'acy recently pointed out% it seems
a tremendous causal (or even rhetorical- stretch to go from Ldebating both sides of an issue creates civic
responsibility essential to liberal democracyL to Lthis civic responsibility upholds the worst forms of American
exceptionalism(L !econd% 6ic1s and @reene do not ma1e any comparison of the potentially bad power of debate to
any alternative( "heir implied alternative% however% is a form of forensic speech that privileges personal conviction(
"he idea that students should be able to preserve their personal convictions at all costs seems far more immediately
tyrannical% far more immediately damaging to either liberal or participatory democracy% than the rituali>ed
re<uirements that students occasionally ta1e the opposite side of what they believe( "hird% as 2 have suggested and will
continue to suggest% while a debate pro0ect re<uiring participants to understand and often Lspea1 forL opposing points of view may carry a great
deal of liberal baggage% it is at its core a pro0ect more ethically deliberative than institutionally liberal( Where 6ic1s and @reene see
debate producing Lthe liberal citi>en+sub0ect%L 2 see debate at least having the potential to produce Lthe deliberative
human being(L "he fact that some academic debaters are recruited by the A!2! and the A2A does not undermine this
thesis( Absent healthy debate programs% these thin1+tan1s and government agencies would still recruit what they saw
as the best and brightest students( And absent a debate community that rewards anti+institutional political rhetoric as
much as liberal rhetoric% those students would have little+to+no chance of being exposed to truly oppositional ideas(
$oreover% if we allow ourselves to believe that it is Lculturally imperialistL to help other peoples build institutions of
debate and deliberation% we not only ignore living political struggles that occur in every culture% but we fall victim to
a dangerous ethnocentrism in holding that Lthey do not value deliberation li1e we do(L 2f the argument is that our
participation in fostering debate communities abroad greases the wheels of globali>ation% the correct response% in
debate terminology% is that such globali>ation is non+uni<ue% inevitable% and there is only a ris1 that collaborating
across cultures in public debate and deliberation will foster resistance to domination;0ust as debate accomplishes
wherever it goes( 2ndeed% Andy Wallace% in a recent article% suggests that 2slamic fundamentalism is a byproduct of the coloni>ation of the
lifeworld of the $iddle Bast; if this is true% then one solution would be to foster cross+cultural deliberation among people on both sides of the
cultural divide willing to <uestion their own preconceptions of the social good( 6ic1s and @reene might be correct insofar as elites
in various cultures can either forbid or reappropriate deliberation% but for those outside of that institutional power%
democratic discussion would have a positively subversive effect(
Ci$k! an" 2reene are wrongJa$tii!m '# former "e'ater! proe! that !wit$h7!i"e "e'ate i! goo"
Mit$hell 200N (@ordon% Associate rofessor of Aommunication at the Eniversity of ittsburgh% 5ebate as a Weapon of $ass 5estruction% Aommunication
and Aritical3Aultural !tudies% Hol( 9% Co( ,% .une-
!econd% while the pedagogical benefits of switch+side debating for participants are compelling %): some worry that the
techni<ue may perversely and unwittingly serve the ends of an aggressively militaristic foreign policy ( 2n the context of the
)8?9 controversy% &onald Walter @reene and 5arrin 6ic1s suggest that the articulation of the debate community as a >one of dissent against
$cAarthyist tendencies developed into a larger and somewhat uncritical affirmation of switch+side debate as a technologyFF of liberal
participatory democracy( "his technology is part and parcel of the post+$cAarthy ethical citi>en% prepared to discuss issues from multiple viewpoints( "he problem for
@reene and 6ic1s is that this notion of citi>enship becomes tied to a normative conception of American democracy that 0ustifies
imperialism ( "hey write% "he production and management of this field of governance allows liberalism to trade in cultural technologies in the global
cosmopolitan mar1etplace at the same time as it creates a field of intervention to transform and change the world one sub0ect (regime- at a time(FF)) 6ere% @reene and
6ic1s argue that this new conception of liberal governance% which epitomi>es the ethical citi>en as an individual trained in the switch+side techni<ue% serves as a
normative tool for 0udging other polities and 0ustifying forcible regime change( =ne need loo1 only to the Bush administrationFs framing of war as an instrument of
democracy promotion to grasp how the switch+side techni<ue can be appropriated as a 0ustification for violence( 2t is our position% however% that rather
than acting as a cultural technology expanding American exceptionalism% switch+side debating originates from a
civic attitude that serves as a bulwar1 against fundamentalism of all stripes( !everal prominent voices reshaping the
national dialogue on homeland security have come from the academic debate community and draw on its animating
spirit of critical in<uiry ( /or example% @eorgetown Eniversity law professor Ceal Natyal served as lead plaintiff Fs counsel in 6amdan% which
challenged post+83)) enemy combat definitions ( ), "he foundation for NatyalFs winning argument in 6amdan was laid some four years before%
when he collaborated with former intercollegiate debate champion 'aurence "ribe on an influential Male 'aw .ournal addressing a
similar topic()7 "ribe won the Cational 5ebate "ournament in )8I) while competing as an undergraduate debater for 6arvard Eniversity( "hirty years later% Natyal
represented 5artmouth Aollege at the same tournament and finished third( "he imprint of this debate training is evident in "ribe and
NatyalFs contemporary public interventions% which are characteri>ed by meticulous research% sound argumentation%
Whitman College 1D
and a staunch commitment to democratic principles( NatyalFs reflection on his early days of debating at 'oyola 6igh
!chool in AhicagoFs Corth !hore provides a vivid illustration ( 2 came in as a shy freshman with dreams of going to medical school( "hen 'oyolaFs
debate team opened my eyes to a different worldG one of argumentation and policy( FF As Natyal recounts% the most
important preparation for my career came from my experiences as a member of 'oyolaFs debate team (FF)9 "he
success of former debaters li1e Natyal% "ribe% and others in challenging the dominant dialogue on homeland security
points to the efficacy of academic debate as a training ground for future advocates of progressive change( $oreover%
a robust understanding of the switch+side techni<ue and the classical liberalism which underpins it would help prevent
misappropriation of the techni<ue to bolster suspect homeland security policies( /or buried within an inner+city debaterFs
files is a secret threat to absolutismG the refusal to be classified as with us or against us%FF the embracing of
intellectual experimentation in an age of orthodoxy% and reflexivity in the face of fundamentalism ( But by now% the irony of
our story should be apparentUthe more effectively academic debating practice can be focused toward these ends% the greater the proclivity of $cAarthyFs ideological
heirs to brand the activity as a weapon of mass destruction(FF
An") the ri!k that "e'ate will 'e $oopte" i! onl# a rea!on to 'e $arefulJ"e'ate i! !till goo" an" the onl# wa#
to fight "omination i! to retain $ommon groun"
We can read such criticisms in two ways( "he first way is as a warningG "hat we ought to remain cautious of how
academic debate will be represented and deployed outside of the academy% in the ruthless political realm% by those who use it to
dodge truthful assertions% by underrepresented groups% of instances of material in0ustice( 2n this sense% the fear is one of a LlegalisticL evasion of
substantive in0ustice by those privileging procedure over substance% a trained style over the primordial truth of marginali>ed groups( 2 prefer
that interpretation to the second oneG "hat the switch+side% research+driven LgameL of debate is politically ban1rupt
and should give way to several simultaneous >ones of speech activism% where spea1ers can and should only fight for
their own beliefs( As @ordon $itchell of the Eniversity of ittsburgh has pointed out% such bal1ani>ed speech will brea1 down
into several enclaves of spea1ing% each with its own political criteria for entry( 2n such a collection of impassable and
unpermeable communities% those power relations% those material power entities% that evade political speech will
remain unaccountable% will be given a Lfree passL by the speech community% who will be so wrapped up in their own
micropolitics% or so busy preaching to themselves and their choirs% that they will never understand or confront the
rhetorical tropes used to mobili>e both resources and true believers in the service of continued material domination(
6abermasFs defense of the unfinished Bnlightenment is my defense of academic debateG 5onFt throw the baby out with the
bathwater( 2nstead% see1 to expand this method of deliberation to those who will use it to liberate themselves%
confront power% and create ethical% nonviolent patterns of problem resolution( 2f capitalism corrupts debate% well%
then 2 say we save debate(
Whitman College 1/
A2 Fairne!!
Fairne!! i! a prere9ui!ite for their AffJ!ome re!tri$tion! are ne$e!!ar# for it to gain influen$e in "e'ate
2allowa# 200N (&yan @alloway% !amford 5ebate Aoach% rofessor of Aommunication !tudies at !amford% Aontemporary Argumentation
and 5ebate% Hol( ,*% ,::J% 'BP-
Aonceived as a dialogue% the affirmative speech act anticipates the negative response( A failure to ade<uately encourage% or anticipate
a response deprives the negative speech act and the emergent dialogue of the capacity for a complete in<uiry( !uch
violations short circuit the dialogue and undermine the potential for an emerging dialogue to gain significance
(either within the debate community or as translated to forums outside of the activity-( 6ere% the dialogical model
performs as a fairness model% contending that the affirmative speech act% be it policy oriented% critical% or
performative in nature% must adhere to normative restrictions to achieve its maximum competitive and ontological
potential(
Fairne!! i! the foun"ation of re!pe$t an" "ignit#
When one !i"e take! more than it! !hare) $ompetitie e9uit# !uffer!( 6owever) it al!o un"ermine! the re!pe$t
"ue to the other inole" in the "ialogue. When one !i"e e>$lu"e! the other) it fun"amentall# "enie! the
per!onhoo" of the other parti$ipant (Bhninger% )8J:% p( )):-( A pe"agog# of "e'ate a! "ialogue take! thi! re!pe$t a!
a fun"amental $omponent. A "e!ire to 'e fair i! a fun"amental $on"ition of a "ialogue that take! the form of a
"eman" for e9ualit# of oi$e. /ar from being a banal re<uest for lin1s to a disadvantage% fairne!! i! a "eman" for re!pe$t) a
"eman" to 'e hear") a "eman" that a oi$e 'a$ke" '# literall# month! upon month! of preparation) re!ear$h)
an" $riti$al thinking not 'e !ilen$e".
