aff k toolbox 3 - michigan7 2013

8/13/2019 Aff K Toolbox 3 - Michigan7 2013

1/125

Generic


2/125

Perm


3/125

Generic

Permutation solves- Problems of discourse can be resolved within the limits of

postructuralism- enacting the alternative fails to influence main stream politics

Newman 05- a Research Fellow at UWA and a Lecturer in Politics atEdith Cowan University,Western Australia. (Power and Politics in Poststructuralist Thought: New theories of the

political, Taylor and Francis Group, First Published 2005,

http://zinelibrary.info/files/Newman%20-

%20Power%20and%20Politics%20in%20Poststructuralist%20Thought%20-

%20New%20Theories%20of%20the%20Political.pdf)

Therefore the third, and more implicit, aim in this book is to suggest that, contrary to prevailing

criticism, poststructuralism does not amount to an apolitical and amoral nihilism. Rather, a

poststructuralist approach is ethically and politically engaged. However, this engagement or

commitment is not always obviousit needs to be teased out, emphasized, and this is precisely

my aim here. Moreover, there are certain conceptual blind spots or aporias to use Derridas

termin poststructuralist theory,

which present obstacles to its political efficacy, and which Iseek to redress here. These include the need for a more consistent place for the subject, as

well as the need for an outside to structures of power, discourse and language. These, and

other, problems emerge in different ways throughout the essays in this book. My contention

here is that they can be resolved within the discursive limits of poststructuralism itselfthat is,

they can be resolved without falling back onto essential foundations, such as a universal

conception of the subject or absolute moral and rational positions. Poststructuralisms

rejection of these metaphysical foundations has perhaps accounted for its rather frosty

reception in the mainstream discipline of political theory, where it is usually regarded with

suspicion, if not outright hostility. Instead, poststructuralist ideas tend to find a home in

disciplines outside politics, such as cultural studies, literary criticism and film theory. Indeed,

there seems to be a dissonance between usually AngloAmerican dominated or analytical

political theory, and continental poststructuralist thought. The former seems more concernedwith devising watertight moral and rational bases for political decisionsdecisions which

usually revolve around questions concerning the public sphere, such as rights or the distribution

of goods. The latter, on the other hand, is more interested in how things work or how things

come to be: how might we come to be asking these questions about politics, and not others;

what are the investments of power and the relations of exclusion that are involved with asking

these questions and limiting ourselves to certain political institutions and discourses? For

instance, in mainstream political theory, liberalism functions as a kind of meta-ideology or

metanarrative; it has become an embedded, universal discourse that determines the

conceptual limits of the practice of politics and defines its very terms of enquiry. However, a

poststructuralist approach might be more interested in interrogating or deconstructing the

discourse of liberalism itself, questioning its assumed neutrality and universality, and unveilingthe moral and rational assumptions and particular modes of subjectivity that it is based on.

Therefore, this book shows how poststructuralism might intervene in debates in political theory,

not by conforming to terms of reference that are dominant in this discipline, but by redefining

them.


4/125

Perm solves- poststructuralist politics dont have individual agencies- hidden

power relations, essentialist identities, and discursive and epistemological

frameworks prove.

Newman 12- a Research Fellow at UWA and a Lecturer in Politics atEdith Cowan University,Western Australia. (The Politics of Post Anarchism, The Anarchist Library, May 21, 2012,

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-the-politics-of-postanarchism.pdf)The impetus for this postanarchist intervention came from my sense that not only was anarchist

theory in nuce poststructuralist; but also that postructuralism itself was in nuce anarchist. That

is to say, anarchism allowed, as I have suggested, the theorization of the autonomy of the

political with its multiple sites of power and domination, as well as its multiple identities and

sites of resistance (state, church, family, patriarchy, etc) beyond the economic reductionist

framework of Marxism. However, as I have also argued, the implications of these theoretical

innovations were restricted by the epistemological conditions of the time essentialist ideas

about subjectivity, the determinist view of history, and the rational discourses of the

Enlightenment. Poststructuralism is, in turn, at least in its political orientation, fundamentally

anarchist particularly its deconstructive project of unmasking and destabilizing the authority

of institutions, and contesting practices of power that are dominating and exclusionary. Theproblem with poststructuralism was that, while it implied a commitment to anti-authoritarian

politics, it lacked not only an explicit politico-ethico content, but also an adequate account of

individual agency. The central problem with Foucault, for instance, was that if the subject is

constructed through the discourses and relations of power that dominate him, how exactly

does he resist this domination? Therefore, the premise for bringing together anarchism and

poststructuralism was to explore the ways in which each might highlight and address the

theoretical problems in the other. For instance, the poststructuralist intervention in anarchist

theory showed that anarchism had a theoretical blindspot it did not recognize the hidden

power relations and potential authoritarianism in the essentialist identities, and discursive and

epistemological frameworks, that formed the basis of its critique of authority. The anarchist

intervention in poststructural theory, on the other hand, exposed its political and ethical

shortcomings, and, in particular, the ambiguities of explaining agency and resistance in the

context of all-pervasive power relations. These theoretical problems centered around the

question of power, place and the outside: it was found that while classical anarchism was able

to theorize, in the essential revolutionary subject, an identity or place of resistance outside the

Permutation solves- Engaging politics while acknowledging its incompletion is

better than accepting oppression- failure to do so will spur more radicalism

Zizek 04- Famous Lacanian Scholar, (Liberation Hurts: An Interview with Slavoj Zizek, Theelectronic book review, July 1, 2004,

http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/endconstruction/desublimation)

I'm trying to avoid two extremes. One extreme is the traditional pseudo-radical position which

says, "If you engage in politics - helping trade unions or combating sexual harassment, whatever

- you've been co-opted" and so on. Then you have the other extreme which says, "Ok, you have

to do something." I think both are wrong. I hate those pseudo radicals who dismiss every

concrete action by saying, "This will all be co-opted." Of course, everything can be co-opted

[chuckles] but this is just a nice excuse to do absolutely nothing. Of course, there is a danger

that "the long march through institutions" - to use the old Maoist term, popular in European

student movements thirty-some years ago - will last so long that you'll end up part of the
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-the-politics-of-postanarchism.pdfhttp://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-the-politics-of-postanarchism.pdfhttp://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/endconstruction/desublimationhttp://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/endconstruction/desublimationhttp://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/endconstruction/desublimationhttp://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-the-politics-of-postanarchism.pdf


5/125

institution. We need more than ever, a parallax view - a double perspective. You engage in acts,

being aware of their limitations. This does not mean that you act with your fingers crossed. No,

you fully engage, but with the awareness - the ultimate wager in the almost Pascalian sense -

that is not simply that this act will succeed, but that the very failure of this act will trigger a

much more radical process.


6/125

Method focus bad

Methodologies are always imperfectendorsing multiple epistemological

frameworks can correct the blindspots of each

Stern and Druckman 2k(Paul, National Research Council and Daniel, Institute for ConflictAnalysis and Resolution George Mason University, International Studies Review, Spring, p.62-63)Using several distinct research approaches or sources of information in conjunction is a

valuable strategyfor developing generic knowledge . This strategy is particularly useful for meeting thechallenges of measurement and inference. The nature of historical phenomena makes controlled experimentationtheanalytic technique best suited to making strong inferences about causes and effectspractically impossible with real-lifesituations. Making inferences requires using experimentation in simulated conditions and various other methods, each ofwhich has its own advantages and limitations, but none of which can alone provide the level of certainty desired about whatworks and under 52Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-OneCountries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984); Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley, Calif.:University of California Press, 1985); Reilly and Reynolds, Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies. 62 Stern and

Druckman what conditions. We conclude that debates between advocates of different research

methods (for example, the quantitative-qualitative debate) are unproductive except in the context of a search

for ways in which different methods can complement each other. Because there is no single bestway to develop knowledge, the search for generic knowledge about international conflict resolution

should adopt an epistemological strategy of triangulation, sometimes called critical

multiplism.53 That is, it should use multiple perspectives, sources of data, constructs, interpretive frameworks,and modes of analysis to address specific questions on the presumption that research approaches that rely on certainperspectives can act as partial correctives for the limitations of approaches that rely on different ones. An underlying

assumption is that robust findings (those that hold across studies that vary along several dimensions) engender

more confidencethan replicated findings (a traditional scientific ideal, but not practicable in internationalrelations research outside the laboratory). When different data sources or methods convergeon asingle answer, one can have increased confidencein the result. When they do notconverge, one can interpret and take into account the known biases in each research

approach. A continuing critical dialogue among analysts using different perspectives, methods, and data could lead to anunderstanding that better approximates international relations than the results coming from any single study, method, or data

source.

