michigan donovan meyerslevy neg texas round2

7/24/2019 Michigan Donovan MeyersLevy Neg Texas Round2

1/31


2/31

1NC


3/31

T

Interpretation and violation---the affirmative should defend the desirability oftopial government ation!Jon M "rison #$%Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts California Polytechnic U., et

al., The Debaters !ui"e, Thir" E"ition, #. $The Pro#osition of Policy% Urging &uture Action 'n #olicy #ro#ositions, each to#ic contains certain (ey elements, although theyha)e slightly "ifferent functions from com#arable elements of )alue*oriente" #ro#ositions. +.An agent "oing the acting ***TheUnite" -tates in The U nite" - tates shoul" a"o#t a #olicyof free tra"e. Li(e the ob/ect of e)aluation in a #ro#ositionof )alue, the agent is the sub&et of the sentence. 0. The )erb shoul"1the first #art of a )erb #hrase that urgesaction. 2. An action )erb to follo3 shoul" in the shoul"*)erb combination. &or e4am#le, shoul" a"o#t here means to #ut a#rogram or #olicy into action through governmental means . $.A s#ecification ofdiretions or a limitation of the action "esire". The #hrase free tra"e, for e4am#le, gi)es "irection an" limits to theto#ic, 3hich 3oul", for e4am#le, eliminate consi"eration of increasing tariffs, "iscussing "i#lomatic recognition, or "iscussing interstate commerce.

Pro#ositions of #olicy "eal 3ith future action. 5othing has yet occurre". The entire debate is about 'hether

something ought to our . 6hat you agree to "o, then, 3hen you acce#t the affirmati)e si"e in such a "ebate is to offer sufficientan" com#elling reasons for an au"ience to #erform the future action that you #ro#ose.

(! )ote neg

1! *rep and lashpost fato topi hange alters balane of prep% 'hihstruturally favors the aff beause they spea+ last and use perms+ey to engage aprepared adversary!

2! ,imitsspeifi topis are +ey to reasonable epetations for 2Nsopensub&ets reate inentives for avoidanethat overstrethes the negative and turnspartiipation!

The first impat is deliberation

Topial fairness re.uirements are +ey to effetive dialoguemonopoli/ing strategy

and prep ma+es the disussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role0allo'ay #rofessor of communications at -amfor" Uni)ersity 78yan, Dinner An"Con)ersation At The Argumentati)e Table% 8econce#tuali9ing Debate As An Argumentati)eDialogue, Contem#orary Argumentation an" Debate, :ol. 0; 70

Debate as a "ialogue sets an argumentati)e table, 3here all #arties recei)e a relati)ely fair o##ortunity to )oice their #osition.Anything that fails to allo3 #artici#ants to ha)e their #osition articulate" "enies one si"e of the argumentati)e table a fair hearing.

The affirmati)e si"e is set by the to#ic an" fairness re?uirements. 6hile affirmati)e teams ha)e recentlyresiste" affirming the to#ic, in fact, the to#ic selection #rocess is rigorous, ta(ing the relati)e groun" of each to#ic as its central #oint

of "e#arture.@-etting the affirmati)e reci#rocally sets the negati)e. The negati)e crafts a##roaches to the to#icconsistent 3ith affirmati)e "eman"s. The negati)e crafts "isa")antages, counter*#lans, an" critical arguments #remise" on thearguments that the to#ic allo3s for the affirmati)e team. Accor"ing to fairness norms, each si"e sits at a relati)ely balance"

argumentati)e table.@6hen one si"e ta(es more than its share,com#etiti)e e?uity suffers. o3e)er, it also

un"ermines the res#ect "ue to the other in)ol)e" in the "ialogue. 6hen one si"e e4clu"es theother, it fun"amentally "enies the #ersonhoo" of the other #artici#ant7Ehninger, +B=


4/31

un"erstan" 3hat 3ent on an" are left to the 3hims of time an" #o3er7&arrell, +B;, #. ++$>. ughDuncan furthers this line of reasoning%@F##onents not only tolerate but honor an" res#ect each other

because in "oing so they enhance their o3n chances of thin(ing better an" reaching soun""ecisions. F##osition is necessary because it shar#ens thought in action. 6e assume that argument, "iscussion, an" tal(, amongfree an informe" #eo#le 3ho subor"inate "ecisions of any (in", because it is only through such "iscussion that 3ereach agreement 3hich bin"s us to a common cause'f 3e are to be e?ualrelationshi#s among

e?uals must fin" e4#ression in many formal an" informal institutions 7Duncan, +BB2, #. +BG*+B=>.@3ebate ompensates for the eigenies of the 'orld by offering a frame'or+ thatmaintains e.uality for the sa+e of the onversation 7&arrell, +B;, #. ++$>.@&or e4am#le, anaffirmati)ecaseon the 0


5/31

-omeone "isturbe" by the #roblem of the gro3ing un"erclass of #oorly e"ucate", socially"isenfranchise" youths might obser)e, KPublic schools are "oing a terrible /obThey are o)ercro3"e",an" many teachers are #oorly ?ualifie" in their sub/ect areas. E)en the best teachers can "o little more than struggle to maintainor"er in their classrooms.K That same concerne" citi9en, facing a com#le4 range of issues, might arri)e at an unhel#ful "ecision,

such as K6e ought to "o something about thisK or. 3orse. K'tNs too com#licate" a #roblem to "eal 3ith.K !rou#s of concerne"citi9ens 3orrie" about the state of #ublic e"ucation coul" /oin together to e4#ress their

frustrations, anger, "isillusionment, an" emotions regar"ing the schools,but 3ithout a focus for theirdisussions, they coul" easily agree about the sorry state of e"ucation 'ithout findingpoints of larity or potential solutions. A gri#e session 3oul" follo3. Iut if a #recise?uestion is #ose"1such as K6hat can be "one to im#ro)e #ublic e"ucationK1then a more profitable area ofdisussion is o#ene" u#simply by plaing a fous on the searh for a concrete solutionste#. Fne or more /u"gments can be #hrase" in the form of "ebate #ro#ositions, motions for#arliamentary "ebate, or bills for legislati)e assemblies.The statements K8esol)e"% That the fe"eral go)ernmentshoul" im#lement a #rogram of charter schools in at*ris( communitiesK an" K8esol)e"% That the state of &lori"a shoul" a"o#t aschool )oucher #rogramK more clearly i"entify s#ecific 3ays of "ealing 3ith e"ucational #roblems in a manageable form, suitable for

"ebate. They #ro)i"e s#ecific #olicies to be in)estigate" an" ai" "iscussants in i"entifying #ointsof "ifference.To ha)e a #ro"ucti)e "ebate, 3hich facilitates effecti)e "ecision ma(ingby"irecting an" #lacing

limits on the "ecisionto be ma"e,

the basis for argument shoul" be clearly "efine".