1i!$u!!ion! are onl# pro"u$tie if the#8re fairJthe Aff e>$lu"e! Neg argument!
Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies( Enprepared% one
side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue( "hey are unable to understand what
went onVF and are left to the whims of time and power (/arrell% )8*?% p( ))9-( 6ugh 5uncan furthers this line of reasoningG
=pponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of
thin1ing better and reaching sound decisions( =pposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action( We
assume that argument% discussion% and tal1% among free an informed people who subordinate themselves to rules of discussion% are the best ways
to decisions of any 1ind% because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement which binds us to a common
causeV2f we are to be e<ualVrelationships among e<uals must find expression in many formal and informal
institutions (5uncan% )887% p( )8I+)8J-( 5ebate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framewor1 that
maintains e<uality for the sa1e of the conversation (/arrell% )8*?% p( ))9-(
Fairne!! i! ne$e!!ar# for "e'ate to hae alue
A second reason to re0ect the topic has to do with its exclusivity( $any teams argue that because topicality and other fairness constraints prevent
particular speech acts% debaters are denied a meaningful voice in the debate process( Advocates argue that because the negative excludes a
particular affirmative performance that they have also precluded the affirmative team( "he problem with this line of reasoning is that
it views exclusion as a unitary act of definitional power( 6owever% a dialogical perspective allows us to see power
flowing both ways( A large range of affirmative cases necessitates fewer negative strategies that are relevant to the
range of such cases( 2f the affirmative can present any case it desires% the benefits of the research% preparation% and
in+depth thin1ing that go into the creation of negative strategies are diminished% if not eviscerated entirely( "he
affirmative case is obliged to invite a negative response( 2n addition% even when the negative strategy is not entirely
excluded% any strategy that diminishes argumentative depth and <uality diminishes the <uality of in+round dialogue(
An affirmative speech act that flagrantly violates debate fairness norms and claims that the benefits of the
affirmative act supersede the need for such guidelines has the potential of excluding a meaningful negative response%
and undermines the pedagogical benefits of the in+round dialogue( "he germ of a response (Ba1htin% )88:- is stunted(
Whitman College 1K
A2 State Fo$u! 5a"
olicy+relevant debate is essential to deal with threats of mass violence(
Sentle!on G2 (Bruce% 5ir( "erry !anford 2nstitute of ublic olicy and rof( ublic olicy and ol( !ci( D 5u1e%
2nternational !ecurity% "he Ceed for raxisG Bringing olicy &elevance Bac1 2n% ,I(9-% !pring% p( )*,+)*7-
Bringing policy relevance bac1 in thus does not mean driving theory out( 2nternational =rgani>ation% World olitics%
2nternational !ecurity% and the American olitical !cience &eview should continue to have distinct missions from
/oreign Affairs% /oreign olicy% and the li1e( But that distinction should be in terms of how policy problems are
approached% not whether attention is paid to them( @reater pride of place needs to be given to research <uestions
defined in policy terms( What drives terrorismS Which strategies can be most effective in deterring it% defeating it%
containing itS 6ow better to lin1 force and diplomacyS What about prevention% and <uestions raised about reducing
and countering the political% social% and economic dynamics that foster and feed terrorismS Beyond 0ust general
arguments about unilateralism and multilateralism% what strategies and structures can best achieve the goals of
peace% security% stability% and 0usticeS "hese are all !eptember )) <uestions;comparable delineations could be drawn for those other areas of the international agenda
that were there on !eptember ): and have not gone away( "he demand for policy relevant research is huge; it is the supply that is lagging( "his sense of praxis also needs to reshape graduate
programs( A h(5( in political science or international relations should prepare students for selected nonacademic policy careers as well as academic careers( Aurriculums need to have a greater
degree of flexibility and pluralism with disciplinary training still at the core but also giving greater weight to substantive depth and breadth of 1nowledge about policy issues and domains% about
regions and countries% about cultures and languages and histories( @reater engagement outside the academy needs to be fostered and
encouragedG internships in Washington or with international organi>ations or nongovernmental organi>ations% participation in collo<uiums not 0ust with noted academics but with eminent
policy experts% and dissertation and research pro0ects that lead to immersion in 1ey policy issues whether historical or contemporary( Cor is this 0ust a matter of adapting curriculums( 2t is as much
about the messages sent% explicitly and implicitly% in the setting of expectations and other aspects of the sociali>ation that is so much a part of the graduate school experience( Cone of this will
have much impact unless the academic 0ob mar1et also shifts toward comparable balance and pluralism in the profiles being sought for entry+level faculty( Also% a student who ta1es his or her
h(5( into a career in the policy world needs to be seen as another type of placement success% not a placement failure( @reater engagement with and experience in
the policy world is to be encouraged at all stages of a career( "here are many opportunities;and there can be more;to help broaden perspectives% build relationships and
test and sharpen arguments and beliefs in constructive ways( "he same is true for engaging as a public intellectual in the ways and on the terms discussed earlier( Eltimately it is about an ethic%
about what is valued% about how professional success and personal fulfillment are defined( 2 am again reminded of a statement by Haclav 6avel% this
playwright turned political dissident turned leader of his countryFs liberation from communism and move toward
democrati>ation% in his )88: speech to a 0oint session of the E(!( AongressG 2 am not the first% nor will 2 be the last%
intellectual to do this( =n the contrary% my feeling is that there will be more and more of them all the time( 2f the
hope of the world lies in human consciousness% then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding
their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics under an alleged need to be
independent( 2t is easy to have independence in your program and then leave others to carry that program out( 2f
everyone thought that way% pretty soon no one would be independent(77
ublic debate is essential for effectively channeling these policy <uestions(
?a!$h 89K (Ahristopher% !ocial Aritic and Author% "he &evolt of the Blites and the Betrayal of 5emocracy% p(
)I,+)I7-
As for the claim that the information revolution would raise the level of public intelligence% it is no secret that the
public 1nows less about public affairs than it used to 1now( $illions of Americans cannot begin to tell you what is
in the Bill of &ights% what Aongress does% what the Aonstitution says about the powers of the presidency% how the
party system emerged or how it operates( A si>able ma0ority% according to a recent survey% believe that 2srael is an
Arab nation( 2nstead of blaming the schools for this disheartening ignorance of public affairs% as is the custom% we
should loo1 elsewhere for a fuller explanation% bearing in mind that people readily ac<uire such 1nowledge as they
can put to good use( !ince the public no longer participates in debates on national issues% it has no reason to inform
itself about civic affairs( 2t is the decay of public debate% not the school system (bad as it is-% that ma1es the public ill
informed% not+withstanding the wonders of the age of information( When debate becomes a lost art% information%
even though it may be readily available% ma1es no impression( What democracy re<uires is vigorous public debate%
not information( =f course% it needs information too% but the 1ind of information it needs can be generated only by
debate( We do not 1now what we need to 1now until we as1 the right <uestions% and we can identify the right
<uestions only by sub0ecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy( 2nformation% usually
seen as the precondition of debate% is better understood as its by+product( When we get into arguments that focus and
fully engage our attention% we become avid see1ers of relevant information( =therwise we ta1e in information
passively;if we ta1e it in at all(
Whitman College 1.
A2 Framework T4 the Aff
0ngaging poli$# i! $riti$alJfailure to !park "e'ate! in the mi""le groun" re"u$e the 9ualit# of our
argument! '# pro"u$ing in!ular "ogma
M$C?0AN 2001 (5avid% Cew !chool Eniversity% "he Aultural 'eft and the 'imits of !ocial 6ope% httpG33www(american+
philosophy(org3archives3pastWconferenceWprograms3pc,::)35iscussionX,:papers3davidWmcclean(htm-
=ur new president% possessing no towering intellect% tal1s of a people who share a continent% but are not a nation( 6e is right% of course( We are
only beginning to learn to put tribal loyalties aside and to let ourselves ta1e seriously other more salutary possibilities% though we delude
ourselves into believing that we have made great progress( erhaps so+called Lcompassionate conservatism%L though a gimmic1 to win a political
contest% will bear a small harvest of unintended and positive conse<uences% although 2 remain dubious about this if the tas1 of thin1ing through
what it might actually mean remains the chore of @eorge W( Bush( But if the not+too+Ceanderthal+&ight is finally willing to meet the
not+too+wac1y+'eft at a place of dialogue somewhere in the Lmiddle%L then that is good news% provided the 'eft does not miss
the opportunity to rendevous( Met% there is a problem here( Both the Aultural 'eft and the Aultural &ight tend to be self+righteous
purists( "he best chance% then% is for the emergence of &orty4s new olitical 'eft% in con0unction with a new olitical &ight( "he new olitical
'eft would be in the better position of the two to frame the discourse since it probably has the better intellectual hardware (it tends to be more
open+minded and less dogmatic- to ma1e a true dialogue wor1( "hey% unli1e their Aultural 'eft peers% might find it more useful to be a little less
inimical and a little more sympathetic to what the other side might% in good faith% believe is at sta1e( "hey might leave behind some of the
baggage of the Aultural 'eft4s endless ruminations (5ewey4s philosophical cud chewing- about commodity fetishi>ation% or whether the !ub0ect
has really died% or where crac1 babies fit into neo+capitalist hegemonies% and 0oin the political fray by parsing and exposing the more basic idiotic
claims and dogmas of witless politicians and dangerous ideologues% while at the same time finding common ground% a larger LWeL perspective
that includes &onald &eagan and Angela 5avis under the same tent rather than as inhabitants of separate worlds( "he operative spirit
should be that of fraternal disagreement% rather than self+righteous cold shoulders( Met 2 am not at all convinced that anything
2 have described is about to happen% though this essay is written to help force the issue% if only a little bit( 2 am convinced that the modern
Aultural 'eft is far from ready to actually run the ris1s that come with being ta1en seriously and held accountable
for actual policy+relevant prescriptions( Why should itS 2t is a hell of a lot more fun and a lot more safe pondering
the intricacies of high theory% patching together the world a priori (which means without any real consideration of those officers and
bureaucrats 2 mentioned who are actually on the front lines of policy formation and regulation-( 6owever the ris1 in this apriorism is that
both the conclusions and the criticisms will miss the mar1% regardless of how great the minds that are engaged(
2ntellectual rigor and complexity do not ma1e silly ideas politically salient% or less pernicious% to paraphrase &orty( "his is
not to say that air+headed 0ingoism and conservative rants about republican virtue aren4t e<ually silly and pernicious( But it seems to me that the
new public philosopher of the olitical 'eft will want to pic1 better yardstic1s with which to measure herself( 2s it really possible to philosophi>e
by holding /oucault in one hand and the Aode of /ederal &egulation or the Aongressional &ecord in the otherS @iven that whatever it has meant
to be a philosopher has been under siege at various levels% 2 see no reason why referring to the way things are actually done in
the actual world (2 mean really done% not done as we might imagine- as we thin1 through issues of public morality
and social issues of 0ustice shouldn4t be considered a viable alternative to the way philosophy has proceeded in the
past( 2nstead of replacing epistemology with hermeneutics or @od 1nows what else as the foundation of philosophical practice% we should move
social philosophers in the direction of becoming more li1e social and cultural auditors rather than further in the direction of mere culture critics(
We might be able to recast philosophers who ta1e+up <uestions of social 0ustice in a serious way as the ones in
society able to traverse not only disciplines but the distances between the towers of the academy and the bastions of
bureaucracies see1ing to honestly and sometimes dishonestly assess both their failings and achievements( "his we can
do with a special advantage over economists% social scientists and policy specialists who are apt to ta1e the narrow view of most issues( We do
have examples of such persons( .ohn 5ewey and Narl opper come to mind as but two examples% but in neither case was there enough grasp of
the actual wor1ings of social institutions that 2 believe will be called for in order to properly minister to a nation in need of helpful philosophical
insights in policy formation( =r it may 0ust be that the real wor1 will be performed by philosophically grounded and socially engaged
practitioners rather than academics( eople li1e @eorge !oros come to mind here(
Criti$al argument! are fine) 'ut the# mu!t gui"e $on$rete poli$# option!;thi! i! ne$e!!ar# to retain the
relean$e of politi$al !$ien$e an" a""re!! real7worl" $ri!e!