Methods shouldnt come first they are a means to an end. Treating method as

an exclusive endpoint legitimizes mass suffering.Fearon and Wendt, Professor of Poli Sci at Stanford and Professor of IR at Ohio State,2002(James and Alexander, Handbook of International Relations, ed. Carlsnaes, p.68)

It should be stressed that in advocating a pragmatic view we are not endorsing method-drivensocial science. Too much researchin international relations chooses problems of things to beexplained with a view to whether the analysis will provide support for one or another

methodological ism. But the point ofIR scholarship should be to answer questionsabout international politics that are of great normative concern, not to validate methods.Methods are means, not ends in themselves. As a matter of personal scholarly choice it may be

reasonable to stick with one method and see how far it takes us. But since we do not

know how far that is, if the goal of the discipline is insightinto world politics then it makes

little senseto rule out one or the other approach on a priori grounds. In that case amethod indeed becomes a tacit ontology, which may lead to neglect ofwhatever

problemsit is poorly suited to address. Being conscious about those choices is why it is important to


7/125

distinguish between the ontological, empirical, and pragmatic levels of the rationalist-constructivist debate. We favor thepragmatic approach on heuristic grounds, but we certainly believe a conversation should continue on all three levels.


8/125

Policy good

We also control uniqueness - Academia is becoming dominated by those who

dont want to engage in policymaking now we need to engage policy

relevance instead of intellectual window dressingMahnken 10Thomas G. Mahnken (Visiting Scholar at the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins Universitys Paul H. NitzeSchool of Advanced International Studies served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning) Winter2010 Bridging the Gap Between the Worlds of Ideas and Action Orbis Vol. 54 No. 1 Science Direct Pages 4-13Some calls for greater collaboration between the government and the academy have emerged from professors. Among

international relations scholars, arguably among the most engaged of social scientists, there is

modest support for engagement in policy. A recent survey of scholars found that 49

percent of respondents believed they should contribute to the policymaking processas informal advisors but only 29 percent believed they should be formal participants.8 Among those who choose to engage inpolicy-relevant research, one frequently heard complaint is that practitioners do not use their theories. Michael C. Desch, for

one, has lamented that Policymakers need to be willing to really listen to us as they

formulate policy, rather than just using us as intellectual window dressing.9

Timeframe of our impacts makes your arguments irrelevantpolicy relevance

is key

Mahnken 10Thomas G. Mahnken (Visiting Scholar at the Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins Universitys Paul H. NitzeSchool of Advanced International Studies served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning) Winter2010 Bridging the Gap Between the Worlds of Ideas and Action Orbis Vol. 54 No. 1 Science Direct Pages 4-13

Although it is true that policymakers would benefit from the perspectives of

academic experts, it is equally true that scholars would benefit from a closer

acquaintance with the world of the policymaker. Such an experience would ideally

lead to more useful theoriesthat is, theories that deal with the world and the challenges that policymakers

face. As Stephen Walt has admitted, Contemporary IR theory conforms to the norms andincentives of the academic profession rather than the needs of policy. [International

relations] scholarship is often impenetrable to outsiders, largely because it is not

intended for their consumption.11 Better, more useful theories would, for example, deal

with uncertainty and ambiguity that pervades policymaking. As Robert Rothstein observed nearlyforty years ago, The political practitioner. . .knows nothing for certain, and very little that can even be stated in high

probability. Moreover, the subjects to which he must apply his theory are not inert. Their relatively uncontrolled andindeterminate behavior guarantees that the application of social theories will always be an ambiguous and uncertain art.12

To address these features of the policymaking environment, theories need to be more nuanced and interdisciplinary Social

science theory tends to be abstract and idealized; the policy process, by contrast, is

messy. Whereas social scientists seek to identify and explain recurring social behavior,

policymakers tend to be concerned with specific problems. Policymakers are less interested in

explaining a trend than in figuring out how to exploit or mitigate it. Moreover, policymakers do not have the

luxury of waiting for all the facts. Rather, they face the daunting challenge of makingdecisions with imperfect and often incorrect information under the pressure of time .

Perhaps more importantly,decisions need to be implemented in the face of bureaucratic

resistance, legal constraints, and political partisanship. Both the academy and the

nation would be better off if scholars were more involved in topics of interest to

policymakersthan they have been in the recent past. Still, in dealing with the world of action scholars need to

understand that they are at a disadvantage. Senior decision makers, particularly

those in the national security arena, tend to be both smart and experienced


9/125

professionals who have access to much more information than do those outside the

government. The rapid pace of events, combined with the secrecy surrounding

national security, conspire to ensure that to a considerable extent those in

government talk only to themselves.

Using structures of domination is politically necessary if it is the only way toend oppression

Lawrence Grossburg, University of Illinois, We Gotta Get Outta This Place, 1992, p. 362-364In their desire to renounce vanguardism, hierarchy and authoritarianism,too many intellectuals have also

renounced the value of intellectual and political authority. This renunciation of authority ispredicated on a theoretical crisis of representation in which the authority of any knowledge is suspect, since all knowledge ishistorically determined and implicated in hierarchical relations of power. The political reflection of this suspicion is thatstructures and hierarchy are equated with domination. Intellectuals cannot claim to speak the truth of the world, and they

cannot speak for or in the name of other people. There are only two strategies available to the critic. First, the ability todescribe the reality of peoples experience or position in the world can be given over entirely to the people who are the

subjects of the analysis. They are allowed to speak for themselves within the intellectuals discourse. The critic merelyinscribes the others own sense of their place within and relationship to specific experiences and practices. Second, the critic

analyzes his or her own position self-reflexivly, and its consequences for his or her study (i.e., my history and position havedetermined the inevitable failure of my authority) but without privileging that position. In either case, there is little room for

the critics own authority. While such a moment of intellectual suspicion is necessary,it goes too far when it

assumes that all knowledge claims are unjustified and unjustifiable, leaving the critic

to celebrate difference and a radical and pluralist relativism.The fact of contextual determi-nation does not by itself mean that all knowledge claims are false, nor does it mean that all such claims are equally invalid or

useless responses to a particular context. It need not entail relativism. The fact that specific discourses are

articulated into relations of power does not mean that these relations are necessary

or guaranteed, nor that all knowledges are equally badand to be opposedfor even if they are

implicated with particular structures of power,there as no reason to assume that all structures of

power are equally bad.Such an assumption would entail the futility of political struggle and the end of history. Thisis the conundrum of the intellectual Left, for you cant have knowledge without standards and authority. Similarly, although allstructures of commonality, norrnality and the sacred may be suspect, social existence itself is impossible without at least the