'f 3e merely tal(about KhomelessnessK or KabortionK or KcrimeNH or Kglobal 3armingK 3e are li(ely to ha)e aninteresting "iscussion but not to establish #rofitable basis for argument. &or e4am#le, the statementK8esol)e"% That the #en is mightier than the s3or"K is "ebatable, yet fails to #ro)i"e much

basis for clear argumentation . 'f 3e ta(e this statement to mean that the 3ritten 3or" is more effecti)e than #hysicalforce for some #ur#oses, 3e can i"entify a #roblem area% the com#arati)e effecti)eness of 3riting or #hysical force for a s#ecific#ur#ose.

Although 3e no3 ha)e a general sub/ect, 3e ha)e not yet state" a #roblem. It is still too broad , too loosely3or"e" to #romote 3ell*organi9e" argument.6hat sort of 3riting are 3e concerne" 3ith1#oems, no)els,go)ernment "ocuments, 3ebsite "e)elo#ment, a")ertising, or 3hat6hat "oes Keffecti)enessK meanin this conte4t6hat (in" of #hysical force is being com#are"1fists, "ueling s3or"s, ba9oo(as, nuclear 3ea#ons, or 3hat A more s#ecific ?uestionmight be. K6oul" a mutual "efense treaty or a )isit by our fleet be more effecti)e in assuring Liurania of our su##ort in a certain

crisisK The basis for argument coul" be #hrase" in a "ebate #ro#osition such as K8esol)e"% That the

Unite" -tates shoul" enter into a mutual "efense treat) 3ith Laurania.K 5eg ati)e a")ocatesmight o##ose this #ro#ositionby arguingthat fleet maneu)ers 3oul" be a better solution. This is not tosay that debates should ompletely avoid reative interpretation of the contro)ersy by

a")ocates, orthat goo" "ebates cannot occur o)er ompeting interpretations of theontroversy O in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging . The #oint is that"ebate is best facilitate" by the gui"ance #ro)i"e" by focus on a #articular #oint of "ifference ,

3hich 3ill be outline" in the follo3ing "iscussion.

9n ethos of deliberation is +ey to solve all soial and eistential problemsDoug Shuler 8, 'nstructor E)ergreen -tate College, CULT':AT'5! -FC'ET- C':'C'5TELL'!E5CE% PATTE85- &F8 A 5E6 6F8LD I8A'5,Information, Communication &

Society$%0 0 church 3as not misse" by the U- me"ia 3here the story

3as feature" on the front #age of the 5e3 or( Times an" other #rominent ne3s#a#ers.@'ronically, com#uters are at the forefront of the #roblems Joy"escribesO 3ithout them those catastro#hes 3oul" be inconcei)able. Com#uters are, in fact, the only in"is#ensable element in each of three #roblems.


6/31

Joys scenarios centre on technological "e)elo#ment outstri##ing human(in"s ability to control it. Fur fail safe #oint may ha)e been #asse" accor"ingto Joy. A )ariant on Malthusian #re"ictions 7much "is#arage" but im#ossible to "is#ro)e> may be finally bearing the bitter fruit that Malthus foresa3.

The #lanets burgeoning #o#ulation an" its deteriorating environmental ondition ,cou#le" 3ith human(in"s #ro#ensity to3ar"s "isagreement an" strife, its "isregar" for naturean" its#enchant for e4#loiting her innermost secrets may #ro)i"e an i"eal set of #recon"itionsfor a su""en an" #rofoun"technological ambush.@Joy, of course, is not alone in his 3arnings. 'n"ee", our era coul" be characteri9e" as the age of such 3arnings. Many

scientists ha)e "ocumente" the monumental hanges that human(in" iscurrently

loosing u#onthe natural en)ironment. 'n another recent article scientists conclu"e" that the human* originate" changes currently being 3rought onthe #lanet ha)e attaine" the magnitu"e of a geologic force 7Qarl an" Trenberth +BBB>. 5obo"y (no3s the conse?uences of ignoring these changes. et it

is a matter of ob)ious im#ortance to the inhabitants human an" other3ise of the earth. A ca)alier "isregar" may beatastrophi .@Antici#ating an"#ossibly a)erting ecologicalan" other nightmares 3oul" #robablyre?uire changes to our 3ays of thin(ing an" actingO changes 3hich, "e#en"ing on their sco#e an" se)erity, are li(ely to bee4tremely "ifficult to enact. Peo#le are loath to change habits "e)elo#e", culti)ate", an" rationali9e" o)er a lifetime. uman(in", similarly, is unli(elyto mo"ify cherishe" habits to a)ert #roblems of the future base" on conteste" e)i"ence of ne3 circumstances, es#ecially ones that may not seem to

a##ro#riate to their li)es.@Joys #re"ictions bor"er on the a#ocaly#ticO in his min" human etintion 'ithin a

generation is possible . Assuming that his #re"ictions ha)e e)en a germ of #ossibility, the ob)ious ?uestion is 3hatcan be "one toun"erstan" the situation, a)ert #otential "isasters an" "e)elo# a more sustainablerelationshi# 3ith our social an" natural en)ironments . Thee?ually im#ortantbut less ob)ious issue isi"entifying the un"erlying con"itions that 3oul" hel# ma(e e)en a #artial resolution of the

#roblemsbecomeconcei)able. This #a#er is an attem#t at "escribing these con"itions an" ho3 the i"ea of a ci)ic intelligence might#lay a useful role. TE 6F8LD I8A'5 A5D FTE8 UTFP'A5 :'-'F5-@Joys concerns, an" others li(e his, 3ere formerly foun" only in sciencefiction for it is in that genre that technological an" social #ossibilities are most creati)ely e4#lore". &or that reason ' 3oul" li(e to in)o(e the memory of.!. 6ells, the English science fiction 3riter, historian, generalist an" )isionary, 3ho "i" not li)e to see the 'nternet or other recent technologicalachie)ements. 6ells 3as not /ust a science fiction 3riter 3ho integrate" technological scenarios 3ith social issues an" outcomesO he 3as also a historian