S0NT?0S3N 2002 (Bruce% 5irector of the "erry !anford 2nstitute of ublic olicy and rofessor of ublic olicy and olitical !cience at
5u1e Eniversity% 2nternational !ecurity ,I(9-
2n the contemporary era% when debate rages not only over the foreign policy LanswersL but even more fundamentally over what the defining
L<uestionsL YBnd age )*:Z are% dominant disciplinary norms and practices are widening the theory+policy gap% and
leaving the university+based scholarly world increasingly isolated( $oreover% whereas thirty or forty years ago academics were
the main if not sole cohort of experts on international affairs outside of government and international institutions% today4s world is a more
competitive mar1etplace of ideas and expertise( "he thin1 tan1 world has grown and deepened;there are more of them dealing with a broader
range of issues% and often doing so in ways that contribute significantly to literature building as well as policy debate( $any of the leading area
and country specialists are now 0ournalists who have done their own empirical wor1 of intensive coverage of world trouble spots% and are also
sufficiently grounded in relevant academic literature to use and contribute to it( 2t is both in the discipline4s self+interest and part of
its societal responsibility to lin1 its scholarly mission more to the challenges that face the world( "his was true
before !eptember )); it is even truer since then( olicy relevance needs to be brought bac1 in to international
relations and to political science more generally( "his is not an argument against theory( 2t is an argument for theory
Whitman College 1N
but with shifts in relative emphasis to foster greater policy relevance( 7) "heory can have three important policy utilities( =ne is
its diagnostic value( olicyma1ers need to be able to assess the nature of the problem they face% the trend they are observing% and the incipient
warning signs they may be sensing( =ften the problem is less a dearth than a glut of information and the need to discern patterns% establish
salience% and trace causal connections( What can otherwise be a seemingly overwhelming amount of information and detail can be organi>ed%
prioriti>ed% and filtered through the framewor1 that theory provides( !econd% theory can have prescriptive value in contributing to the
Lconceptuali>ation of strategies(L !uch analysis% while abstract and not itself in operational form% Lidentifies the critical variables of a strategy and
the general logic associated with YitsZ successful use(L "heory thus Lis not in itself a strategy%L but it is a valuable Lstarting point
for constructing a strategy(L 7, 2t must be combined with other types of 1nowledge% especially specific understanding
of the particular situation and actor at hand( 2ts value often is in providing the framewor1 for putting a particular
situation and strategy in the type of broader context that can facilitate the design and implementation of effective
strategies( YBnd age )*)Z "hird% theory can help with lesson drawing( 2t is bad enough for a policy to fail; but if the wrong lessons are drawn%
that failure can have an additive and even a multiplier effect( !imilarly% the benefits of a policy success can be countered by lessons poorly drawn
and leading to some future misapplication of what wor1ed the first time( "heory deepens understanding of patterns of causality within any
particular case by penetrating beyond the situational and particularistic to identify independent variables of a more fundamental nature( 2t also
helps broaden what can be learned from any particular sub0ect or case( Bringing policy relevance bac1 in thus does not mean driving theory out(
2nternational =rgani>ation%World olitics%2nternational !ecurity% and the American olitical !cience &eview should continue to have distinct
missions from /oreign Affairs%/oreign olicy% and the li1e( But that distinction should be in terms of how policy problems are approached% not
whether attention is paid to them( @reater pride of place needs to be given to research <uestions defined in policy terms(
What drives terrorismS Which strategies can be most effective in deterring it% defeating it% containing itS 6ow better
to lin1 force and diplomacyS What about prevention% and <uestions raised about reducing and countering the
political% social% and economic dynamics that foster and feed terrorismS Beyond 0ust general arguments about
unilateralism and multilateralism% what strategies and structures can best achieve the goals of peace% security%
stability% and 0usticeS "hese are all !eptember )) <uestions;comparable delineations could be drawn for those other
areas of the international agenda that were there on !eptember ): and have not gone away( "he demand for policy+
relevant research is huge; it is the supply that is lagging(
@@@ Criti$i!m! of Framework @@@
2eneri$ Impa$t Turn!
Lour interpretation $reate! a !#!tem of e>$lu!ion in whi$h $ertain "i!$our!e! 'e$ome
*Truth, fore$lo!ing all other truth!.
5leiker) 200D( (&oland% rofessor of 2nternational &elations 6arvard and Aambridge% 5iscourse
and 6uman Agency% algrave $acmillan% ,::7( p( ,J+,*-
It i! within "i!$our!e)F one of /oucaultFs much rehearsed passages ()8JI% )77- notes% that power an" knowle"ge
arti$ulate ea$h other(F "he wor1 of the /rench historian and philosopher epitomi<e! what i! at !take in 9ue!tion! of
"i!$our!e an" agen$#( /or /oucault% "i!$our!e! are !u'tle me$hani!m! that frame our thinking pro$e!!.
The# "etermine the limit! of what $an 'e thought) talke" an" written in a normal an" rational wa#. In
eer# !o$iet# the pro"u$tion of "i!$our!e! i! $ontrolle"% selected% organi>ed and diffused by certain procedures( Thi!
pro$e!! $reate! !#!tem! of e>$lu!ion in whi$h one group of "i!$our!e! i! eleate" to a hegemoni$ !tatu!%
while others are condemned to exile( 5iscourses give rise to social rules that decide which statements most people recogni>e as valid% as
debatable or as undoubtedly false( The# gui"e the !ele$tion pro$e!! that a!$ertain! whi$h propo!ition! from
preiou! perio"! or foreign $ulture! are retaine") importe") alue") an" whi$h are forgotten or
negle$te" (see /oucault% )8I8% )8J)% )88)% ?8DI:-( Not eer#thing i! "i!$our!e) 'ut eer#thing i! in "i!$our!e(
"hings exist independently of discourses% but we $an onl# a!!e!! them through the len!e! of "i!$our!e) through the
pra$ti$e! of knowing) per$eiing an" !en!ing) whi$h we hae a$9uire" oer time. 1i!$our!e! ren"er
!o$ial pra$ti$e! intelligi'le an" rational and by doing so mas1 the ways in which they have been constituted and framed(
!ystems of domination gradually become accepted as normal and silently penetrate every aspect of society( "hey cling to the most
remote corners of our mind% for% as Ciet>sche ()8*7% )J- once expressed it% all things that live long are gradually so saturated with
reason that their emergence out of unreason thereby becomes improbable(F
1efining human agen$# with an all in$lu!ie !tatement $reate! a hierar$h# in whi$h all
other "i!$our!e! fore$lo!e".
&oland 5leiker) 200D( (rofessor of 2nternational &elations 6arvard and Aambridge% 5iscourse
and 6uman Agency% algrave $acmillan% ,::7( p( 7J+7*-
A $on$eptuali<ation of human agen$# $annot 'e 'a!e" on a par!imoniou! propo!ition) a one7!enten$e
!tatement that $apture! !omething like an authenti$ nature of human agen$#( "here is no essence to human
Whitman College 1H
agency% no $ore that $an 'e 'rought "own to a lowe!t $ommon "enominator) that will $r#!talli<e one "a#
in a long !ought after magi$ formula( A !ear$h for !u$h an elu!ie $entre woul" free<e a !pe$ifi$ image
of human agen$# to the "etriment of all other!. "he dangers of such a totali>ing position have been well rehearsed(
/oucault ()8*,% ,:8-% for instance% believes that a theor# of power is unable to provide the basis for analytical wor1% for it
a!!ume! a prior o':e$tifi$ation of the er# power "#nami$! the theor# i! tr#ing to a!!e!!. 5our"ieu
()88*% ,?- !peak! of the Gimperiali!m of theunier!al8 an" ?i!t T199D) 11E warn! u! of an approa$h that
G!u'!ume!) or) rather) preten"! to 'e a'le to !u'!ume eer#thing into one $on$ept) one theor#) one
po!ition(F !uch a master discourse% she claims% ineita'l# oppre!!e! eer#thing that "oe! not fit into it! parti$ular
iew of the worl"(
It i! 'a" to 'eliee in permanent) !ta'le foun"ation! 'e$au!e human agen$# i! alwa#!