imagination of such possibilities. This intellectuals crisis of representation becomesparticularly dangerous when it is projected on everyday life and political struggle,when it is mistakenly identified with a very different crisis of authority. In the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, post-Three MileIsland, post-Challenger, post-Jimmy Bakker world, many if not all of the traditional sources of moral, political and evenintellectual authority (including those empowered by the postwar consensus) have collapsed or at least lost a good deal oftheir aura. There is a deep seated public anxiety that Americas power (moral, political, economic, etc.) is on the wane and thatnone of the traditional authorities is capable of protecting Americans from the many forcesnatural and socialthat threatenthem. Here we must assent to part of the new conservative argument: Structures of ironic cynicism have become increasinglypowerful and do represent a real cultural and political problem. Both crises involve a struggle to redefine cultural authority.For the former it is a struggle to reestablish the political possibility of theory. For the latter it involves the need to constructpolitically effective authorities, and to relocate the right of intellectuals to claim such authority without reproducingauthoritarian relations. The intellectuals crisis is a reflexive and rather self-indulgent struggle against a pessimism which theyhave largely created for themselves. The conflation of the two glosses over the increasing presence (even as popular figures) ofnew conservative intellectuals, and the threatening implications of the power of a popular new conservatism. The newconservative alliance has quite intentionally addressed the crisis of authority, often blaming it on the Lefts intellectual crisis ofrepresentation (e.g., the attacks on political correctness), as the occasion for their own efforts to set new authorities in place

new positions, new criteria and new statements.Left intellectuals have constructed their ownirrelevance, not through their elitist language, butthrough their refusal to find appropriate

forms and sitesof authority. Authority is not necessarily authoritarian; itneed not claim the

privilege of an autonomous, sovereign and unified speaking subject. In the face of real

historical relations of domination and subordination, politicalintervention seems to demand,

as part of thepolitical responsibility of those empowered to speak, that they speak toand

sometimes forothers. And sometimes that speech must address questions about


10/125

the relative importance of different struggles and the relative value, even the enabling

possibilitiesof, different structures.

We must use the institutions that exercise power to change them

Lawrence Grossburg, University of Illinois, We Gotta Get Outta This Place, 1992, p. 391-393The Left needs institutions which can operate within the systems of governance,

understanding that such institutions are the mediating structures by which power is

actively realized. It is oftenby directing opposition against specific institutions that

power can be challenged.The Left has assumed from some time now that, since it has so little access to the

apparatuses of agency, its only alternative is to seek a public voice in the media through tactical protests. The Left does in

fact need more visibility, but it alsoneeds greater access to the entire range of apparatuses of

decision making and power. Otherwise, the Left has nothing but its own self-righteousness.It is not

individuals who have produced starvation and the othersocial disgraces of our world,although it

is individuals who must take responsibility for eliminating them. But to do so, they

must act within organizations, and within the system of organizations which in fact

have the capacity(as well as the moral responsibility) to fight them.Without such organizations, the onlymodels of political commitment are self-interest and charity. Charity suggests that we act on behalf of others who cannot act

on their own behalf. But we are all precariously caught in the circuits of global capitalism, and everyones position isincreasingly precarious and uncertain. It will not take much to change the position of any individual in the United States, a s theexperience of many of the homeless, the elderly and the fallen middle class demonstrates. Nor are there any guaranteesabout the future of any single nation. We can imagine ourselves involved in a politics where acting for another is always actingfor oneself as well, a politics in which everyone struggles with the resources they have to make their lives (and the world)better, since the two are so intimately tied together! For example, we need to think of affirmation action as in everyones bestinterests, because of the possibilities it opens. We need to think with what Axelos has described as a planetary thought whichwould be a coherent thoughtbut not a rationalizing and rationalist inflection; it would be a fragmentary thought of the

open totalityfor what we can grasp are fragments unveiled on the horizon of the totality. Such a politics will not begin bydistinguishing between the local and the global (and certainly not by valorizing one over the other) for the ways in which the

former are incorporated into the latter preclude the luxury of such choices. Resistance is always a local

struggle, even when(as in parts of the ecology movement) it is imagined to connect into its global

structures of articulation: Think globally, act locally. Opposition is predicated precisely on locating the points ofarticulation between them, the points at which the global becomes local, and the local opens up onto the global. Since themeaning of these terms has to be understood in the context of any particular struggle, one is always acting both globally and

locally: Think globally, act appropriately! Fight locally because that is the scene of action, but aim for the global because that isthe scene of agency. Local struggles directly target national and international axioms, at the precise point of their insertioninto the field of immanence. This requires the imagination and construction of forms of unity, commonality and social agencywhich do not deny differences. Without such commonality, politics is too easily reduced to a question of individual rights (i.e.,in the terms of classical utility theory); difference ends up trumping politics, bringing it to an end. The struggle against thedisciplined mobilization of everyday life can only be built on affective commonalities, a shared responsible yearning: a

yearning out towards something more and something better than th is and this place now. The Left, after all, is defined by itscommon commitment to principles of justice, equality and democracy (although these might conflict) in economic, political

and cultural life. It is based on the hope, perhaps even the illusion, that such things are possible. The construction of

an affective commonality attempts to mobilize people in a common struggle, despite

the fact that they have no common identity or character, recognizing that they are the

only force capable of providing a new historical and oppositional agency. It strives to

organize minorities into a new majority.

Government action is necessary. Alternatives like anarchy, localism, spirituality,

and eco-centrism will get squashed and worsen current destruction

Taylor 2kProfessor of Social EthicsBron, Professor of Religion & Social Ethics, Director of Environmental Studies, University of

Wisconsin-Oshkosh, BENENEATH THE SURFACE: CRITICAL ESSAYS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF DEEP

ECOLOGY, P. 282-284


11/125

A more trenchant problem is how bioregionalists (and the anarchists who influencedtheir most influential theorists) often assume that people are naturally predisposed(unless corrupted by life in unnatural, hierarchical, centralized, industrial societies) tocooperative behavior. This debatable assumption appears to depend more on radicalenvironmental faith, a kind of Paul Shepard-style mythologizing, than on ecology oranthropology. Unfortunately for bioregional theory, evolutionary biology shows that

not only cooperation promotes species survival; so also, at times, does aggressivecompetitiveness. Based on its unduly rosy view of the potential for human altruism, itis doubtful that bioregionalism can offer sufficient structural constraints on theexercise of power by selfish and well-entrenched elites. It should be obvious, forexample, that nation-state governments will not voluntarily cede authority. Anypolitical reorganization along bioregional lineswould likely require widespread

violence and dislocation. Fewbioregionalists seem to recognize this likelihood, orhow devastating to nature such a transitional struggle would probably be. Moreover,making an important but often overlooked point about political power, politicaltheorist Daniel Deudney warns: The sizes of the bioregionality based states would

vary greatly because bioregions vary greatly. This would mean that some states wouldbe much more powerful than other [and] it is not inevitable that balances of power

would emerge to constrain the possible imperial pretensions of the larger andstronger states. Andrew Bard Schmookler, in his critique of utopian bioregionalprogeny). For ignoring a specific problem of power. He asked: How can good peopleprevent being dominated by a ruthless few, and what will prevent hierarchies fromemerging if decentralized political self-rule is ever achieved? One does not have to

believe all people are bad to recognize that not all people will be good, he argued; andunless bad people all become good, there is no solution to violence other than somekind of government to restrain the evil few. Schmookler elsewhere noted that those

who exploit nature gather more power to themselves. How, then, can we restrain suchpower? There must be a government able to control the free exercise of power,Schmookler concluded. Once when debating Green anarchists and bioregionalists in aradical environmental journal, Schmookler agreed that political decentralization is a

good idea. But if we move in this direction, he warned, there should be at the sametime a world order sufficient [to thwart] would-be conquerors. Moreover, Since thebiosphere is a globally interdependent web, that world order should be able toconstrain any of the actors from fouling the earth. This requires laws and means ofenforcement.Schmookler concluded, Government is a paradox, but there is noescaping it. This is because power is a paradox: our emergence out of the naturalorder makes power and inevitable problem for human affairs, and only power cancontrol power. Bioregionalism generally fails to grapple adequately with the problemof power. Consequently, it has little answer to specifically global environmentalproblems, such as atmospheric depletion and the disruption of ocean ecosystems bypollution and overfishing. Political scientist Paul Wapner argues that this is because

bioregionalism assumes that all global threats stem from local instances ofenvironmental abuse and that by confronting them at the local level they willdisappear. Nor does bioregionalism have much of a response to the globalization ofcorporate capitalism and consumerist market society, apart from advocating localresistance or long-odds campaigns to revoke the corporate charters of the worstenvironmental offenders. These efforts do little to hinder the inertia of this process.