3ho searche" for broa" historical #atterns% ' "isli(e isolate" e)ents an" "isconnecte" "etails 76ells +B=+>. 6ells 3as also "ee#ly concerne" about thehuman con"ition an" "e)ote" consi"erable thought to the #ros#ects of enlightene" social amelioration. e "iscusse", for e4am#le, in the +B2.@6ells belie)e" that there 3as a cons#icuous ineffecti)eness of mo"ern (no3le"ge an" . . . traine" an" stu"ie" thoughtin contem#orary affairs. As a collecti)e bo"y, 3e are failing to a""ress collecti)e #roblems in spite of immense individual talent and specialized knowledge. Inhis quest for possible antidotes, he dismisses all types of ideologies and religions as unsuitable. He also rejected rule by some sort of lite, in which the man of

science and the technician 3ill #lay a "ominating #art. Joy, of course, 3oul" be a member of such a grou#, e)en though that grou# is res#onsible to some"egree as the #er#etrator of the challenges that Joy 3arns about. 6ells #laces his faith in science an" not men of science. -cience, in his )ie3, shoul"enlighten an" animate our #olitics an" "etermine the course of the 3orl". To this en" he as(s, 's there any 3ay of im#lementing (no3le"ge for rea"yan" uni)ersal effect is ans3er is a 3orl" encyclo#e"ia 3hich 3oul" #ro)i"e an intellectual bac(bone for the human race,a3orl"brainthat3oul""o/ust3hatourscattere"an""isoriente"intellectual organi9ations of to"ay fall short of "oing. 't 3oul" hol" the 3orl" togethermentally.@6ells #lace" his faith in the establishment of a 3orl" encyclo#e"ia, a single artefact #ac(age" as a series of boun" )olumes 3hich 3oul"a##arently be so accurate, that #eo#le 3oul" ha)e little choice but to ma(e the right collecti)e "ecisions base" on "iligent stu"y. Unfortunately )ery fe3#eo#le coul" affor" to #urchase this set of )olumes an" fe3er still 3oul" rea" them in their entirety an" absorb the (no3le"ge therein. 5or is the

e4istence of facts tantamount to the e4istence of ob/ecti)e inter#retations of the facts or ob)ious #olicies or courses of action base" on those facts.&acts ha)e meaning only 3hen inter#rete" an" they ha)e #o3er only 3hen they ha)e conse?uences. 6ithout saying so "irectly, 6ells suggests thatsociety becomes more intelligent by ma(ing its citi9enry more min"ful of the facts.@Perha#s the most ambitious #ro/ect along these lines 3as the one#ro#ose" by the !erman #hiloso#her Leibni9. Leibni9 3as an a")ocate for artificial intelligence some 2


7/31

#resente". Co*o#erationthat is3illingly embrace"through non*coerci)e means is more reliable an"more easilysustaine". &or those reasons, it a##ears that demorayin one form or another may be neessary. 'n a""ition, the#otential reach an" malleability of the 'nternet an" other ne3 communication technologies further suggest that it may be #ossible to "e)isea##lications, ser)ices an" institutions 3ithin the e)ol)ing 3orl" communication net3or( that 3oul" su##ort an" strengthen these "emocratic

a##roaches. Communication, certainly, is (ey to any effecti)e "emocratic system. Pro/ects along these lines, 3hilereminiscent of 6ellss 3orl" brain )isions, 3oul" nee" to be more aligne" 3ith the #recon"itions that su##ort conce#tual an" technological inno)ationif they are to be use" an" useful.@Democracy, as nearly e)erybo"y (no3s, is highly R a3e" in #ractice% the 3rong #eo#le can become electe" for the

3rong reasons an" "o the 3rong things once in ofR ce. Can"i"ates can be fa)oure" for their tousle" hair, their "im#le" smile, their lineage, the slogan"u /our. Fnce in #o3er, electe" ofR cials may ac?uiesce to s#ecial interests 7!rei"er +BB2> or be un"ermine" through me"ia*in"uce" scan"al 7Castells+BB;>. 8unning for ofR ce 7in the U-A> is so costly that only the )ery rich ha)e any chance of getting electe" 7it 3as estimate" that the 5e3 or( state-enate race 3oul" #robably cost o)er one hun"re" million "ollars>. The role of the me"ia, lobbyists, rich #atrons, #rofessional #ublic relationscam#aigns an" "irty tric(s further frustrate any attem#t to un"erstan" or to #artici#ate meaningfully in the "emocratic #rocess.@The tas( of collecti)eself*rule "emocracy has been calle" an im#ossible tas(. 'n"ee", its im#ossibility can e)en be #ro)e", in much the same 3ay that engineers ha"#ro)e" that bee R ight is im#ossible. The tas( of "emocracy if its "one remotely 3ell 7so the story goes> is so e4acting, so all*encom#assing, yet sofrustrating an" ultimately un#re"ictable, that its been calle" an im#ossible enter#rise. Li##man 7+B0>, in #articular, 3as sce#tical of the i"ea of anomnicom#etent citi9en 3ho #ossesses sufficient (no3le"ge to #artici#ate effecti)ely in the #olitical #rocess. Li##man notes that e)en though ci)icaffairs 3as his #rofessional a)ocation, he 3as unable to monitor the rele)ant "ata, initiati)es an" i"eas that he belie)e" 3oul" minimally be necessaryfor him to sustain com#etence in this area. To be minimally com#etent in the area that this #a#er a""resses, for e4am#le, a #erson shoul" be 3ellac?uainte" 3ith "emocratic theory, 3orl" systems, communication technology, #olitical economy, #ublic #olicy, en)ironmentalism an" the state of the

3orl", an" many other to#ics. Each of these areas is characteri9e" by shifting o#inions, initiati)es an" "iscourses, ina""itiontoano)erabun"anceofem#irical,)eriRable"ata73hoseinter#retations are then "is#ute">. 7'nterestingly, as 6ells #oints out, our electe" lea"ersthemsel)es are far from omnicom#etent. Their chief s(ills, cam#aigning an" #olitical manoeu)ring, are, in large #art, res#onsible for their success,

