From: Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2@columbia.edu>
Briefly, I would categorize arguments run as "kritiks" into various
fields:
1. Deontological objections. The plan is immoral, vote against it.
Morality is evaluated along Enlightenment lines; nothing "post"-prefixed
here.
2. Discourse objections. Humean and post-Humean causality is flawed, the
world is either overdetermined or intertextual or some other alternative,
suggesting either that discourse "creates" reality or that only discourse
can be evaluated. The affs discourse is bad and responsible for many
'harms' attributed to normal causal reasoning. These tend to be in the
post-structuralist mode (Foucault, Derrida, etc.).
3. Epistemological objections. The affs way of "knowing" is flawed and
bad. Critiques of "science" tend to fall into this category (Feyerabend,
for example). This often gets collapsed into #2 but there are often rather
different assumptions involved (it depends on whom you are reading).
Reasons to vote on these positions range from those similar to #2
(rhetoric entrenches x--often a misfit) or simply that there is no basis
for *affirming* the aff.
4. Political Correctness arguments. You say X, ergo you should lose. Often
run with cards from #2 but really don't have anything to do with postie
concepts of discourse or its equivalent.
5. Mishmash positions (a vast majority of 'older critiques' such as
'statism'). Its not really a disad--or at least a unique one--it isn't
really a solvency objection (because the cards' implications aren't
clear)--and it *certainly* contradicts that 'must deconstruct' impact.
I think
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www..columbia.edu/~dhn2
"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
Madame Bovary." -Donald McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_
|