And little is ever said about howto restrain the voracious appetite of a global-corporate-consumer culture for the resources in every corner of the planet. Even forthe devout, promoting deep ecological spirituality and ecocentric values seemspitifully inadequate in the face of such forces. Perhaps it is because they have little if


12/125

any theory of social change, and thus cannot really envision a path toward asustainable society, that many bioregional deep ecologists revert to apocalypticscenarios. Many of them see the collapse of ecosystems and industrial civilization asthe only possible means toward the envisioned changes. Others decide that politicalactivism is hopeless, and prioritize instead spiritual strategies for evoking deepecological spirituality, hoping, self-consciously, for a miracle. Certainly the resistance

of civil society to globalization and its destructive inertia is honorable and important,even a part a part of a wider sustainability strategy. But there will be no victories overglobalization and corporate capitalism, and no significant progress towardsustainability,withoutnew forms of international, enforceable, globalenvironmental governance. Indeed, without new restraints on power both withinnations and internationally, the most beautiful bioregional experiments and models

will be overwhelmed and futile.


13/125

Performance fails

Performative pedagogy fails in the context of a competitive debate -- there is

no rigorous criteria for deciding whether or not we have sufficiently

"performed" our pedagogy

Medina and Perry '11Mia, University of British Columbia, Carmen, Indiana University"Embodiment and Performance in Pedagogy Research: Investigating the Possibility of the Body

in Curriculum Experience" Journal of Curriculum Theorizing Volume 27, Number 3, 2

http://www.academia.edu/470170/Embodiment_and_performance_in_pedagogy_The_possibili

ty_of_the_body_in_curriculum

Jean-Luc Nancy (1994) reminds us that our endeavour to write about embodiment

fails before it begins, as the body is impenetrableby the means that we have atour disposal words,ink, page, computer. And we would add that the endeavour to talk about

the body is also challenging if not futile, due to the discourses that we have at the ready, that

is, the dominant discourses of the mind. In the face of this methodological predicament,Caroline Fusco (2008)regrets that in educational research a discursive and material

disinfecting and cleansing take[s] place in the transcription of body and space to written or

visual texts(p. 160). In the following analysis, we acknowledge the limitations of representing

research in the written and visualformat of a journal article, but embrace the affordances that

analytic discourses and written text provide. In this way, we aspire to contribute to a much

larger conversation that necessarily extends beyond these two authors, beyond this study, and

beyond the modalities of written andvisual texts.

The negative's performance is coopted as an elite tool for immiseration --

evaluate the debate as if the speakers are anonymousGur-ze-ev, 98- Senior Lecturer Philosophy of Education at Haifa, (Ilan, Toward anonrepressive critical pedagogy, Educational Theory, Fall 48,

http://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Peda

gogy)

From this perspective, the consensus reached by the reflective subject taking part in the dialogue

offered by Critical Pedagogy is naive, especially in light of its declared anti-intellectualism on the

one hand and its pronounced glorification of "feelings", "experience", and self-evident

knowledge of the group on the other. Critical Pedagogy, in its different versions, claims to inhere and overcome thefoundationalism and transcendentalism of the Enlightenment's emancipatory and ethnocentric arrogance, as exemplified by

ideology critique, psychoanalysis, or traditional metaphysics. Marginalized feminist knowledge, like the marginalized,

neglected, and ridiculed knowledge of the Brazilian farmers, as presented by Freire or Weiler, is represented as legitimate andrelevant knowledge, in contrast to its representation as the hegemonic instrument of representation and education. This

knowledge is portrayed as a relevant, legitimate and superior alternative to hegemonic

educationand the knowledge this represents in the center. It is said to represent an identity that is desirable and promises tofunction "successfully". However, neither the truth value of the marginalized collective memory nor knowledge is cardinal here.

"Truth" is replaced by knowledge whose supreme criterion is its self-evidence, namely the

potential productivity of its creative violence, while the dialogue in which adorers of

"difference" take part is implicitly represented as one of the desired productions of this violence.

My argument is that the marginalized and repressed self-evident knowledge has no superiority over
http://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Pedagogyhttp://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Pedagogyhttp://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Pedagogyhttp://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Pedagogyhttp://haifa.academia.edu/IlanGurZeev/Papers/117665/Toward_a_Nonreperssive_Critical_Pedagogy


14/125

the self-evident knowledge of the oppressors. Relying on the knowledge ofthe weak, controlled, and

marginalized groups, their memory and their conscious interests, is no less naive and dangerous than relying

on hegemonic knowledge. This is because the critique of Western transcendentalism,

foundationalism, and ethnocentrismdeclines into uncritical acceptance of marginalized

knowledge, which becomes foundationalistic and ethnocentric in presenting "the truth", "the

facts", or ''the real interests of the group" - even if conceived as valid only for the group concerned. This positioncannot avoid vulgar realism and naive positivism based on "facts" of self-evident knowledge ultimately realized against the self-

evidence of other groups.


15/125

FW


16/125

Generic

Our model of debate is process, not productdecision-making is learned in a

safe space of competing thought experiments

Hanghoj 8http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/ph

d_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf Thorkild Hanghj, Copenhagen, 2008 Since

this PhD project began in 2004, the present author has been affiliated with DREAM (Danish

Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials), which is located at the Institute

of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. Research visits

have taken place at the Centre for Learning, Knowledge, and Interactive Technologies (L-KIT),

the Institute of Education at the University of Bristol and the institute formerly known as

Learning Lab Denmark at the School of Education, University of Aarhus, where I currently work

as an assistant professor.

Joas re-interpretation of Deweys pragmatism as a theory of situated creativity raises acritique of humans as purely rational agents that navigate instrumentally through meansends-

schemes (Joas, 1996: 133f). This critique is particularly important when trying to understand

how games are enacted and validated within the realm of educational institutions that by

definition are inscribed in the great modernistic narrative of progress where nation states,

teachers and parents expect students to acquire specific skills and competencies (Popkewitz,

1998; cf. chapter 3). However, as Dewey argues, the actual doings of educational gamingcannot

be reduced to rational means-ends schemes. Instead, the situated interaction between

teachers, students, and learning resources are played out as contingent re-distributions of

means, ends and ends in view, which often make classroom contexts seem messy from an

outsiders perspective (Barab & Squire, 2004). 4.2.3. Dramatic rehearsalThe two preceding

sections discussed how Dewey views play as an imaginative activity of educational value, and

how his assumptions on creativity and playful actions represent a critique of rational means-endschemes. For now, I will turn to Deweys concept of dramatic rehearsal, whichassumes that

social actors deliberate by projectingand choosing betweenvarious scenarios for future action.

Dewey uses the concept dramatic rehearsal several times in his work but presents the most

extensive elaboration in Human Nature and Conduct: Deliberation is a dramatic rehearsal (in

imagination) of various competing possible lines of action *It+ is an experiment in finding out

what the various lines of possible action are really like (...) Thought runs ahead and foresees

outcomes, and thereby avoids having to await the instruction of actual failure and disaster. An

act overtly tried out is irrevocable, its consequences cannot be blotted out. An act tried out in

imagination is not final or fatal. It is retrievable (Dewey, 1922: 132-3). This excerpt illustrates

how Dewey views the process of decision making (deliberation) through the lens of an

imaginative drama metaphor. Thus, decisions are made through the imaginative projection ofoutcomes, where the possible competing lines of action are resolved through a thought

experiment. Moreover, Deweys compelling use of the drama metaphor also implies that

decisions cannot be reduced to utilitarian, rational or mechanical exercises, but that they have

emotional, creative and personal qualities as well. Interestingly, there are relatively few

discussions within the vast research literature on Dewey of his concept of dramatic rehearsal. A

notable exception is the phenomenologist Alfred Schtz, who praises Deweys concept as a

fortunate image for understanding everyday rationality(Schtz, 1943: 140). Other attempts are