3hile their com#etency in other matters may be un"er"e)elo#e".>@Asimilarcriticismcan,ofcourse,be"irecte"to3ar"sanyelitebo"y,ho3e)er humanelyan" 3ell "is#ose" they are to3ar"s go)erning the rest of the citi9enry. Iut "oes Li##mans criti?ue ren"er "emocracy im#ossible or merely the i"ea ofomnicom#etence an" its #ur#orte" in"is#ensability. ' 3oul" claim the latter. 8eality is unfathomably com#le4 an" 3e are each inca#able of (no3ing

e)en one as#ect in its totality. Iut, im#ossible or not, "emocracy or some a##ro4imation of "emocracy is not o#tionalO "ecisions ha)e to

be ma"e.6e ha)e no choice but to culti)ate systems of go)ernance that can hel# us constructi)elyengage 3ith our olletive onerns . Li##mans criti?ue is )aluable, but not to su##ort the conclusions for 3hich it 3asoriginally marshalle". Li##man "emonstrates the fallibility of basing a system of go)ernance on the i"ea of omnicom#etency. 'n"ee", any system ofgo)ernance shoul" assume the im#ossibility of omnicom#etence an" the inesca#able reality of im#erfect com#etence, 3hile not allo3ing oursel)es to

be "efeate" by it. This means, in soft3are #arlance, turning a bug into a feature. 't may be, in fact, the im#ossibility of omnicom#etence that ma(es

"emocracy the only )iable choice for a system of go)ernance. DUMI'5! DF65 TE C'T'SE5@'n the early +B= at the e4#ense of the intellectually ta4ing. The ill effects of money on the me"ia, #olitics an" elections also furtherincrease the "istance bet3een citi9ens an" #ublic affairs 7-chuler 0


8/31

agen"a, an" by triviali/ing and polari/ing disussion an"deliberation on im#ortant#ublic matters. Certainly each "e*s(illing ste# intro"uceschangesinbothinstitutionali9ation,the#rescribe"#rocessesthrough 3hich actions area")ance" an" )ali"ate", an" in conce#tuali9ation of 3hat e)ery"ay life entailsO each ste# hel#s erect the or"inary an" the e4traor"inary barriersto ci)icintelligence.@6F F8 6AT 6'LL !F:E85@'f the "ire scenarios that Joy "escribes 7or e)en the less "ramatic, but no less 3orrisome,en)ironmental catastro#hes that atmos#heric an" other scientists 3arn us about> ha)e e)en a minuscule chance of occurring, an urgent nee" to

consi"er 3ays to a)ert them arises. -ince solutions tothese #roblems are li(ely tobe #rotracte" an" multi*#ronge", an"in)ol)e large segments of the citi9enry, a corres#on"ingly urgent nee" to analyse the

#recon"itions un"erlying the "e)elo#ment an" suessful implementation of thesesolutions also arises. 6hat en)ironments social an" technological 3oul" be hos#itable to the satisfactory resol)ing of these#roblems 'f 3e coul" imagine human(in" fin"ing better res#onses to our myria" #roblems, ol" an" ne3, 3hat circumstances an" resources nee" to be

in #lace an" 3hat ste#s coul" be ta(en that 3oul" su##ort these ne3 res#onses These #recon"itionsan" ste#s3e can call ;iviintelligene: or #erha#s a 3orl" brain.@6hat choices face us in the "esign of this ci)ic intelligence 6hat attributes coul" it ha)e Fnehy#othetical e4#ression of ci)ic intelligence 3oul" be a massi)ely com#le4 com#uter system 3hich 3oul" ma(e intelligent "ecisions on societys

behalf. This o#tion 3oul" be a t3enty*Rrst century manifestation of Leibni9s "ream, a terrifying cybernetic &ran(enstein*on*a*chi# from the samecu#boar"ofnightmaresthatJoyo#ene"inhis6ire"article.Thelimitationsofthis a##roach are manifol" but are 3orth mentioning brieRy. Theim#ossibility of accurately, a"e?uately an" com#rehensi)ely re#resenting infinitely com#le4 situations 3ith "iscrete com#uter logic comes to min", as"o the #roblems surroun"ing the im#lementation of the "ecisions. 6oul" #olice or other arme" organi9ations recei)e their instructions from such anintelligent system The #roblem of the biases an" assum#tions of the systems creators becoming embo"ie" 7fore)er> in such a system is also asobering an" "isturbing thought. 'magine an 'nternational Monetary &un" 7'M&> e4#ert system free to im#oseeconomicrestructuringonha#lessregionsaccor"ingtothearcanetheoremsof economists@Fthera##roaches3hichrelymorehea)ilyonintelligenceofthenon*artiRcial )ariety inclu"e ha)ing a small elite grou# ma(ing the "ecisions, nobo"yma(ing "ecisions 7let the free mar(et reign, for e4am#le>, or a system in 3hich citi9ens #lay a strong role. Political scientist, 8obert Dahl 7+B;B>,suggests that these three systems "ictatorshi#, anarchy an" "emocracy, as 3ell as #olyarchy, a hybri" of the others constitute the entire list of

#ossibilities.@6ells suggeste" that scientists 7at least in his "ay> 3oul" sometimes yearn for a society that 3oul" a##ly their 7eminently reasonable>#rinci#les an" clamour for their lea"ershi# an" Li##man belie)e" that an elite grou# shoul" go)ern because of the im#ossibility of omnicom#etence.6hat Li##man "i"nt ac(no3l* e"ge 3as that omnicom#etence is im#ossible for small grou#s as 3ell as for in"i)i"uals. Americas best an" brightest,for e4am#le, engineere" Americas tragic 3ar 3ith :ietnam. 8egar"less of the role of an elite, the non*elite citi9enry 3ill necessarily also ha)e a strongrole to #lay. 'f an elite grou#, for e4am#le, "e)ises solutions or sets of solutions they" then ha)e the than(less an" #otentially im#ossible /ob ofcon)incing 7through rational a##eal, #ro#agan"a or force> the rest of us to acce#t their /eremia"s an" #rescri#tions. A "emocratic a##roach, on theother han", 3oul" be to enlist the ai" of the citi9enry at the onset as #art of the o)erall #ro/ect. The #o#ulation or at least a large ma/ority may nee" tobuy in an" a"o#t 3ithout coercion or "ece#tion i"eas an" actions that 3oul" be unacce#table 3ithout suitable #artici#ation in the #rocess