$hanging an" the gre# area 'etween o':e$tii!m an" relatii!m i! ignore"
5leiker) 2000( (&oland% rofessor of 2nternational &elations 6arvard and Aambridge% opular 5issent% 6uman
Agency and @lobal olitics% Aambridge Eniversity ress% ,:::( p( )7-
1eparting from 'oth a "i!$ur!ie fatali!m an" an oer<ealou! 'elief in the autonom# of human a$tion)
I !ear$h for a mi""le groun" that $an "raw together po!itie a!pe$t! of 'oth oppo!ing tra"ition! of
thought( 2 am% in this sense% following authors such as ierre Bourdieu and &ichard Bernstein% for whom the
central opposition that characterises our time% the one between ob0ectivism and relativism% is largely
misleading and distorting( 2t is itself part of a seductive dichotomy that is articulated in either3or termsG either
there is an ultimate possibility of grounding 1nowledge in stable foundations% or there are no foundations at
all% nothing but an endless fall into a nihilist abyss( 77 But there are no 0ither43r e>treme!. There are onl#
!ha"e! of "ifferen$e) !u'tletie! that $ontra"i$t the i"ea of an e>$lu!ionar# antage7point( $y own
attempt at overcoming the misleading dichotomy between ob0ectivism and relativism revolves around two
ma0or propositions% which 2 will sustain and expand throughout this boo1: T1E that one $an theori!e
"i!$our!e! an" !till retain a $on$ept of human agen$#= an" T2E that one $an a"an$e a po!itie notion of
human agen$# that i! neither groun"e" in a !ta'le foun"ation nor "epen"ent upon a pre!uppo!e"
notion of the !u':e$t. The point of !ear$hing for thi! mi""le groun" i! not to a'an"on foun"ation! a!
!u$h) 'ut to re$ogni!e that the# are a ne$e!!ar# part of our effort to make !en!e of an in$rea!ingl#
$omple> an" tran!er!al worl"( We need foundations to ground our thoughts% but foun"ation! impo!e an"
e>$lu"e. The# !houl" not 'e $on!i"ere" a! !ta'le an" goo" for all time!( "hey must be applied in
awareness of their function and with a readiness to ad0ust them to changing circumstances(
Criti$al an" $ro!!7"i!$iplinar# approa$he! to I+ reinigorate the pra$ti$e ; $riti$al
approa$he! are ke# to improing the poli$#making !$ene
5i!wa! 5ecember 200N% (!hampa% rofessor of olitics at Whitman Aollege% Bmpire and @lobal ublic
2ntellectualsG &eading Bdward !aid as an 2nternational &elations "heorist% $illenniumG .ournal of 2nternational
!tudies% Hol( 7I% Co( )% p( ),9
What Sai" offer! in the pla$e of profe!!ionali!m i! a !pirit of Gamateuri!m8 ; Gthe "e!ire to 'e moe"
not '# profit or rewar" 'ut '# loe for an" un9uen$ha'le intere!t in the larger pi$ture% in ma1ing connections
across lines and barriers% in refusing to be tied down to a specialty% in caring for ideas and values despite the restrictions of a professionF% an amateur intelle$tual
'eing one Gwho $on!i"er! that to 'e a thinking an" $on$erne" mem'er of a !o$iet# one i! entitle" to
rai!e moral i!!ue! at the heart of een the mo!t te$hni$al an" profe!!ionali<e" a$tiit# a! it inole!
one8! $ountr#) it! power) it! mo"e of intera$ting with it! $iti<en! a! well a! with other !o$ietie!8. GTTEhe
intelle$tual8! !pirit a! an amateur8) Sai" argue!) G$an enter an" tran!form the merel# profe!!ional
routine mo!t of u! go through into !omething mu$h more liel# an" ra"i$al= in!tea" of "oing what one
i! !uppo!e" to "o one $an a!k wh# one "oe! it) who 'enefit! from it) how $an it re$onne$t with a
per!onal pro:e$t an" original thought!.8 ,9 "his re<uires not 0ust a stubborn intellectual independence% but also shedding habits% 0argons% tones that
have inhibited 2& scholars from conversing with thin1ers and intellectuals outside the discipline% colleagues in history% anthropology% cultural studies% comparative literature% sociology
as well as in non+academic venues% who raise the <uestion of the global in different and sometimes contradictory ways( Arguing that the intellectualFs role is a non+specialistF one% ,?
!aid bemoans the disappearance of the general secular intellectualF D figures of learning and authority% whose general scope over many fields gave them more than professional
competence% that is% a critical intellectual styleF( ,I 1i!$ar"ing the profe!!ional !trait7 :a$ket of e>perti!e7oriente" I+ to
enture into intelle$tual terrain! that rai!e 9ue!tion! of glo'al power an" $ultural negotiation! in a
m#ria" of inter!e$ting an" $ro!!7$utting wa#! will #iel" ri$her an" fuller $on$eption! of the Gpoliti$!8 of
glo'al politi$!. Nee"le!! to !a#) inter7 an" $ro!!7 "i!$iplinarit# will al!o #iel" ri$her an" fuller
$on$eption! of the Gglo'al8 of glo'al politi$!. 2t is to that that 2 turn next(
Whitman College 19
-oli$# Making 5a"
The "e$i!ionmaking para"igm inherent in the tra"itional form! of politi$al engagement
engage! in an un$on!$iou! e>er$i!e of power oer the !elf whi$h regulate! "i!$our!e an"
pro"u$e! for it!elf legitimate metho"! for engagement whi$h rarel# re!ult in $hange.
Ful#n#$h) 9N) Winthrop E rof of olysci (.essica% erforming oliticsG /oucault% 6abermas% and ostmodern
articipation% olity% Hol( 7:% Co( , (Winter% )88J-% 7)?+79I% accessed .stor-
While separately both 6abermas and /oucault challenge the traditional understanding of participation% their combined insights further
and irrevocably extend that challenge( "heoretical focus on the distinctions between 6abermas and /oucault has all too often obscured
important parallels between these two theorists( !pecifically% the 6abermas+/oucault debate has underemphasi>ed the extent to which
6abermas also describes a disciplinary society( 2n his descriptions of bureaucracy% technocracy% and system coloni>ation% 6abermas is
also describing a world where power is productive and dispersed and where political action is constrained and normali>ed( 6abermas%
li1e /oucault% describes a type of power that cannot be ade<uately characteri>ed in terms of the intentions of those who possess it(
Aoloni>ation is not the result of conscious intention% but is rather the unintended conse<uence of a multitude of small ad0ustments( "he
gender and racial subtexts infusing the system are not the results of conscious intention% but rather of implicit gender and racial norms
and expectations infecting the economy and the state( 5ureau$rati$ power i! not a power that i! po!!e!!e" '# an#
in"ii"ual or agen$#) 'ut e>i!t! in the e>er$i!e of "e$i!ionmaking. As 2ris Moung points out% we mu!t Aanal#<e
the e>er$i!e of power %in $ontemporar# !o$ietie!& a! the effe$t of often li'eral an" humane pra$ti$e! of
e"u$ation) 'ureau$rati$ a"mini!tration% production and distribution of consumer goods% medicine and so on(L4 "he very
practices that 6abermas chronicles are exemplary of a power that has no definitive sub0ect( As Moung explains% Lthe $on!$iou!
a$tion! of man# in"ii"ual! "ail# $ontri'ute to maintaining an" repro"u$ing oppre!!ion) 'ut tho!e
people are !impl# doing their 0obs or liing their lie!) an" "o not un"er!tan" them!ele! a! agent! of
oppre!!ion(L* Aoloni>ation and bureaucrati>ation also fit the pattern of a power that is not primarily repressive but productive(
1i!$iplinar# te$hnologie! are% as !awic1i describes% not((( repressive mechanisms ((( YthatZ operate primarily through violence (((
or sei>ure ((( but rather Ythey operate& '# pro"u$ing new o':e$t! an" !u':e$t! of knowle"ge) '# in$iting an"
$hanneling "e!ire!) generating an" fo$u!ing in"ii"ual an" group energie!) an" e!ta'li!hing 'o"il#
norm! an" te$hni9ue! for o'!ering) monitoring an" $ontrolling 'o"il# moement!) pro$e!!e!) an"
$apa$itie!(8 The er# pra$ti$e! of administration% distribution% and "e$i!ionmaking on which 6abermas focuses his
attention $an an" mu!t 'e anal#<e" a! pro"u$tie "i!$iplinar# pra$ti$e!( Although these practices can clearly be
repressive% their most insidious effects are productive( +ather than !impl# hol"ing people 'a$k) 'ureau$rati<ation
'reak! up) $ategori<e!) an" !#!temi<e! pro:e$t! an" people( 2t creates new categories of 1nowledge and expertise(
Bureaucrati>ation and coloni>ation also create new sub0ects as the ob0ects of bureaucratic expertise( "he social welfare client and the
consumer citi>en are the creation of bureaucratic power% not merely its target( "he extension of lifeworld gender norms into the system
creates the possibility for sexual harassment% 0ob segregation% parental leave% and consensual corporate decisionma1ing( Areated as a part
of these sub0ectivities are new gestures and norms of bodily behavior% such as the embarrassed shuffling of food stamps at the grocery
chec1out and the demeaning sexual reference at the office copier( Bodily movements are monitored and regulari>ed by means of
political opinion polls% welfare lists% sexual harassment protocols% flex+time wor1 schedules% and so forth( Mo"ern "i!$iplinar#
power% as described by /oucault and implied by 6abermas% "oe! not merel# preent u! from "eeloping) 'ut $reate!
u! "ifferentl# a! the effe$t of it! fun$tioning( "hese disciplinary techni<ues not only control us% but also enable us to be
more efficient and more productive% and often more powerful( /ocusing on the disciplinary elements of the 6abermasian criti<ue opens
the door for exploring the postmodern character of 6abermasian politics( Because 6abermas does describe a disciplinary world% his
prescription for contemporary democracy T"i!$ur!ie politi$!E ought to 'e !en!itie to) an" appropriate for) a
"i!$iplinar# worl". /oucault4s sensitivity to the wor1ings of disciplinary power is central to the articulation of a plausible%
postmodern version of discursive politics( 2n the following discussion 2 will argue for a performative redefinition of participation that
will reinvigorate the micro+politics demanded by /oucault% as well as provide a more nuanced version of the discursive politics
demanded by 6abermas(
Serial poli$# failure "rie! poli$#maker! to fin" the truth to make a poli$# !u$$ee" ; the
la$k of ealuation of ontologi$al a!!umption! to rea$h thi! truth !pell the en" of *politi$!,
1illon an" +ei" 199H ($ichael 5illon% professor of olitics at 'ancaster Eniversity% and .ulian &eid% 5octor of
hilosophy in olitics% @lobal @overnance% 'iberal eace% and Aomplex Bmergency% httpG33www(cross+
x(com3vb3showthread(phpSt[8J88I)#highlight[dillon\reid-
+epro'lemati<ation of pro'lem! i! $on!traine" '# the in!titutional an" i"eologi$al ine!tment!