17/125

primarily related to overall discussions on moral or ethical deliberation (Caspary, 1991, 2000,

2006; Fesmire, 1995, 2003; Rnssn, 2003; McVea, 2006). As Fesmire points out, dramatic

rehearsal is intended to describe an important phase of deliberation that does not characterise

the whole process of making moral decisions, which includes duties and contractual

obligations, short and long-term consequences, traits of character to be affected, and rights

(Fesmire, 2003: 70). Instead, dramatic rehearsal should be seen as the process of crystallizing

possibilities and transforming them into directive hypotheses(Fesmire, 2003: 70). Thus,

deliberation can in no way guarantee that the response of a thought experiment will be

successful. But what it can dois make the processof choosing more intelligentthan would be the

case with blind trial-and-error (Biesta, 2006: 8). The notion of dramatic rehearsal provides a

valuable perspective for understanding educational gaming as a simultaneously real and

imagined inquiry into domain-specific scenarios. Dewey defines dramatic rehearsal as the

capacity to stage and evaluate acts, which implies an irrevocable difference between acts

that are tried out in imagination and acts that are overtly tried out with real-life

consequences (Dewey, 1922: 132-3). This description shares obvious similarities with games as

they require participants to inquire intoand resolve scenario-specific problems(cf. chapter 2). On

the other hand, there is also a striking differencebetween moral deliberation and educational

game activities in terms of the actual consequencesthat follow particular actions. Thus, when itcomes to educational games, acts are both imagined and tried out, but without all the real-life

consequences of the practices, knowledge forms and outcomes that are being simulated in the

game world. Simply put, there is a difference in realism between the dramatic rehearsals of

everyday life and in games, which only play at or simulatethe stakes and risks that

characterise the serious nature of moral deliberation, i.e. a real-life politician trying to win a

parliamentary election experiences more personal and emotional risk than students trying to

win the election scenario of The Power Game. At the same time, the lack of real-life

consequences in educational games makes it possible to design a relatively safe learning

environment, where teachers can stage particular game scenarios to be enacted and validated

for educational purposes. In this sense, educational games are able to provide a safe but

meaningful way of letting teachers and students make mistakes (e.g. by giving a poor politicalpresentation) and dramatically rehearse particular competing possible lines of actionthat are

relevant to particular educational goals (Dewey, 1922: 132). Seen from this pragmatist

perspective, the educational value of games is not so much a question of learning facts or giving

the right answers, butmore a question of exploring the contingent outcomesand domain-specific

processesof problem-based scenarios.

Decision-making is a trump impactit improves all aspects of life regardless of

its specific goalsShulman, president emeritusCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 9(Lee S, Education and a Civil Society: Teaching Evidence-Based Decision Making, p. ix-x)

These are the kinds of questionsthat call forthe exercise of practical reason, a form of thought

that draws concurrently from theory and practice, from values and experience, and from

critical thinkingand human empathy. None of these attributes is likely to be thought of no value

and thus able to be ignored.Our schools, however, are unlikely to take on all of them as goals of

the educational process. The goal of education is not to render practical arguments more

theoretical; nor is it to diminish the role of values in practical reason. Indeed, all three sources

theoretical knowledge, practical knowhow and experience, anddeeply held values and


18/125

identityhave legitimate placesin practical arguments. An educated person, argue

philosophers Thomas Green (1971) and Gary Fenstermacher (1986), is someone who has

transformed the premises of her or hispractical argumentsfrom being less objectively

reasonable to being more objectively reasonable. That is, to the extent thatthey employ

probabilistic reasoningor interpret data from various sources, those judgments and

interpretationsconform more accurately to well-understood principles and are less susceptible to

biases and distortions. To the extent that values, cultural or religious norms, or matters of

personal preferenceor taste are at work, they have been rendered more explicit, conscious,

intentional, and reflective. In his essay for this volume, Jerome Kagan reflects the interactions

among these positions by arguing: We are more likely to solve our current problem, however, if

teachers accept the responsibility of guaranteeing that all adolescents, regardless of class or

ethnicity, can read and comprehend the science section of newspapers, solve basic

mathematical problems, detect the logical coherence in non-technical verbal arguments or

narratives, and insist that all acts of maliciousness, deception, and unregulated self-

aggrandizement are morally unacceptable. Whether choosingbetween a Prius and a Hummer,

an Obama ora McCain, installing solar panels orplanting taller trees, a well-educated person

has learned to combinetheir values, experience, understandings, and evidence in a thoughtful

and responsible manner.Thus do habits of mind, practice, and heart all play a significant role inthe lives of citizens.

Authenticity tests shut down debateits strategically a disaster

SUBOTNIK 98

Professor of Law, Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.

7 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 681

Having traced a major strand in the development of CRT, we turn now to the strands' effect on

the relationships of CRATs with each other and with outsiders. As the foregoing material

suggests, the centralCRT message is not simply that minorities are being treated unfairly, oreven that individuals out there are in pain - assertions for which there are data to serve as grist

for the academic mill - but that the minority scholar himself or herself hurts and hurts badly.

An important problem that concerns the very definition of the scholarly enterprise now comes

into focus. What can an academic trained to [*694] question and to doubt n72 possibly say to

Patricia Williams when effectively she announces, "I hurt bad"?n73 "No, you don't hurt"?

"You shouldn't hurt"?"Other people hurt too"? Or, most dangerously - and perhaps most

tellingly - "What do you expect when you keep shooting yourself in the foot?" If the majority

were perceived as having the well- being of minority groups in mind, these responses might be

acceptable, even welcomed. And they might lead to real conversation. But, writes Williams, the

failure by those "cushioned within the invisible privileges of race and power... to incorporate a

sense of precarious connection as a part of our lives is... ultimately obliterating." n74

"Precarious." "Obliterating." These words will clearly invite responses only from fools and

sociopaths; they will, by effectively precluding objection, disconcert and disunite others. "I

hurt," in academic discourse, has three broad though interrelated effects . First, it demands

priority from the reader's conscience. It is for this reason that law review editors, waiving

usual standards, have privileged a long trail of undisciplined - even sillyn75 - destructive and,

above all, self-destructive arti [*695] cles.n76 Second, by emphasizing the emotional bond

between those who hurt in a similar way, "I hurt" discourages fellow sufferers from

abstracting themselves from their pain in order to gain perspective on their condition. n77


19/125

[*696] Last, as we have seen, it precludes the possibility of open and structured conversation

with others. n78

[*697] It is because of this conversation-stopping effectof what they insensitively call "first-

person agony stories" that Farber and Sherry deplore their use."The norms of academic civility

hamper readers from challenging the accuracy of the researcher's account; it would be rather

difficult, for example, to criticize a law review article by questioning the author's emotional

stability or veracity." n79 Perhaps, a better practice would be to put the scholar's experience on

the table, along with other relevant material, but to subject that experience to the same level of

scrutiny.

If through the foregoing rhetorical strategies CRATs succeeded in limiting academic debate,

why do they not have greater influence on public policy? Discouraging white legal scholars from

entering the national conversation about race, n80 I suggest, has generated a kind of cynicism

in white audienceswhich, in turn, has had precisely the reverse effect of that ostensibly desired

by CRATs. It drives the American public to the right and ensures that anything CRT offers is

reflexively rejected.

In the absence of scholarly work by white males in the area of race, of course, it is difficult to be

sure what reasons they would give for not having rallied behind CRT. Two things, however, are

certain. First, the kinds of issuesraised by Williams are too importantin theirimplications [*698] for American life to be confined to communities of color.If the lives of

minorities are heavily constrained, if not fully defined, by the thoughts and actions of the

majority elements in society, it would seem to be of great importance that white thinkers and

doers participate in open discourse to bring about change. Second, given the lack of

engagement of CRT by the community of legal scholars as a whole, the discourse that should be

taking place at the highest scholarly levels has, by default, been displaced to faculty offices and,

more generally, the streets and the airwaves.