7Pateman +B= that "e)elo#e" those i"eas an" actions.A more ra"ically "emocratic )ie37an" the one that might ultimately be seenas the ob)ious choice> is that the often neglecte", sometimes "umbe" "o3n citi9enry might #ro)i"e theintelligence, creati)ity , energy an" lea"ershi# that is nee"e" to reogni/e% formulate andreonile the problems that 'e are faed 'ith .@As 3e ha)e seen go)ernance shoul"nt be entruste" to anomnicom#etent elite or an infallible com#uter systemO both are im#ossible to achie)e. 5or shoul" go)ernance blin" luc( through the fantasy that thestatus ?uo an"or the free mar(et 3ill miraculously sol)e current #roblems an" a)ert future ones through benign an" unantici#ate" si"e effects. A"emocratic system of go)ernance, then, is the only )iable alternati)e an" ci)ic intelligence that is strongly "emocratic in s#ite of the #roblems#re)iously "iscusse" sho3s the greatest #romise for an effecti)ean"e?uitablesystemofgo)ernance. This a##roach increases "istribution of creati)ityan" attention 3hile, at the same time, re"ucing concentration of #o3er a3ay from those #eo#le 3ith )este" interests in ma4imi9ing their gain 7oftenshort*term> o)er the 7often long*term> gain of the larger #o#ulation. There is mounting e)i"ence that this "emocrati9ation is occurring. As McQibben70 an" others remin" us, res#onsible forlaunching the ma&or soial movements of the last entury , inclu"ing the en)ironmental,ci)il rights an" the3omens mo)ement.@C':'C '5TELL'!E5CE% TF6A8D- A 6F8LD I8A'5@Ci)ic intelligence, as '#ro#ose it, is relati)ely #rosaic% it refers to the ability of human(in" to use information an" communication in or"er to engage in collecti)e #roblemsol)ing. The term has nothing to "o 3ith the meta#hysical musings on global consciousness, hy#erintelligence an" the li(e, 3hich are e4#ecte", bysome, to emerge s#ontaneously at some time in the not too "istant future ushere" in by global communication net3or(s. Li(e the intelligence of anin"i)i"ual, ci)ic intelligence is a relati)e form that can be less or more effecti)e an" creati)e. Thus it can be "e)elo#e" incrementally through humaneffort, not through su""en ine4#licablere)olutionantici#ate"byfaithors#irituallonging.Ci)icintelligence e4ten"s the notion of social ca#ital 7Putnam0


9/31

"e)elo#ers. 't is also im#ortant, for communication in the human bo"y an" for our analytic #ur#oses, to reali9e that although the collection of systems

that constitute the human bo"y 7or e)en the brain> is an integrate" 3hole, the relationshi#s ofits subsystems arent 3hollyco*o#erati)eO there are conflicting nee"s an" re?uests that cant all be met. Conflit < and theneed to resolve onflit < is ruial in both individual and olletive intelligenes .

Seond% topi eduation

The devil is in the details---ativists need to hallenge partiular and ompleinstanes of presene to effetively reate hangeEri( ,eaver , Carol an" E" 5e3man &ello3 at the 'nstitute for Policy -tu"ies, #olicy outreachcoor"inator for &oreign Policy 'n &ocus, -hoc( but 5o A3e Congress, Iush, the #eacemo)ement an" 'ra?, $+20 o#enly challenge" Democratsto #ass a billo##osing the #resi"ent, 'f you thin( su##orting the troo#s is bringing them home , then'hy not pass a

bill that does that =5 'n as(ing this ?uestion, !raham a#tly #ointe" out theDemocrats main 3ea(ness1the lac( of consensus 3ithinthe Democratic Party on 3hat an alternati)e 'ra? #olicy shoul" loo( li(e.@&umbling for a -trategy% Mu rtha@All eyes focuse" on the office of 8e#. Jac(Murtha 7D*PA>, the architect of the s#en"ing bill that 3oul" reach the ouse floor. A long time critic of the 3ar, an" author of a bill calling for an imme"iate re"e#loyment of the troo#s, many e4#ecte" Murtha to

3rite a bill that 3oul" effecti)ely en" the 3ar an" #resent a clear strategy for the Democrats.@Iut instea" of ta(ing !rahams challenge hea" on, Murtha sought to sto# the 3ar through slight*of*han" maneu)erssuch as hol"ing bac( troo#s that 3ere not combat rea"y, en"ing sto#*loss #olicies, an" cutting fun"s for military contractors. 6hile cle)erly #utting Democrats on the si"e of the troo#s, Murthas strategy "i"nta"e?uately engage other members of congress, resulting in se)ere bac(lash from more conser)ati)e Democrats. is strategy, though not the #olicy, 3as also o#enly attac(e" by 8e#ublicans. An" Murtha lac(e"#o#ular su##ort as his bac( " oor maneu)ering remo)e" #ublic o#inion an" the grassroots from the "ebate. The Democratic lea"ershi#, slo3 to "e)ise an initial strategy, ?uic(ly mo)e" in to ta(e control o)er the#rocess in an attem#t to resuscitate the bill.@A 6ea( &oun"ation% Pelosis Com#romise@Congressional analysts 3ere ?uic( to #oint out that the fun"ing bill became ouse -#ea(er 5ancy Pelosis first ma/orchallenge. Many argue" that if she faile" to #ass a bill, it 3oul" sho3 great 3ea(ness in the Democratic lea"ershi#. Democrats rose to ans3er this conser)ati)e framing instea" of #utting the #ressu re bac( on thePresi"ent 3ho 3as "ri)ing the country in the e4act o##osite "irection than the )oters e4#resse". 'nstea" of as(ing the ?uestion i f the country shoul" #ony u# an a""itional B2 billion for 3ar, the ?uestion became,can Pelosi 7D*CA> #ass a bill@6ith a "i)ersity of o#inion 3ithin the Democratic Caucus, the focus became on 3hat com#romise coul" be hashe" out bet3een the conser)ati)e Ilue Dogs an" Progressi)es. There