!urroun"ing a$$epte" Apro'lem!)A an" '# the !heer "iffi$ult# of $hallenging the ine!$apa'le
ontologi$al an" epi!temologi$al a!!umption! that go into their er# formation. There i! nothing !o
fier$el# $onte!te" a! an epi!temologi$al or ontologi$al a!!umption. An" there i! nothing !o fier$el#
ri"i$ule" a! the !ugge!tion that the real pro'lem with pro'lemati<ation! e>i!t! pre$i!el# at the leel of
!u$h a!!umption!. !uch Lparalysis of analysisL is precisely what policyma1ers see1 to avoid since they are compelled constantly to respond to
Whitman College 20
circumstances over which they ordinarily have in fact both more and less control than they proclaim( What they do not have is precisely the control that they
want( Met !erial poli$# failure77the fate an" the fuel of all poli$#77$ompel! them into a $ontinuou! !ear$h
for the new anal#!i! that will e>tra$t them from the aporia! in whi$h the# $on!tantl# fin" them!ele!
enme!he".Y 7?Z Serial poli$# failure i! no !imple !hort$oming that !$ien$e an" poli$#77an" poli$#
!$ien$e77will ultimatel# oer$ome. Serial poli$# failure i! roote" in the ontologi$al an" epi!temologi$al
a!!umption! that fa!hion the wa#! in whi$h glo'al goernan$e en$ounter! an" pro'lemati<e! life a! a
pro$e!! of emergen$e through fitne!! lan"!$ape! that $on!tantl# a"aptie an" $hanging en!em'le! hae
$ontinuou!l# to negotiate. As a particular 1ind of intervention into life% global governance promotes the very changes and unintended outcomes
that it then serially reproblemati>es in terms of policy failure( "hus% global liberal governance is not a linear problem+solving process committed to the
resolution of ob0ective policy problems simply by bringing better information and 1nowledge to bear upon them( A nonlinear e$onom# of
power4knowle"ge) it "eli'eratel# in!tall! !o$iall# !pe$ifi$ an" ra"i$all# ine9uita'le "i!tri'ution! of
wealth) opportunit#) an" mortal "anger 'oth lo$all# an" glo'all# through the er# "etaile" wa#! in
whi$h life i! ariou!l# Tpoli$#E pro'lemati<e" '# it. In $on!e9uen$e) thinking an" a$ting politi$all# i!
"i!pla$e" '# the in!titutional an" epi!temi$ rialrie! that infu!e it! power4 knowle"ge network!) an" '#
the lo$al $on"ition! of appli$ation that goern the intro"u$tion of their poli$ie!. The!e now threaten to
e>hau!t what Apoliti$!)A lo$all# a! well a! glo'all#) i! a'out.Y 7IZ 2t is here that the LemergenceL characteristic of governance
begins to ma1e its appearance( /or it is increasingly recogni>ed that there are no definitive policy solutions to ob0ective% neat% discrete policy problems(
The A!u':e$t!A of poli$# in$rea!ingl# al!o 'e$ome a matter of "efinition a! well) !in$e the $on$ept
population "oe! not hae a !ta'le referent either an" ha! it!elf al!o eole" in 'iophilo!ophi$al an"
'iomole$ular a! well a! Fou$aul"ian A'iopowerA wa#!.
Whitman College 21
+ule! 5a"
Creating epi!temologi$al framework! $reate! fanati$al follower!7 the# will o!tra$i<e an#one
who !tep! again!t them with iolen$e an" other nefariou! mean!
Sohn!ton 99 (2an% &esearch Associate% Hancouver 2sland E% L"here4s Cothing Ciet>sche Aouldn4t "each Ma About the &aising of the WristL(
httpG33records(viu(ca3]0ohnstoi3introser3niet>s(htm-!'!
"a1e% for example% the off!i"e rule in !o$$er. Without that the game $oul" not pro$ee" in it! tra"itional wa#.
Cen$e) !o$$er pla#er! !ee the off!i"e rule a! an e!!ential part of their realit#% and a! long a! !o$$er i! the
onl# game in town an" we hae no i"ea of it! hi!tor# (which might% for example% tell us about the invention of the off+side rule-% then the
off!i"e rule i! ea!# to interpret a! a universal% a ne$e!!ar# re9uirement for !o$ial a$tiit#) an" we will fin"
an" en"or!e !$riptural te>t! whi$h reinfor$e that 'elief) an" our !$ienti!t! will "eote their time to
linking the off!i"e rule with the m#!teriou! rum'ling! that $ome from the fore!t. An" from thi!) one
might 'e le" to $on$lu"e that the off!i"e rule i! a ?aw of Nature) !omething whi$h e>ten"! far 'e#on"
the realm! of our parti$ular game into all po!!i'le game! an") 'e#on" tho!e) into the realm of the
wil"erne!! it!elf. =f course% there were powerful !o$ial an" politi$al for$e! (the coach and trainers and owners of the team- who
ma"e !ure that people ha" lot! of rea!on! for 'elieing in the un$hanging erit# of pre!ent
arrangement!. So itI! not !urpri!ing that we fin" plent# of learne" 'ook!) training manual!) an" lo$ker
room e>hortation! urging eer#one to remem'er the off!i"e rule an" to $a!tigate a! A'a"A tho!e who
routinel# forget a'out that part of the game. We will al!o wor!hip tho!e who "ie" in "efen$e of the
off!i"e rule. An" naturall# an# new game that "i" not re$ogni<e the off!i"e rule woul" 'e a 'a" game)
an immoral wa# to $on"u$t one!elf. !o if !ome group trie" to !tart a game with a "ifferent off!i"e rule)
that group woul" 'e atta$ke" 'e$au!e the# ha" iolate" a rule of nature an" were thu! immoral. But for
contingent historical reasons% Ciet>sche argues% that situation of one game in town did not last( "he recreational unity of the area split up% and the growth of historical scholarship into
the past demonstrated all too clearly that there was overwhelming evidence that all the ariou! attempt! to !how that one parti$ular game
wa! priilege" oer an# of the other!) that there wa! one true game) are fal!e) "ogmati$) triial)
"e$eiing% and so on( /or !$ien$e ha! reeale" that the notion of a ne$e!!ar# $onne$tion 'etween the rule! of
an# game an" the wi"er purpo!e! of the wil"erne!! i! !impl# an ungroun"e" a!!ertion( "here is no way in which we
can ma1e the connections between the historically derived fictions in the rule boo1 and the mysterious and ultimately un1nowable directions of irrational nature( "o play the game of
science% we have to believe in causes and effects% but there is no way we can prove that this is a true belief and there is a danger for us if we simply ignore that fact( "herefore% we
$annot proe a link 'etween the game an" an#thing out!i"e it. And history has shown us% 0ust as 5arwin4s natural history has
demonstrated% that all apparently eternal issues have a story% a line of development% a genealogy( "hus% $on$ept!) like !pe$ie!) hae no realit#77the#
are temporar# fi$tion! impo!e" for the !ake of "efen"ing a parti$ular arrangement. 6ence% @od is dead( There
i! no eternal truth an# more) no rule boo1 in the s1y% no ultimate referee or international =lympic committee chairman( Ciet>sche didn4t 1ill @od; history and
the new science did( And Ciet>sche is only the most passionate and irritating messenger% announcing over the A system to anyone who will listen that someone li1e Nant or
5escartes or Cewton who thin1s that what he or she is doing can be defended by an appeal to a system grounded in the truth of nature has simply been mista1en( !o What4s the
roblemS "his insight is obvious to Ciet>sche% and he is troubled that no one seems to be worried about it or even to have noticed it( !o he4s moved to call the matter to our attention
as stridently as possible% because he thin1s that this reali>ation re<uires a fundamental shift in how we live our lives( /or Ciet>sche Burope is in crisis( 2t has a growing power to ma1e
life comfortable and an enormous energy( But people seem to want to channel that energy into arguing about what amounts to competing fictions and to force everyone to adhere to a
particular fiction( Wh# i! thi! in!ight !o worr#ingB Well) one point i! that "ogmati!t! get aggre!!ie. So$$er
pla#er! an" rug'# pla#er! who forget what Niet<!$he i! pointing out $an !tart killing ea$h other oer
9ue!tion! whi$h a"mit of no an!wer) namel#) 9ue!tion! a'out whi$h group ha! the true game) whi$h
group ha! priilege" a$$e!! to the truth. Niet<!$he !en!e! that "ogmati!m i! going to lea" to warfare)
an" he pre"i$t! that the twentieth $entur# will !ee an unparallele" e>ten!ion of warfare in the name of
$ompeting "ogmati$ truth!. -art of hi! pro:e$t i! to wake up the people who are intelligent enough to
re!pon" to what heI! talking a'out !o that the# $an re$ogni<e the !tupi"it# of killing ea$h other for an
illu!ion whi$h the# mi!take for !ome Atruth.A
State Fo$u! 5a"
State7$entri$it# make! $riti$al un"er!tan"ing of the worl" impo!!i'le.