DEBATE roleplay specifically activates agency

Hanghoj 8

http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf Thorkild Hanghj, Copenhagen, 2008 Since

this PhD project began in 2004, the present author has been affiliated with DREAM (Danish

Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials), which is located at the Institute

of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. Research visits

have taken place at the Centre for Learning, Knowledge, and Interactive Technologies (L-KIT),

the Institute of Education at the University of Bristol and the institute formerly known as

Learning Lab Denmark at the School of Education, University of Aarhus, where I currently work

as an assistant professor.

Thus, debate gamesrequire teachers to balance the centripetal/centrifugal forces of gaming and

teaching, to be able to reconfigure their discursive authority, and to orchestrate the multiple

voices of a dialogical game space in relation to particular goals. These Bakhtinian perspectives

provide a valuable analytical framework for describing the discursive interplay between

different practices and knowledge aspects when enacting (debate) game scenarios. In addition

to this, Bakhtins dialogicalphilosophy also offers an explanation of why debate games(and other

game types) may be valuable within an educational context. One of the central features of

multi-player games is that players are expected to experience a simultaneously real and

imagined scenarioboth in relation to an insiders(participant) perspective and to an outsiders

(co-participant) perspective. According to Bakhtin, the outsiders perspectivereflects a


20/125

fundamental aspect of human understanding: In order to understand, it is immensely important

for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative

understandingin time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really see one's own exterior

and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be

seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space, and

because they are others (Bakhtin, 1986: 7). As the quote suggests, every person is influenced by

others in an inescapably intertwined way, and consequently no voice can be said to be isolated.

Thus, it is in the interaction with other voices that individuals are able to reach understanding

and find their own voice. Bakhtin also refers to the ontological process of finding a voice as

ideological becoming, which represents the process of selectively assimilating the words of

others (Bakhtin, 1981: 341). Thus, by teaching and playing debate scenarios,it is possible to

support students in their process of becoming not only themselves, but also in becoming

articulate and responsive citizens in a democratic society.


21/125

Warming

Our debate about ecological change will cause a real-world paradigm shift

eventually spurring political action

Ophuls(William, Professor of Political Science @ Northwestern, Politics of ScarcityRevisited) 1992Even more encouraging is the change in perspectives among young people.In schools across the United States, environmental education courses arespringing up.Among the objectives of these courses is to teach youngsters suchconcepts as the web of life to show them that you cant do just onething, and to involve them personally in planting, recycling, and cleaningup debris in their communities. The fact that these courses are beingtaught from elementary schools on up itself suggest changing attitudesamong todays educational elites. Moreover, those who teach theseconcepts are often surprised at how readily children accept ecologicalconcepts how, indeed children will encourage their parents to launch

recycling programs or will educate their parents about otherenvironmental issues. One observer has suggested that this should comeas no surprise at all. Just as todays 40- and 50-year-old grew up with a

vague fear of the bomb and worried at times that their elders would blowup the world, he suggests that 10-year-olds today are vaguely fearful ofenvironmental deterioration and worry that their elders are polluting the

world. If this is so and these children are adopting a change in paradigm,suggestions dismissed today as politically unrealistic will, in somemodified form, become tomorrows political imperatives. Environmentalimpact will no longer be the nuisance of generating required paperwork

but will be an important underpinning for political decisions.

DELIBERATIVE POLICYMAKING through DEBATE is the CRUCIAL internal link to

solving warming through public policy and SUBSUMES their critiques of

traditional persuasionHerbeck and Isham 10

http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/775

Jon Isham

Associate Professor of Economics, Middlebury College

In the fall of 1999, Jon joined the department of economics and the program in environmental

studies at Middlebury College. Jon teaches classes in environmental economics, environmental

policy, introductory microeconomics, social capital in Vermont, and global climate change. Jon is

co-editing a new book, Ignition: The Birth of the Climate Movement; has co-edited Social

Capital, Development, and the Environment (Edward Elgar Publications); has published articles

(several forthcoming) in Economic Development and Cultural Change, The Journal of African

Economies, The Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Rural Sociology, Society and Natural Resources, The Southern Economic Journal, The Vermont

Law Review, and the World Bank Economic Review; and has published book chapters in volumes

from Ashgate Press, The New England University Press, Oxford University Press, and Cambridge

University Press. His current research focuses on building the new climate movement; the

demand for water among poor households in Cambodia; information asymmetries in low-

income lending; and the effect of local social capital on environmental outcomes in Vermont.
http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/775http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/775http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/775


22/125

Herbeck, member of the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and the

Honors College.

Getting to 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere will require massive investments in

clean-energy infrastructureinvestments that can too often be foiled by a combination of

special interests and political sclerosis. Take the recent approval of the Cape Wind project by the

U.S. Department of the Interior. In some ways, this was great news for clean-energy advocates:

the projects 130 turbines will produce, on average, 170 megawatts of electricity, almost 75

percent of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod and the islands of Marthas Vineyard

and Nantucket.1 But, because of local opposition by well-organized opponents, the approval

process was lengthy, costly, and grueling and all for a project that will produce only 0.04

percent of the total (forecasted) U.S. electricity demand in 2010.2,3 Over the next few decades,

the world will need thousands of large-scale, low-carbon electricity projectswind, solar, and

nuclear power will certainly be in the mix. But if each faces Cape Windlike opposition, getting

to 350 is unlikely. How can the decision-making processabout such projects be streamlined so

that public policyreflects the view of a well-informed majority, provides opportunities for

legitimate critiques, but does not permit the opposition to retardthe process indefinitely? One

answer isfound ina set of innovative policy-making tools founded on the principle of deliberativedemocracy, defined as decision making by discussion among free and equal citizens.4 Such

approaches, which have been developed and led by the Center for Deliberative Democracy

(cdd.stanford.edu), America Speaks (www.americaspeaks.org), and the Consensus Building

Institute (cbuilding.org), among others, are gaining popularity by promising a new foothold for

effective citizen participation in the drive for a clean-energy future. Deliberative democracy

stems from the belief that democratic leadership should involve educating constituents about

issues at hand, and that citizens may significantly alter their opinions when faced with

information about these issues. Advocates of the approach state that democracy should shift

away from fixed notions toward a learning processin which people develop defensible positions.5

While the approaches of the Center for Deliberative Democracy, America Speaks, and the

Consensus Building Institute do differ, all of these deliberative methodologies involve unbiasedsharing of informationand public-policy alternativeswith a representative set of citizens; a

moderatedprocess of deliberation among the selected citizens; and the collection and

dissemination of data resulting from this process. For example, in the deliberative polling

approach used by the Center for Deliberative Democracy, a random selection of citizens is first

polled on a particular issue. Then, members of the poll are invited to gather at a single place to

discuss the issue. Participants receive balanced briefing materials to review before the

gathering, and at the gathering they engage in dialogue with competing experts and political

leaders based on questions they develop in small group discussions. After deliberations, the

sample is asked the original poll questions, and the resulting changes in opinion represent the

conclusions that the public would reach if everyone were given the opportunity to become more

informed on pressing issues.6 If policymakers look at deliberative polls rather than traditional

polls, they will be able to utilize results that originate from an informed group of citizens. As

with traditional polls, deliberative polls choose people at random to represent U.S.

demographics of age, education, gender, and so on. But traditional polls stop there, asking the

random sample some brief, simple questions, typically online or over the phone. However,

participants of deliberative polls have the opportunity to access expert information and then talk

with one another before voting on policy recommendations. The power of this approach is

illustrated by the results of a global deliberative process organized by World Wide Views on

Global Warming (www.wwviews.org), a citizens deliberation organization based in Denmark.7