3as ne)er a fight about the o)erarching 'ra? #olicy. 'nstea", the biggest bra3l the #ublic sa3 3as bet3een ouse A##ro#riations committee Chairman Da)i" Fbey 7D*6'> an" the mother of a Marine an" an anti*3ar acti)ist, Tina 8ichar"s. 8es#on"ing from 8ichar"s #lea to sto# the 3ar Fbey screame", 6e "ont ha)e the )otes. Iut it 3as ne)er clear that Fbey an" others 3ere in fact see(ing the )otes to en" the 3ar.'nstea" they 3ere see(ing the )otes for 3hat en"e" u# being a 3ea( com#romise. @The 8esult% A Political :ictory but Ia" Policy@6ith narro3 ma/orities the ouse an" -enate both #asse" the emergency

s#en"ing bills. ea"lines across the nation #ortraye"thebills as ma/or challenges to the 6hite ouse, setting"ea"lines for the 3ith"ra3al of combat troo#s. o3e)er, little attention 'as paid to the atual ontent of thebills .@A Ia" Policy@Much attention has been #ai" to the 3ai)ers grante" to the Presi"ent in the bills to allo3 non*combat troo#s to be sent into battle. Iut the larger #olicy ?uestion, that of 3ith"ra3als,has largely been o)erloo(e". The 3ith"ra3al of combat troo#s is not 3ell*"efine" in the legislation, #otentially lea)ing $


10/31

it has forgotten its role , 3hich is to #ush an" challenge the #oliticians, not to fall in mee(ly behin" them.@Iut Sinnli(ely o)erloo(e" the lobbying efforts many grou#s ha)e un"erta(en for the last fouryears.!rassroots ha)e continuously hallenged those in Congress an"in "oing so, ga)e #rogressi)es inCongress a much stronger han" in the negotiations aroun" the s#en"ing bill. Public o#inion, 3hile 3i"ely against thecon"uct of the 3ar is not for the imme"iate 3ith"ra3al that the anti*3ar mo)ement 3ants. An" -irota misse" the huge loo#holes that e4ist in the bill, allo3ing the 3ar to continue e)en after the "ea"lines are

met.@F""ly enough, neither si"e in this "ebate seems to un"erstan" the )alue in the other , nor ho3 the outcome actuallyincrease" the strength of the anti*3ar mo)ement. Passage of a bill that calls for bringing many of the troo#s home in an +;*month timeframe is a )ictory gi)en the narro3 Democratic ma/orities in Congress an"

3ith a Presi"ent 3ho has )o3e" to stay in 'ra? e)en if his only su##orters are his 3ife an" his "og. @!i)en these challenges, a )ictory 3as achie)e" but it has to be seen as #art of a larger strategy o)er the course of

this year 3here there are )otes on the Defense Authori9ation bill, an" Defense A##ro#riations bill, along 3ith another su##lemental. Iy pointing out the large

defiienies in the bill , it #ro)i"es le)erage for future concessions an" a 3ay to en" the 3arsooner.@The Aftermath% 6hat 5e4t@-hortly after the bill #asse", the Presi"ent hel" a ne3s conference announcing that he 3oul" )eto the bill. This ne3s conference 3as follo3e" by t3o 3ee(s of )etothreats from the 6hite ouse along 3ith an in)itation for Democrats to )isit Iush for a lecture on 3hy they shoul" su##ort his escalation an" ne)er en"ing 3ar in ' ra?. 6ith this sho3"o3n looming many areas(ing 3hat the ne4t ste#s 3ill be. @F#tions@F)erri"ing a )eto is im#ossible gi)en the close #assage in both chambers of Congress. An" failing to #ass any bill, effecti)ely cutting the fun"s off isnt #oliticallyfeasible gi)en that the Democrats fell #rey to the 6hite ouses framing of fun"ing as the only 3ay to su##ort the troo#s. Assuming that the ouse an" -enate 3ill #ass the com#romise re#ort reconciling thet3o "ifferent )ersions of the bill the follo3ing o#tions e4ist for the ne4t ste#s%@+> A 6orse Iill% A ne3 bill that 3oul" (ee# the same con"itions an" 3ai)ers but 3oul" ma(e the "ates for 3ith"ra3al goals instea"of "ea"linesO@0> Pass the same bill again but 3ithout the congressional #or( barrel #ro/ectsO@2> A -hort*term &un"ing IillO@$> A -tronger Iill% A ne3 bill to #ro)i"e fun"ing to bring all the troo#s home.@Passage of a 3ea(er bill is unli(ely gi)en that la3ma(ers ha)e ta(en a strong stan" an" are strongly su##orte" by the #ublic. A similar bill 3ithout the #or( 3oul" be 3elcome but coul" easily be cast as a #oliticalstunt gi)en the )eto of )irtually the same bill.@Many Democratic la3ma(ers are eyeing the #ossibility of a short*term fun"ing bill. !i)en that the #resi"ents 3ar re?uest 3as B2 billion an" Congress #asse" a+0+ billion bill, but the Congressional 8esearch -er)ice /ust release" a re#ort that the Pentagon has fun"ing for the 3ar until July, a short*term bill 3oul" only nee" to #ro)i"e 2< billion 7current s#en"ing is +That country, ob)iously, is China. To"ay, China still falls 3ell short of the le)el of #o3er nee"e" to assert regional "ominance e)en inthe absence of U.-. #resence.++2 Moreo)er, it is not clear that China 3ill as#ire to such regional "ominance as its #o3er increases.

et a #eaceful rise annot be guaranteed , either, an" Chinas ability to #ursue regional #rimacycoul" inrease mar+edlyin the "eca"es to come. "plosive eonomi gro'th an" a long-term military buildup ha)e alrea"y ha" a pronouned impat on the military balance )is*\*)is neighbors li(e Tai3an, :ietnam, the Phili##ines, an" Ja#an. 'f Chinese economic gro3thcontinues a#ace, an" if Chinas "efense bu"get continues to register annual increases of +, an" thatretrenching from other regions 3oul" #ro)i"e greater fle4ibility an" le)erage in a""ressing

a")erse e)ents in the Asia*Pacific. Iutthe crucial fla3 in the logic of retrenchment is that going offshoregenerally ma(es it harder rather than easier to affect the regional e?uilibrium.+00 8ight no3,U.-. for3ar" #resence affor"s America a number of ritial advantages that it can "ra3 onin sha#ing the regional climate in East Asia an" res#on"ing to crises shoul" they emerge%strong an" deeply institutionali/ed allianes O established patterns of basing,logistics, an" accessO high degrees of interoperability that come through near-ontinualtraining 3ith frien"ly militariesO an" others. These assets not only help he+ Chinesepo'er an" hedge against un'elome developments in #eacetime. They 3oul" also ser)eas the indispensable foundation of 6ashingtons res#onse shoul" the region nonetheless"escen" into conflict, #ro)i"ing a preeisting frame'or+ an" infrastruture for large*scale U.-. inter)ention.