!tudies% Hol( 7I% Co( )% p( ),?+),I
2n ma1ing a case for the exilic orientation% it i! the powerful hol" of the nation7!tate upon intelle$tual thinking
that Sai" mo!t 'emoan!. 7) "he nation+state of course has a particular pride of place in the study of global politics( The
!tate7$entri$it# of International +elation! ha! not :u!t $ir$um!$ri'e" the a'ilit# of !$holar! to
un"er!tan" a a!t en!em'le of glo'all# oriente" moement!) e>$hange! an" pra$ti$e! not re"u$i'le to
the !tate) 'ut al!o inhi'ite" a $riti$al intelle$tual orientation to the worl" out!i"e the national 'or"er!
Whitman College 22
within whi$h !$holar!hip i! pro"u$e". !aid ac1nowledges the fact that all intelle$tual work o$$ur! in a
TnationalE $onte>t whi$h impo!e! upon one8! intelle$t $ertain lingui!ti$ 'oun"arie!) parti$ular
Tnationall# frame"E i!!ue! an") mo!t ini"iou!l#) $ertain "ome!ti$ politi$al $on!traint! an" pre!!ure!)
'ut he $aution! again!t the "anger! of !u$h re!tri$tion! upon the intelle$tual imagination. 7, Aomparing
the development of 2& in two different national contexts D the /rench and the @erman ones D @erard 6olden has argued that different
intellectual influences% different historical resonances of different issues% different domestic exigencies shape the discipline in different
contexts( 77 While this is to be expected to an extent% there is good reason to be cautious about how scholarly sympathies are expressed
and circumscribed when the reach of oneFs wor1 (issues covered% people affected- so obviously extends beyond the national context( /or
scholars of the global% the (often unconscious- hold of the nation+state can be especially pernicious in the ways that it limits the scope
and range of the intellectual imagination( !aid argues that the hold of the nation is such that even intellectuals progressive on domestic
issues become collaborators of empire when it comes to state actions abroad( 79 !pecifically% he criti<ues nationalistically based systems
of education and the tendency in much of political commentary to frame analysis in terms of weF% usF and ourF + particularly evident in
coverage of the war on terrorism + which automatically sets up a series of (often hostile- oppositions to othersF( Ce point! in thi!
$onte>t to the rather $ommon intelle$tual ten"en$# to 'e alert to the a'u!e! of other! while remaining
'lin" to tho!e of one8! own. 7?
Criti$al an" $ro!!7"i!$iplinar# approa$he! to I+ reinigorate the pra$ti$e ; $riti$al
approa$he! are ke# to improing the poli$#making !$ene
!tudies% Hol( 7I% Co( )% p( ),9
What Sai" offer! in the pla$e of profe!!ionali!m i! a !pirit of Gamateuri!m8 ; Gthe "e!ire to 'e moe"
not '# profit or rewar" 'ut '# loe for an" un9uen$ha'le intere!t in the larger pi$ture% in ma1ing connections
across lines and barriers% in refusing to be tied down to a specialty% in caring for ideas and values despite the restrictions of a professionF% an amateur intelle$tual
'eing one Gwho $on!i"er! that to 'e a thinking an" $on$erne" mem'er of a !o$iet# one i! entitle" to
rai!e moral i!!ue! at the heart of een the mo!t te$hni$al an" profe!!ionali<e" a$tiit# a! it inole!
one8! $ountr#) it! power) it! mo"e of intera$ting with it! $iti<en! a! well a! with other !o$ietie!8. GTTEhe
intelle$tual8! !pirit a! an amateur8) Sai" argue!) G$an enter an" tran!form the merel# profe!!ional
routine mo!t of u! go through into !omething mu$h more liel# an" ra"i$al= in!tea" of "oing what one
i! !uppo!e" to "o one $an a!k wh# one "oe! it) who 'enefit! from it) how $an it re$onne$t with a
per!onal pro:e$t an" original thought!.8 ,9 "his re<uires not 0ust a stubborn intellectual independence% but also shedding habits% 0argons% tones that
have inhibited 2& scholars from conversing with thin1ers and intellectuals outside the discipline% colleagues in history% anthropology% cultural studies% comparative literature% sociology
as well as in non+academic venues% who raise the <uestion of the global in different and sometimes contradictory ways( Arguing that the intellectualFs role is a non+specialistF one% ,?
!aid bemoans the disappearance of the general secular intellectualF D figures of learning and authority% whose general scope over many fields gave them more than professional
competence% that is% a critical intellectual styleF( ,I 1i!$ar"ing the profe!!ional !trait7 :a$ket of e>perti!e7oriente" I+ to
enture into intelle$tual terrain! that rai!e 9ue!tion! of glo'al power an" $ultural negotiation! in a
m#ria" of inter!e$ting an" $ro!!7$utting wa#! will #iel" ri$her an" fuller $on$eption! of the Gpoliti$!8 of
glo'al politi$!. Nee"le!! to !a#) inter7 an" $ro!!7 "i!$iplinarit# will al!o #iel" ri$her an" fuller
$on$eption! of the Gglo'al8 of glo'al politi$!. 2t is to that that 2 turn next(
2oernment! in $ontrol of war $ontrol all !i"e! of the argument) "e!tro#ing all "i!!ent7
there $an 'e no fairne!! un"er their $ru!a"e mentalit#
Sa'ri 0K (Hivienne% 5irector of the Aentre for 2nternational &elations and !enior 'ecturer in 2nternational
&elations in the 5epartment of War !tudies at Ning4s Aollege% 'ondon( Aritical "hought and olitical Agency in
"ime of War 2nternational &elations(Holume )8% 2ssue J:( !age ublications =nline(
httpG33ire(sagepub(com3cgi3reprint3)83)3J:- !'!(
At $ore to the time of war are the set of legitimating pra$ti$e! that !eek to "efine the righteou!) the authoritatie)
an" tho!e with the $apa$it# to e!ta'li!h the remits of "i!$our!e. "he war against !erbia% the war in Afghani!tan) the
ina!ion of Ira9) are repre!ente" in discourse a! humanitarian war! an" a! !u$h tho!e $on"u$ting war $onfer to
them!ele! not :u!t righteou!ne!! an" authorit#) 'ut the right of :u"gement an" arti$ulation. 3ppo!ition to
war i! repre!ente" a! a "i!$our!e of $ompla$en$# an") at wor!e) a! $ompli$itou! appea!ement of t#rann#.
When thi! politi$! of repre!entation i! reinfor$e" '# a matrix of total war) the oi$e! of oppo!ition $ome to 'e
!u':e$t to the effe$t! of :uri"i$al e>$eptionali!m) when the $apa$it# to !peak i! $urtaile" an" intelle$tual a$tiit#
$ome! un"er regulation an" !$rutin#.1/ 2n an article on the events of )) !eptember ,::)% .udith Butler)? highlights the issues that face the
intellectual when explanationF is represented as exonerationF and when the attempt to understand the bac1ground to an act3event is seen as complicitous with that actG
a form of guilt by discursive association( Butler writes of a hegemonic grammarF that frames public discourse and that legislates the uses of terms such as terrorismF
and slaughterF( !he highlights the operations of truth whereby the violence of terrorism produces slaughter while the violence of war does not% according to
hegemonic renditions of our present context()I
Whitman College 2D
Swit$h7Si"e 1e'ate 5a"
Swit$h7!i"e !t#le "e!tro#! "e'ate7 without $oni$tion 'ehin" !tatement! the purpo!e for
thi! 9ue!t for truth 'e$ome! meaningle!!
2reene an" Ci$k! 0K (&onald Walter and 5arrin% 2nsert Puals( 'ost convictions( Aultural !tudies( Holume
)8% 2ssue )( 2nformaWorld( httpG33www(informaworld(com3smpp3sectionS
content[aJ7*?I*?I7#fulltext[J)7,9:8,*- !'!(
While the opposition to debating both sides probably reaches bac1 to the challenges against the ancient practice of dissoi logoi% we want
to turn our attention to the uni<ue cultural history of debate during the Aold War( 2n the midst of .oseph $cAarthyFs impending censure
by the E! !enate% the E! $ilitary Academy% the E! Caval Academy and% subse<uently% all of the teacher colleges in the state of
Cebras1a refused to affirm the resolution ^ &esolvedG "he Enited !tates should diplomatically recogni>e the eopleFs &epublic of
AhinaF( Met% switch+side debating remained the national standard% and% by the fall of )8??% the military academies and the teacher
colleges of Cebras1a were debating in favour of the next resolution( &ichard $urphy ()8?J-% however% was not content to let the
controversy pass without comment( $urphy launched a series of criticisms that would sustain the debate about debate for the next ten
years( $urphy held that "e'ating 'oth !i"e! of the 9ue!tion wa! unethi$al 'e$au!e it "ior$e" $oni$tion
from a"o$a$# and that it wa! a "angerou! pra$ti$e because it threatene" the integrit# of pu'li$ "e'ate by
"ior$ing it from a genuine !ear$h for truth( $urphyFs case against the ethics of debating both sides rested on what he
thought to be a simple and irrefutable rhetorical principle: A pu'li$ utteran$e i! a pu'li$ $ommitment. 2n $urphyFs
opinion% "e'ate wa! 'e!t imagine" a! a !pe$ie! of pu'li$ !peaking a1in to public advocacy on the affairs of the day( If
"e'ate i! a form of pu'li$ !peaking% $urphy reasoned% an" a pu'li$ utteran$e entail! a pu'li$ $ommitment)
then !peaker! hae an ethi$al o'ligation to !tu"# the 9ue!tion) "i!$u!! it with other! until the# know
their po!ition) take a !tan" an" then an" onl# then engage in pu'li$ a"o$a$# in faour of their
iewpoint. $urphy had no doubt that intercollegiate debate was a form of public advocacy and was% hence% rhetorical% although this
point would be severely attac1ed by proponents of switch+side debating( $odern debating% $urphy claimed% is geared to the public
platform and to rhetorical% rather than dialectical principlesF (p( J-( 2ntercollegiate debate was rhetorical% not dialectical% because its
propositions were specific and timely rather than speculative and universal( 5ebaters evidenced their claims by appeals to authority and
opinion rather than formal logic% and debaters appealed to an audience% even if that audience was a single person sitting in the bac1 of a
room at a relatively isolated debate tournament( As such% debate as a species of public argument should be held to the ethics of the
platform( We woul" !urel# hol" in $ontempt an# pu'li$ a$tor who !poke with e9ual for$e) an" without
genuine $oni$tion) for 'oth !i"e! of a pu'li$ poli$# 9ue!tion. Wh#) a!ke" Murph#) woul" we e>empt
!tu"ent! from the !ame ethi$al o'ligationB
Without true $oni$tion pu'li$ !peaking 'e$ome! a game rather than a pur!uit to truth)
lea"ing to "i!mi!!al of politi$al figure! a! !imple liar!