23/125

On September 26, 2009, approximately 4,000 people gathered in 38 countries to consider what

should happen at the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen (338 Americans met in five

major cities). The results derived from this day of deliberation were dramaticand significantly

differentfrom results of traditional polls. Overall, citizens showed strong concern about global

warming and support for climate-change legislation, contrary to the outcomes of many standard

climate-change polls. Based on the polling results from these gatherings, 90 percent of global

citizens believe that it is urgent for the UN negotiations to produce a new climate change

agreement; 88 percent of global citizens (82 percent of U.S. citizens) favor holding global

warming to within 2 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels; and 74 percent of global citizens (69

percent of U.S. citizens) favor increasing fossil-fuel prices in developed countries. However, a

typical news poll that was conducted two days before 350.orgs International Day of Climate

Action on October 24, 2009, found that Americans had an overall declining concern about global

warming.7 How can deliberative democracy help to create solutions for the climate-change

policy process, to accelerate the kinds of policies and public investments that are so crucial to

getting the world on a path to 350? Take again the example of wind in the United States. In the

mid-1990s, the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC) launched an integrated resource plan

to develop long-term strategies for energy production, particularly electricity.8 Upon learning

about the deliberative polling approach of James Fishkin (then at the University of Texas atAustin), the PUC set up deliberative sessions for several hundred customers in the vicinity of

every major utility provider in the state. The results were a surprise: it turned out that

participants ranked reliability and stability of electricity supply as more important characteristics

than price. In addition, they were open to supporting renewable energy, even if the costs

slightly exceeded fossil-fuel sources. Observers considered this a breakthrough: based on these

public deliberations, the PUC went on to champion an aggressive renewable portfolio standard,

and the state has subsequently experienced little of the opposition to wind-tower siting that has

slowed development in other states.8 By 2009, Texas had 9,500 megawatts of installed wind

capacity, as much as the next six states (ranked by wind capacity) in the windy lower and upper

Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Kansas, and New Mexico).9 Deliberative

democracy has proven effective in a wide rangeof countries and settings. In the Chinesetownship of Zeguo, a series of deliberative polls has helped the Local Peoples Congress (LPC) to

become a more effective decision-making body.10 In February 2008, 175 citizens were randomly

selected to scrutinize the towns budgetand 60 deputies from the LPC observed the process.

After the deliberations, support decreased for budgeting for national defense projects, while

support rose for infrastructure (e.g., rural road construction) and environmental protection.

Subsequently, the LPC increased support for environmental projects by 9 percent.10 In decades

to come, China must be at the forefront of the worlds investments in clean-energy

infrastructure. The experience of Zeguo, if scaled up and fully supported by Chinese leaders, can

help to play an important role. Deliberative democracy offers one solution for determining

citizen opinions, including those on pressing issues related to climate change and clean energy.

Simulation allows us to influence state policy AND is key to agency

Eijkman 12The role of simulations in the authentic learning for national security policy development: Implications for Practice / Dr. Henk Simon

Eijkman. [electronic resource] http://nsc.anu.edu.au/test/documents/Sims_in_authentic_learning_report.pdf.Dr Henk Eijkman is

currently an independent consultant as well as visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force

Academy and is Visiting Professor of Academic Development, Annasaheb Dange College of Engineering and Technology in India. As a

sociologist he developed an active interest in tertiary learning and teaching with a focus on socially inclusive innovation and culture

change. He has taught at various institutions in the social sciences and his work as an adult learning specialist has taken him to South
http://nsc.anu.edu.au/test/documents/Sims_in_authentic_learning_report.pdfhttp://nsc.anu.edu.au/test/documents/Sims_in_authentic_learning_report.pdf


24/125

Africa, Malaysia, Palestine, and India. He publishes widely in international journals, serves on Conference Committees and editorial

boards of edited books and international journal

However, whether as an approach to learning, innovation, persuasion or culture shift, policy simulations derive their

power from two central features: their combination of simulation and gaming (Geurts et al. 2007). 1. The

simulation element: the unique combination of simulation with role-playing.The unique simulation/role-play

mix enables participants to create possible futuresrelevant to the topic being studied. This isdiametrically opposed to the more traditional, teacher-centric approaches in which a future is

produced for them. In policy simulations, possible futures are much more than an object of

tabletop discussionand verbal speculation. No other techniqueallows a group of participants to

engage in collective action in a safe environment to createand analyse the futures they want to

explore (Geurts et al. 2007: 536). 2. The game element:the interactive and tailor-made modelling and design of thepolicy game. The actual run of the policy simulation is only one step, though a most important and visible one, in a collective process

of investigation, communication, and evaluation of performance. In the context of a post-graduate course in public policy

development, for example, a policy simulation is a dedicated game constructed in collaboration with

practitioners to achieve a high level of proficiencyin relevant aspects of the policy development process. To drill

down to a level of finer detail, policy development simulations as forms of interactive or participatory modelling

are particularly effective in developing participant knowledge and skills in the five key areas of the policy

development process (and success criteria), namely: Complexity, Communication, Creativity, Consensus, and Commitment to action(the five Cs). The capacity to provide effective learning support in these five categories has proved to be particularly helpful in

strategic decision-making (Geurts et al. 2007). Annexure 2.5 contains a detailed description, in table format, of the synopsis below.

Engaging and discussing the state is key to warmingHeld and Hervey 9David Held is Graham Wallas Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of LSE Global

Governance at the London School of Economics.

Angus Fane Hervey is a Doctoral Student and Ralph Miliband Scholar in the Department of

Government at the London School of Economics.

www.policy-network.net/publications_download.aspx?ID=3426

The key role of the state In all of these challenges, states remain the key actors, as they hold the key

toboth domestic and international policymaking.The implementation of international

agreements will be up to individual states, emissions trading and carbon pricing will require

domestic legislation, and technological advance will need state support to get off the ground

(Giddens, 2008). However, state strategies at the domestic level should involve the creation of

incentives, not overly tight regulation. Governments have an important role in editing choice,

but not in a way that precludes it altogether. This approach is represented in the form of what

Giddens (2008) calls the ensuring state, whose primary role is help energise a diversity of

groups to reach solutions to collective action problems. The state, so conceived, acts as a

facilitator and an enabler, rather than as a top-down agency. An ensuring state is one that has

the capacity to produce definite outcomes. The principle goes even further; it also means a state

that is responsible for monitoring public goals and for trying to make sure they are realised in a

visible and legitimate fashion. This will require a return to planningnot in the old sense of top

down hierarchies of control, but in a new sense of flexible regulation. This will require finding

ways to introduce regulation without undermining the entrepreneurialism and innovation upon

which successful responses will depend. It will not be a straightforward process, because

planning must be reconciled with democratic freedoms. There will be push and pull between the

political centre, regions and localities, which can only be resolved through deliberationand

consultation. Most importantly, states will require a long term vision that transcends the normal
http://www.policy-network.net/publications_download.aspx?ID=3426http://www.policy-network.net/publications_download.aspx?ID=3426http://www.policy-network.net/publications_download.aspx?ID=3426


25/125

push and pull of partisan politics. This will not be easy to achieve. All this takes place in the

context of a changing world order. The power structure on which the 1945 multilateral

settlement was based is no longer intact, and the relative decline of the west and the rise of Asia

raises fundamental questions about the premises of the 1945 multilateral order. Democracy and

the international community now face a critical test. However, addressing the issue of climate

change successfully holds out the prospect of reforging a rule-based politics, from the nation-state

to the global level. Table 1 highlights what we consider to be the necessary steps to be taken

along this road. By contrast, failure to meet the challenge could have deep and profound

consequences,both for what people make of modern democratic politics and for the idea of rule-

governed international politics. Under these conditions, the structural flaws of democracy could be

said to have tragically trumped democratic agency and deliberative capacity.