6ere these assets to be "e)alue" or li?ui"ate" )ia retrenchment, ho3e)er, then the Unite" -tates3oul" face a far greater hallenge . 'n #eacetime, it 3oul" #ossess fe3er of the instruments an"arrangements that ha)e long allo'ed it to influene the behavior of allies an"a")ersaries, an" head off unfavorable events before they occur. 'n 3artime, thedisadvantages 'ould be greater still . The Unite" -tates 3oul" face the dauntingprospet of assembling the necessary coalitions, access, an" basing agreements on the fly. 't

3oul" confront the #roblems inherent in 3or(ing 3ith foreign go)ernments an" militaries 3ith3hich it ha" less familiarity an" fe3er ongoing ties. 't 3oul" ha)e to o)ercome the


14/31

onsiderable logistial hallenges of mo)ing a greater #ro#ortion of the re?uire" forcesinto theater, an" #erha#s fighting its 3ay bac( into a region after an a")ersary ha" e4#loite"U.-. absenceto sta(e out a more formi"able #osition there.An", of course, it 3oul" ha)e to "o all of this ami"the intense #ressure of a bre3ing or ongoing conflict. !etting out of the marginal seas might be easy, t3oe4#erts on na)al strategy conclu"e. !etting bac( in 3oul" be a "ifferent #ro#osition entirely.+02 Fr, as another lea"ing scholara##ro#riately #uts it, Ieefing u# a #ree4isting #resence in an emergency is easier than re*establishing one from scratch in acrisis.+0$

Fffshore balancers 3oul" "o 3ell to (ee# these 3arnings in min". The strategythey recommen" #romises to #reser)e regionalbalances at re"uce" costs. Iut instea", it might3ell heighten the ris+ of dangerous developments ina (ey region li(e East Asia, 3hile simultaneously e4acerbating the ha9ar"s an" "ifficulties of an

American res#onse.+0

That out'eighsKe+% 1B1Managing E"itor of The Di#lomat 7Sachary, Americas 8elati)e Decline% -houl" 6ePanic,htt#%the"i#lomat.com0


15/31

it is commonly asserte" that many of the "efining challenges of our era can only be sol)e"through multilateral coo#eration. E4am#lesof this inclu"e climate change, health #an"emics, organi9e" crimean" terrorism , global finanial rises , an" the prolif eration of 3ea#ons of mass"estruction, among many others.

A uni#olar system, for all its limitations, is uni.uely suited for organi9ing effecti)e global action onthese transnational issues. This is because there is a clear global lea"er 3ho can ta(e the initiati)ean", to some "egree, com#el others to fall in line. 'n a""ition, the uni#ole s #re#on"erance of #o3erlessens the intensity of ompetition among the global #layers in)ol)e". Thus, 3hile there are noshortages of com#laints about the limitations of global go)ernance to"ay, there is no ?uestion that global go)ernance has

been many times more effecti)e in the last 0 years than it 3as "uring the Col" 6ar.The rise of China an"#otentially other #o3ers 3ill create a ne3 bi#olar or multi#olar or"er. This, inturn,3ill ma(e sol)ing these transnational issues muh more diffiult . Des#ite the o#timisticrhetoric that emanates from official U.-.*China meetings , the reality is that -ino*American com#etition isli(ely to o)ersha"o3 an increasing number of global issues in the years ahea". 'f other countries li(e 'n"ia, Tur(ey, an" Ira9il also become significant global #o3ers, this3ill only further dampen theprospets for effecti)e global go)ernance!Therefore, many of the benefits that Qenny #re"icts 3ill accom#any the rise of "e)elo#ing countries may not occur, at least in as "ramatic a fashion as

one might thin(. &or instance, theres no "oubt that a richer "e)elo#ing 3orl" shoul" result in more American e4#orts. o3e)er,Americane4#orts mightat the same timebe constraine" by a far less o#en global tra"e en)ironment in amulti#olar 3orl". Things 3e ta(e for grante" to"ay, such as free"om of na)igation an" airflight, coul" )ery 3ellbemuch less assure" in a bi#olar or multi#olar future. Theres also the #ossibility that the 3orl"

3ill "i)i"e into s#heres of influence, in 3hich regional hegemonic #o3ers "eman" highly#referential access to mar(ets in their home regions. -imilarly, the "ecline of the U.-. "ollar an"greater international com#etition coul" also result in far more unstable international financialmar(ets that also inhibit tra"e.

*rolif esalates% nulear 'arTan 2#1@* Associate Professor At the Uni)ersity of 5e3 -outh 6ales

An"re3 T.., -ecurity an" Conflict in East Asia, #. 2+East Asias arms race lea"s to the classic #roblem of the security "ilemma, in 3hich a state thatis #ercei)e" as becoming too #o3erful lea"s to counter*ac?uisitions by other states. This resultsin mis#erce#tions, conflict s#irals, heightene" tensions an" ultimately o#en conflict , thereby"estroying the )ery security that arms are su##ose" to guarantee7Jer)is +B=G>. East Asias sustaine"economic rise since the en" of the Qorean 6ar in +B2 an" the lac( of any ma/or conflict since has lulle" manyinto belie)ing that gro3ing economic inter"e#en"ence 3ill ma(e 3ar unli(ely in that region7Qhoo0. o3e)er, this is a false premise as signifiant historial antagonisms have

remained! Ja#an s im#erialism #rior to +B$ an" its failure a"e?uately to account for its #astcontinues to stir u# strong nationalist emotions in China an" -outh Qorea. 'n a""itions, t hedivisions bet'een North Korea and South Korea are as strong as intratable as

ever% leading to an arms rae on the Korean peninsula . The situation is com#oun"e" bythe 3ea(ness or absence of regional institutions , regimes an" la3s that coul" regulate interstate

relations, buil" trust an" confi"ence* an" security*buil"ing measures 3hich 3ere in #ace in Euro#e "uringthe Col" 6ar an" hel#e" to calm tensions as 3ell as contain the arms race e4ist in Asia. 6ithin East Asia itself, the -i4*PartyTal(s ha)e focuse" only on the Qorean issue an" ha)e not manage" to stem 5orth Qoreas o#en

brin(manshi#that in early 0


16/31

emanate from other #o3ers, not China 7-utter 0. The conse?uences of conflict bet3een China an" Ja#an,on the Qorean #eninsula or o)er Tai3an , ho3e)er,3ill not stay regional. As a (ey #layer in East Asia,the U-A , 3hich has security commitments to Ja#an an" -outh Qorea, resi"ual commitments toTai3an, an" troo#s on the groun" in East Asia an" in the 6estern Pacific, 'ill be dra'n in!The #roblem is that any conflict in East Asia is not li(ely to remain con)entional for long . 'n fact %it is li+ely that it 'ould rapidly esalate into a nulear 'ar because three of the (ey#layers , namely China, 5orth Qorea an" the U-A, #ossess nuc lear 3ea#ons .