2reene an" Ci$k! 0K (&onald Walter and 5arrin% 2nsert Puals( 'ost convictions( Aultural !tudies( Holume
)8% 2ssue )( 2nformaWorld( httpG33www(informaworld(com3smpp3sectionS
content[aJ7*?I*?I7#fulltext[J)7,9:8,*- !'!(
"he interdependency of logos and ethos was not only a matter of rhetorical principle for $urphy but also a
foundational premise of public reason in a democratic society( Although he never explicitly states why this is
true% most li1ely because he assumed it to be self+evident% a charitable interpretation of $urphyFs position%
certainly a more generous interpretation than his detractors were willing to give% would show that his axiom
rests on the following argumentG If pu'li$ rea!on i! to hae an# legitimate for$e) au"itor! mu!t 'eliee
that a"o$ate! are arguing from $oni$tion an" not from gree") "e!ire or nake" !elf7intere!t. If
au"itor! 'eliee that a"o$ate! are in!in$ere) the# will not affor" legitima$# to their $laim! and will opt
to settle disputes through force or some seemingly neutral modus vivendi such as voting or arbitration(
6ence% !in$erit# i! a ne$e!!ar# element of pu'li$ rea!on an") therefore) a ne$e!!ar# $on"ition of $riti$al
"eli'eration in a "emo$rati$ !o$iet#. /or $urphy% the a!!umption of !in$erit# i! intimatel# arti$ulate" to
the notion of ethi$al argumentation in a "emo$rati$ politi$al $ulture. If a !peaker were to repu"iate
thi! a!!umption '# a"o$ating $ontra"i$tor# po!ition! in a pu'li$ forum) it woul" $ompletel#
un"ermine her or hi! etho! an" re!ult in the lo!! of the means of i"entifi$ation with an au"ien$e. "he
real danger of undermining the assumption of sincerity was not that individual spea1ers would be rendered
ineffective although this certainly did ma1e training students to debate both sides bad rhetorical pedagogy(
The ultimate "anger of !wit$h7!i"e "e'ating wa! that it woul" engen"er a "i!tru!t of pu'li$ a"o$ate!.
The pu'li$ woul" $ome to !ee the "e'ater! who woul" $ome to o$$up# pu'li$ offi$e! a! Gpu'li$ liar!8
more intere!te" in politi$! a! o$ation than a! a $alling. 1e'ate woul" 'e !een a! a game of power
rather than the metho" of "emo$ra$#.
Whitman College 2/
+ole -la#ing 5a"
5eing for$e" to a$t a! the State or an a"o$ate for the !tatu! 9uo totall# inali"ate! a
"e'aterI! agen$#) neer a'le to !peak from their own per!pe$tie or inoke $hange
Mit$hell 9H (@ordon &(% Associate rofessor of Aommunication and 5irector of the William itt 5ebating Enion
at the Eniversity of ittsburgh( edagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate(
Argumentation and Advocacy% Holume 7?% 2ssue ,( /all )88*(
httpG33findarticles(com3p3articles3miWhbII883isW,W7?3aiWn,*J,:J),3- !'!
2n the process of explaining their teaching approach% argumentation !$holar! sometimes inoke a 'ifur$ation that !eparate!
a$a"emi$ !tu"# of argumentation from applie" pra$ti$e in pu'li$ argument( Thi! e>planation typically
begins with an elucidation of the democratic and emancipatory potential of debate as a process of decisionma1ing% and then pro$ee"! to an
e>planation of a$a"emi$ !tu"# a! an e!!ential preparator# step on the way to achievement of such emancipatory potential(
"his route of explanation is $on!i!tent with the Ameri$an Foren!i$ A!!o$iation Cre"o) whi$h "e$lare! that the purpose
of foren!i$ e"u$ation i! to Aprepare !tu"ent! through $la!!room!) forum!) an" $ompetition for
parti$ipation in their worl" through the power of e>pre!!ionA (<td( in /reeley )88I% p( ),,-( Writing from this posture to
defend the value of Cational 5ebate "ournament (C5"- policy competition% Bdward -anetta po!it! that N1T "e'ate Awill prepare
!tu"ent! to 'e !o$ietal lea"er! ...A ()88:% p( JI% emphasis added-( !imilarly% Austin Freele# !ugge!t! that a$a"emi$
"e'ate Aproi"e! preparation for effe$tie parti$ipation in a "emo$rati$ !o$iet#A an" Aoffer!
preparation for lea"er!hipA ()88J% p( ,)% emphasis added-( What are the entailments of such a preparatory framewor1 for argumentation
pedagogy% and how do such entailments manifest themselves in teaching practiceS =n the surface% the rhetoric of preparation seems innocuous and
consistent with other unremar1able idioms employed to describe education (college prep courses and prep school spring to mind-( 6owever% '#
framing argumentation pe"agog# a! preparation for student empowerment% e"u$ator! may actually $on!train
the eman$ipator# potential of the "e'ate enterpri!e( 2n this vein% approa$he! that are purel# oriente"
towar" preparation pla$e !tu"ent! and teachers s<uarely in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen% a peripheral !pa$e marke"
off from the fiel" of !o$ial a$tion. 2n what follows% 2 pursue this tentative hypothesis by interrogating the framework of
preparator# pe"agog# on three levels% considering how it can position sites of academic in<uiry vis+a+vis broader public spheres of deliberation%
how it $an flatten an" "efer $on!i"eration of $omple> i!!ue! of argumentative engagement an" how it can inite
unwitting $o7option of argumentatie !kill!(
+ole7-la#ing re"u$e! "e'ater! to nothing 'ut !pe$tator!) for$e" to treat what !houl" 'e
pu'li$ a"o$a$# into !imple $ompetition. Their agen$# i! further re"u$e" a! the# retreat
farther an" farther from real politi$!
As two prominent teachers of argumentation point out% LMan# !$holar! an" e"u$ator! term a$a"emi$ "e'ate a
la'orator# for te!ting an" "eeloping approa$he! to argumentationL (6ill and 'eeman )88J% p( I-( "his
explanation of academic debate s<uares with descriptions of the study of argumentation that highlight debate training as preparation for
citi>enship( As a !afe !pa$e that permit! the $ontrolle" Ate!tingA of approa$he! to argumentation) the
a$a"emi$ la'orator#) on this account% $on!titute! a training groun" for LfutureL citi>ens and leaders to hone their
$riti$al thinking an" a"o$a$# !kill!( While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a
protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e(g( Aoverstone )88?% p( *+8-% the notion of the a$a"emi$ "e'ate
tournament a! a !terile la'orator# $arrie! with it !ome "i!tur'ing impli$ation!% when the metaphor is extended
to its limit( "o the extent that the a$a"emi$ !pa$e 'egin! to take on $hara$teri!ti$! of a la'orator#) the 'arrier!
"emar$ating !u$h a !pa$e from other spheres of "eli'eration beyond the school grow taller and less permeable( When
!u$h 'arrier! rea$h in!urmounta'le "imen!ion!) argumentation in the a$a"emi$ !etting unfol"! on a
purel# !imulate" plane) with !tu"ent! pra$ti$ing $riti$al thinking an" a"o$a$# !kill! in !tri$tl#
h#potheti$al thought7!pa$e!. Although they may research and trac1 public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the
laboratory for research purposes% in this approach% !tu"ent! witne!! argumentation beyond the walls of the academy a!
!pe$tator!% with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see $itchell )88?; )88*-( The
!en!e of "eta$hment a!!o$iate" with the !pe$tator po!ture is highlighted "uring epi!o"e! of alienation in
whi$h "e'ater! $heer new! of human !uffering or mi!fortune. In!tea" of fo$u!ing on the i!$eral
negatie re!pon!e! to new! a$$ount! of human "eath an" mi!er#) "e'ater! oer$ome with the
$ompetitie <eal of $onte!t roun" $ompetition !how a ten"en$# to $on$entrate on the meaning! that
Whitman College 2K
!u$h ei"en$e might hol" for the !trength of their a$a"emi$ "e'ate argument!. /or example% news reports of
ma!! !taration might ti"# up the Luni9uene!! of a disadvantageL or 'ol!ter the Linheren$# of an affirmative caseL
(in the technical parlance of debate+spea1-( $urchland categori>es $ultiation of thi! A!pe$tatorA mentalit# a! one of
the mo!t politi$all# "e'ilitating failure! of $ontemporar# e"u$ationG LBducational institutions have failed even
more grievously to provide the 1ind of civic forums we need( 2n fact% one $oul" ea!il# $on$lu"e that the prin$iple
purpo!e! of our !$hool! i! to "eprie !u$$e!!or generation! of their $ii$ oi$e) to turn them into mute
an" un$omprehen"ing !pe$tator! in the "rama of politi$al lifeA ()88)% p( *-
The !tru$ture of preparator# pe"agog# not onl# ei!$erate! "e'ater!I agen$# "uring "e'ate
'ut !eparate! "e'ate from the alrea"# re!tri$te" pu'li$ !phere of "i!$our!e) perpetuating a
!#!tem of $ontrol oer pu'li$ "i!$u!!ion
Aomplete reliance on the la'orator# metaphor to guide pedagogical practice $an re!ult in the unfortunate
fore$lo!ure of $ru$ial learning opportunitie!. The!e opportunitie!% which will be discussed in more detail
in the later sections of this piece% $enter aroun" the pro$e!! of argumentatie engagement with wi"er
pu'li$ !phere! of "eli'eration( In the strictly preparator# mo"el of argument pe"agog#) !u$h "ire$t
engagement i! an a$tiit# that i! appropriatel# pur!ue" following the $ompletion of a$a"emi$ "e'ate
training (see e(g( Aoverstone )88?% p( *-( reparatory study of argumentation% underta1en in the confines of
the academic laboratory% is conducted on the plane of simulation and is designed to pave the way for eventual
application of critical thin1ing and oral advocacy s1ills in Lreal+worldL contexts( Su$h a preparator#
pe"agog# ha! a ten"en$# to "efer refle$tion an" theori<ation on the politi$al "#nami$! of a$a"emi$
"e'ate it!elf. /or example% man# te>t'ook! intro"u$e !tu"ent! to the importan$e of argumentation a!