26/125

LA Edu Good/Key

Criticism alone does nothingengagement of Latin studies is key to change

Hoffnung-Garskof 12(Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof is Associate Professor of History and AmericanCulture and Director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Michigan,

Latin American Studies and United States Foreign Policy, Fall 2012,

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/ii/Home/II%20Journal/Documents/Fall-2012-IIJournal-

LatinAmerica.pdf)//AS

Such effects are neither simple nor purely instrumental, nor are they uncontested.Faculty at theUniversity of Michigan did finally create a Latin American and Caribbean Studies Program in 1984. This program later evolved into

the present, Title VI funded, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (LACS). In 1984 the Reagan administration funneled

growing resources to Contra insurgents in Nicaragua and to military regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala. These governments, with

U.S. complicity, murdered more than 120,000 of their citizens. The creation of LACS at Michigan certainly did not stem from

enthusiasm for such policies among area experts. To the contrary, at least some of the founders of our program, and many who

have participated in it since, approached their scholarship and teaching from an explicitly dissident position with respect to the wars

in Central America (and other policies). In fact, nationally, Latin American Studies, despite its frequent

dependence on government funding, has become a key site for criticizing and exposing the

exercise of U.S. power in the region, for challenging established foreign policy expertise, and forworking to unravel the knot of our relative privilege with respect to colleagues in Latin America.

Criticism of United States foreign policy does not, in and of itself, guarantee careful or

considered scholarship. Nor do dissenting policy views necessarily escape the epistemological

traps set by power relations in the hemisphere. But the emergence of informed dissent within the

structure of federally funded area studies is a mark of just how potentially transformative

serious scholarly engagement with foreign languages, literature, culture, and politics can be.Criticism of U.S. foreign policy and its intellectual apparatus, and criticism of the neat division of the hemisphere into United States

and Latin America (which can be traced back to Bolton himself) are, to my mind, two of the most valuable, if unintended,

consequences of the area studies model. Members of the political establishment will not necessarily agree, which may be part of the

reason for our present funding predicaments.

Global studies are key to addressing violence and inequality

Hoffnung-Garskof 12(Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof is Associate Professor of History and AmericanCulture and Director of the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University of Michigan,

Latin American Studies and United States Foreign Policy, Fall 2012,

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/ii/Home/II%20Journal/Documents/Fall-2012-IIJournal-

LatinAmerica.pdf)//ASWhat are those strengths? Despite its pitfalls, the area studies model has built an expectation that scholarship will be founded on

serious language training; specific, local cultural and historical knowledge; meaningful, longstanding collaborations with colleagues

in the region; and a certain skepticism about the very institutional frameworks in which we work. It is not clear to me that

the institutional forces putting money into new global initiatives are as committed to the kind of

deep, rigorous, engagement with the local, or critique of the imperial, that is our stock and

trade. Some visions of the global have a sweeping scale that may render such engagement simply unmanageable. And some

models of the global ignore or hide the violence and inequality that mark past and present-day

experiences of globalization.Which is to say, I think we should be ready to make the leap from

traditional area studies to global studies, if need be. But we should champion a vision of the global

that does not throw the baby out with the bath water. And, even as we make use of the resources the new

regime offers, we should expect, as generations of scholars have done in Title VI centers, to adopt

roles as dissidents and as critics of the regime itself.


27/125

Discussing Latin America is key to educational equity for minorities

Davila and de Bradley 10(Erica Davila, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Education and Coordinatorof Urban Education at Arcadia University and Ann Aviles de Bradley, Assistant Professor. Department of

Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies, Northeastern Illinois University, Academic journal article from

Educational Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 1-2, Spring 2010,http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-

227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrit)//AS

In the last thirty years, the response of public schools to policy mandates stemming from the Civil Rights Movement that wereintended to protect the rights of people of color, including Latina/os, sheds light on how little has changed in the structure and

function of schools.From the time we were allowed to obtain an education in the same system as the dominant

class and race, marginalized groups have been told that schools are vehicles to equal opportunity; schools

have even been described as "the great equalizer." The Latina/o population is by and large, young, and

the erosion of equality in American schooling has hit it hard. However, the struggle for school

equity for Latina/os has been coupled with a strong history of resistance rooted in community

and grassroots organizing.As Spring (1991) states;From World War II to the 1990s [and today],

Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, African Americans and Mexican Americans have demanded

that public schools recognize their distinct cultures and incorporate these cultures into curricula

and textbooks.(p. 195)The struggle for equity in education for Latina/os has not ended. While

some schools and school districts have made affirmative efforts to fully include the life experiences and

histories of the students they serve, the vast majority of public schools serving Latinas/os have not done so

(Valenzuela, 1999). Furthermore, while progressive educators have made some gains to better serve Latina/os

during the 1960s and 1970s, the sharp conservative turn in the 1980s laid the foundation for many

school policies and practices that worked against the gains made in areas such as culturally

inclusive curricula and bilingual education.For this paper, we have focused on the inequities that clearly

disenfranchise Latina/o students by drawing on two editions of a previous research project (Aviles, Capeheart,

Davila, & Miller, 2004) and (Aviles, Capeheart, Davila, Miller, & Rodriguez-Lucero, 2006) which is discussed

further in our methods section (We will refer to these reports as Dando 2004 and Dando 2006 for the duration

of this paper). Using the data we collected for these reports we will examine the ways in which CRT and

LatCrit can assist in exposing the historical and political context of systemic educational

practices that are designed to hinder real progress for Latinas/os.

Discussing Latin America avoids racial exclusion

Davila and de Bradley 10(Erica Davila, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Education and Coordinatorof Urban Education at Arcadia University and Ann Aviles de Bradley, Assistant Professor. Department of

Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies, Northeastern Illinois University, Academic journal article from

Educational Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 1-2, Spring 2010, http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-

227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrit)//ASCRT scholars draw from various educational foundations and intersections within these foundations. The social construction

of race and other identities is rooted in sociological studies. Furthermore, historical foundations of education as well as

education policy studies help us see the realities of oppression that unfold. This interdisciplinary backdrop will help us

contextualize the data within the social context of institutional oppression. The lack of educational opportunities

for Latina/o students speaks to the oppression students endure on an institutional level. The

exposition of institutional racism which can be analyzed through a sociological perspective of

struggle and resistance, and policies born form these tensions are critical to deconstruct.Further,

the interdisciplinary nature ofCRT and LatCrit provide us with theoretical insights rooted in lived experience.Both CRT

and LatCrit serve as frameworks that assist in our understanding of areas related to the racial

inequity embedded in our society. CRT is used to understand educational issues such as schoo l discipline and hierarchy, testing,

tracking and curriculum (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Often when persons think about race and racism in America,

the conversation frequently focuses on issues of oppression among the African American

community. We recognize this is a necessary and critical conversation; however, it often leaves little space to discuss

common areas of concern for all populations of color, as well as illuminate areas specific to
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrithttp://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrithttp://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrithttp://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrithttp://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrithttp://www.questia.com/library/1G1-227945957/examining-education-for-latinas-os-in-chicago-a-crt-latcrit


28/125

these other groups. The Latina/o population in the U.S. is quickly growing and t herefore it is incumbent upon education scholars to identifytheoretical frameworks that help us to move beyond the traditional Black-White binary. LatCrit helps us in our efforts to take on such a task. LatCrit

theory in education is defined as:...a framework that can be used to theorize and examine the ways in which

race and racism explicitly and implicitly impact on the educational structures, processes and

discourses that effect People of Color generally and Latinas/os specifically. (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001, p. 479)


29/125

Framing


30/125

Epist

Broad indicts of epistemology dont take out our impactsyou should weigh

specific evidence to get closer to the truth

Kratochwil, 08professor of international relations European University Institute, 8 (Friedrich, The Puzzles ofPolitics, pg. 200-213)In what follows, I claim that the shift in focus from demonstration to science as practice provides strong prima facie reasons

to choose pragmatic rather than traditional epistemological criteria in social analysis. Irrespective of its various forms, theepistemological project includes an argument that all warranted knowledge has to satisfycertain field- independent criteria that are specified by philosophy(a theory of knowledge). Thereal issue of how our concepts and the world relate to each other, and on which non-idiosyncratic grounds we are justified tohold on to our beliefs about the world, is answered by two metaphors. The first is that of an inconvertible ground, be it thenature of things, certain intuitions (Des- cartes clear and distinct ideas) or methods and inferences; the second is that of amirror that shows what is the case. There is no need to rehearse the argumen