the 'a!i! for $iti<en!hip in the opening chapter% move on to discussion of specific s1ills in the intervening
chapters% an" neer return to the o'iou! 'roa"er 9ue!tion of how !pe$ifi$ !kill! $an 'e utili<e" to
!upport effort! of parti$ipator# $iti<en!hip an" "emo$rati$ empowerment. 2nsofar a! the argumentation
$urri$ulum "oe! not forthrightly themati<e the $onne$tion 'etween s1ill+based learning and "emo$rati$
empowerment) the pro!pe$t that !tu"ent! will fully "eelop strong senses of tran!formatie politi$al
agen$# grow! in$rea!ingl# remote. "he undercultivation of student agency in the academic field of
argumentation is a particularly pressing problem% since social theorists such as /oucault% 6abermas and
"ouraine have proposed that information and communication have emerged as significant media of
domination and exploitation in contemporary society( "hese scholars argue% in different ways% that new an"
parti$ularl# in!i"iou! mean! of !o$ial $ontrol hae "eelope" in re$ent time!. "hese methods of control
are insidious in the sense that the# !uffu!e apparentl# open pu'li$ !phere! an" !tru$ture opportunitie!
for "ialogue in !u'tle and often nefarious wa#!. Who ha! authorit# to !peak in pu'li$ forum!B Cow "oe!
!o$ioe$onomi$ !tatu! "etermine a$$e!! to information an" $lo!e off !pa$e! for pu'li$ "eli'erationB
Who "etermine! what i!!ue! are pla$e" on the agen"a for pu'li$ "i!$u!!ionB 2t is impossible to seriously
consider these <uestions and still hew closely to the idea that a single% monolithic% essentiali>ed Lpublic
sphereL even exists( 2nstead% multiple public spheres exist in diverse cultural and political milieux% and
communicative practices wor1 to transform and reweave continuously the normative fabric that holds them
together( !ome public spaces are vibrant and full of emancipatory potential% while others are coloni>ed by
restrictive institutional logics( Argumentation s1ills can be practiced in both contexts% but how can the
utili>ation of such s1ills transform positively the nature of the public spaces where dialogue ta1es placeS
/or students and teachers of argumentation% the heightened salience of this <uestion should signal the danger
that critical thin1ing and oral advocacy s1ills alone may not be sufficient for citi>ens to assert their voices in
public deliberation( In!titutional intere!t! 'ent on !hutting "own "ialogue an" "i!$u!!ion ma# re$ruit
new gra"uate! !kille" in argumentation an" "eplo# them in information $ampaign! "e!igne" to
neutrali<e pu'li$ $ompeten$e an" !hort7$ir$uit "emo$rati$ "e$i!ion7making (one variant of 6abermasF
Lcoloni>ation of the lifeworldL thesis; see 6abermas )8*)% p( 7JI+7J7-( 6abermas sees the emergent capacity
of capitalist institutions to sustain themselves by manufacturing legitimacy through strategic communication
as a development that profoundly transforms the $arxist political dynamic( By coloni>ing terms and spaces
of public dialogue with instrumental% strategically+motivated reasoning% institutions are said by 6abermas to
have engineered a Lrefeudali>ationL of the public sphere( In thi! "i!torte" !pa$e for pu'li$ "i!$u!!ion)
$orporation! an" the !tate forge a monopol# on argumentation an" !u'ert $riti$al "eli'eration '#
mem'er! of an enlightene") "e'ating pu'li$. "his coloni>ation thesis supplements the traditional $arxist
Whitman College 2.
problematic of class exploitation by highlighting a new axis of domination% the way in which capitalist
systems rely upon the strategic management of discourse as a mode of legitimation and exploitation( 2ndeed%
the implicit bridge that connects argumentation s1ills to democratic empowerment in many argumentation
textboo1s crosses perilous waters% since institutions facing Llegitimation crisesL (see 6abermas )8J?- rely
increasingly on recruitment and deployment of argumentative talent to manufacture public loyalty(
Fi>ation on rolepla#ing poli$#maker! i! 'a"
Clau"e 19HH (2nis% rofessor of @overnment and /oreign Affairs% Eniversity of Hirginia% State! an" the 2lo'al
S#!tem% p)*+,:% 6A-
"his view of the state as an institutional monolith is fostered by the notion of sovereignty% which calls up the image of the monarch% presiding over his 1ingdom(
Soereignt# empha!i<e! the !ingularit# of the !tate) it! monopol# of authorit#) it! unit# of $omman" an" it!
$apa$it# to !peak with one oi$e. Thu!) Fran$e will!) Iran "eman"!% Ahina intends% Cew _ealand promises an" the Soiet
(nion in!i!t!. 3ne all too ea!il# $on:ure! up the pi$ture of a !ingle7min"e" an" purpo!eful !tate that "e$i"e!
e>a$tl# what it want! to a$hiee) a"opt! $oherent poli$ie! intelligentl# a"apte" to it! o':e$tie!) know! what it
i! "oing) "oe! what it inten"! an" alwa#! ha! it! a$t together. Thi! iew of the !tate i! reinfor$e" '# politi$al
!$ienti!t!8 empha!i! upon the $on$ept of poli$# and upon the thesis that governments derive policy from calculations of national interest( We
thu! ta1e it for granted that states act internationally in accordance with rationally conceived and consciously constructed schemes of action% and we impli$itl#
refu!e to $on!i"er the po!!i'ilit# that alternatie! to poli$#7"ire$te" 'ehaiour ma# hae importan$eDalternatives
such as random% reactive% instinctual% habitual and conformist behaviour( =ur rationalistic assumption that states do what they have planned to do tends to inhibit the
discovery that states sometimes do what they feel compelled to do% or what they have the opportunity to do% or what they have usually done% or what other states are
doing% or whatever the line of least resistance would seem to suggest( A$a"emi$ preo$$upation with the making of poli$# i!
a$$ompanie" '# a$a"emi$ negle$t of the e>e$ution of poli$#. We !eem to a!!ume that on$e the !tate ha!
$al$ulate" it! intere!t an" $ontrie" a poli$# to further that intere!t) the $arr#ing out of poli$# i! the irtuall#
automati$ re!ult of the routine functioning of the bureaucratic mechanism of the state( 2 am inclined to call this the @enesis theory of public administration%
ta1ing as my text the passageG And @od said% 'et there be lightG and there was lightF( 2 suspect that% in the realm of government% poli$# e>e$ution rarel#
follow! !o promptl# an" ine>ora'l# from poli$# !tatement. Alternatiel#) one ma# "u' it the -ooh75ah4Fo7
Fo theor#% honouring those deni>ens of William !( @ilbertFs .apan who too1 the position that when the Mika"o or"ere" that !omething e
"one it wa! a! goo" a! "one an" might a! well 'e "e$lare" to hae 'een "one. In the real worl") that whi$h a
!tate "e$i"e! to "o i! not a! goo" a! "one= it ma#) in fa$t) neer 'e "one. And what states do% they may never have decided to do(
2oernment! are not automati$ ma$hine!) grin"ing out "e$i!ion! an" $onerting "e$i!ion! into a$tion!. The#
are agglomeration! of human 'eing!) like the re!t of u! in$line" to 'e falli'le) la<#) forgetful) in"e$i!ie)
re!i!tant to "i!$ipline an" authorit#) an" likel# to fail to get the wor" or to hee" it. A! in other large
organi<ation!) left an" right goernmental han"! are fre9uentl# ignorant of ea$h other8! a$tiitie!) offi$ial
!poke!men $ontra"i$t ea$h other) mini!trie! work at $ro!! purpo!e!) an" the $reaking ma$hiner# of
goernment often gie! the impre!!ion that no one i! reall# in $harge( 2 hope that no one will attribute my 0aundiced view of
government merely to the fact that 2 am an AmericanDone% that is% whose personal experience is limited to a governmental system that is notoriously complex%
dis0ointed% erratic% cumbersome and unpredictable( "he Enited !tates does not% 2 suspect% have the least effective government or the most bumbling and incompetent
bureaucracy in all the world( 6ere and there% now and then% governments do% of course perform prodigious feats of organi>ation and administrationG an extraordinary
war effort% a flight to the moon% a successful hostage+rescue operation( $ore often% states have to ma1e do with governments that are not notably clear about their
purposes or coordinated and disciplined in their operations( Thi! mean! that% in international relations% states are sometimes less dangerous% and sometimes
less reliable% than one might thin1( Ceither their threats nor their promises are to be ta1en with absolute seriousness( Above all% it mean! that we !tu"ent!
of international politi$! mu!t 'e $autiou! in attri'uting purpo!efulne!! an" re!pon!i'ilit# to goernment!( "o
say the that the Enited !tates was informed about an event is not to establish that the president acted in the light of that 1nowledge; he may never have heard about it(
"o say that a !oviet pilot shot down an airliner is not to prove that the Nremlin has adopted the policy of destroying all intruders into !oviet airspace; one wants to
1now how and by whom the decision to fire was made( "o observe that the representative of _imbabwe voted in favour of a particular resolution in the Enited
Cations @eneral Assembly is not necessarily to discover the nature of _imbabweFs policy on the affected matter; _imbabwe may have no policy on that matter% and it
may be that no one in the national capital has ever heard of the issue( We can hardly dispense with the convenient notion that a1istan claims% Auba promises% and
2taly insists% and we cannot well abandon the formal position that governments spea1 for and act on behalf of their states% but it i! e!!ential that we 'ear
$on!tantl# in min" the realit# that goernment! are neer full# in $harge an" neer a$hiee the unit#)
purpo!efulne!! an" "i!$ipline that theor# attri'ute! to themDand that they sometimes claim(

MGW 11 - Framework

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MGW 11 - Framework

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Whitman College 1

Tournament 2009 File Title

Вам также может понравиться