Strutural violene framing is analytially useless < an:t distinguish 'ar fromother types of violene < the move to onflate the t'o ma+es politis ineffetiveThomas 11 70

Much of the attracti)eness of this i"ea of structural )iolence is that it broa"ensthe remit of securitystu"ies,or of research into )iolence. Thus, economic issues an" the "amage "one by #o)erty an" so on become /u st as im#ortant as the " amage "one by "irect, #hysical

)iolence. Authors 3ho 3or( 3ith the conce#t of structural )iolence aim to highlight the hi""en structures in or"er to 3or( to3ar"s their transformation.G2 The#roblem 3ith this is that it is "efining a conce#t "e#en"ent on 3hat 3e 3ant to be able to stu"y

3ithin its remit.A conce#t shoul" not "e#en" for its meaning on ho3 3e 3ant to stu"y it, but rather on3hat the conce#t means. The conce#t of structural )iolence is #erforming a similar role to the "ebate about broa"ening the "efinition of security. 6ithin thesecurity "ebate 3e are use" to #eo#le #osing the challenge of securitisation that #eo#le call something a security #roblem in or"er to ma(e it soun" more urgent, more #olicyrele)ant an" so on. Fne can #ose the same challenge to structural )iolence. 8ather than ha)ing a clear aca"emic reason for stretching the conce#t of )iolence to incor#orate

other, e?ually ba", social ills, the main reason #ro#ose" is that these other social ills cause as much or more "amage than the"amage cause" by )iolence. This may 3ell be the case, an" these issues shoul" ha)e urgentaca"emic an" #olicy attention. o3e)er, re*"efining a conce#t li(e)iolence to incor#orate theseissuesin or"er to gain that attention is a #oor 3ay of achie)ing this.A clear argument that statesthe reasons 3hy 3i"er social ills are more 3orthy of our attention "oes not nee" the furtherargument that 3e shoul" also call them )iolence. -o, by calling something )iolent, or "esignating it as an issue of security, an author isclaiming a certain im#ortance for the issue, escalating it u# the #olicy agen"a, an" allo3ing for e4traor"inary reactions. &or e4am#le, by saying that e4tremists use )iolence, one"esignates it as a significant an" ba" #roblem, 3hich allo3s an e4ce#tional res#onse of )iolence 7calle" military force> to counter it. The aim of calling something )iolence inor"er to #ush it u# the #olicy agen"a, meaning it re?uires s#ecial, urgent action, can also lea" to "ealing 3ith these issues in a "ifferent, e4ce#tional 3ay, outsi"e the realm of

or"inary #olitics. This may or may not be beneficial in "ealing 3ith the issue in ?uestion, or for our #olitics in general.G$ A similar mo)eis ma"e by]i^e(

3hen he claims that alongsi"e sub/ecti)e )iolence7"irect, intentional )iolence>, there is also ob/ecti)e)iolence,one form of 3hich is systemic )iolence the "amaging conse?uences of the normal functioning of the system. This systemic )iolence must beta(en into account, accor"ing to ]^ie(, in or"er to ma(e sense of sub/ecti)e )iolence.G e argues that this systemic )iolence nee"s to be gi)en #rominence, "es#ite the urgencyattribute" to "irect )iolence 3hich fights for our attention.GG Again, this argument is )ali" in that systemic #roblems cause more suffering in the 3orl" than "irect )iolence. Iutthere has to be a further reason to also call this )iolence. After all, the argument can be ma"e 3ithout the nee" to label something as )iolence. Fne coul" argue that seeing as ourconce#ts are im#ortant because they change the 3ay 3e thin( about the 3orl", an" change the 3ay 3e act in it, a "efinition of )iolence that incor#orates these other social ills

3oul" be )aluable. o3e)er, broa"ening the conce#t in this 3ay also has the #otential for being "amaging. 'f 3e concei)e of all these things ase?ually )iolent , in or"er to see them as e?ually im#ortant, there is an im#lication that 3e arealso going to tac(le the issues as #roblems of )iolence.'ssues of poverty are not hel#fullytac(le" in the same 'ay as issues of diret violene ! The conce#t of structural )iolence is#roblematica l as it means that the "efinition of )iolence becomes lin(e" to the result of an act7orinfluence>, an" not to the intention or actual action of the actor . This illustrates a (ey "ifference in the 3ay )iolence is concei)e"% one

3ay sees )iolence from the #ers#ecti)e of the #er#etrator, an" sees it as intentional, "estructi)e forceO the other 3ay sees )iolence from the #oint of )ie3 of the )ictim, an" sees itas a form of )iolation.G= Iufacchi #oints out that these t3o conce#ts of )iolence stem from the Latin roots of t he term. The root of the 3or" )iolence is )iolentia, meaning a#assionate an" uncontrolle" force, but the meaning is often conflate" 3ith )iolation, from the Latin )iolare, meaning infringement.G; Although the "efinition of )iolence is#artly contingent on the result of an act, in that it re?uires that the intention is to #hysically harm the )ictim, it is also necessary for that result to be a means to an en", not anen" in itself. Iecause the result of many "ifferent acts or situations is #hysical harm or "eath 7or une?ual #o3er or life chances>, many things become incor#orate" into the"efinition of )iolence if the conce#t of intention is not use", an" if the instrumental nature of )iolence is ignore". 8oberts goes some 3ay to im#ro)ing on the "ebate aboutstructural )iolence by #ointing out that structures are create" by #eo#le, an" thus structural )iolence can be #re)ente" an" "oes ha)e res#onsible actors. e also o#erationalisesit by referring to s#ecific acts of structural )iolence, loo(ing at a)oi"able ci)ilian "eaths. e argues that his 3ay of loo(ing at human insecurity enables the analysis of structures,institutions an" human agency, but 3ithout the #roblems cause" by broa"ening the "ebate to inclu"e !altungs conce#t of realising full human #sychosomatic #otential.GB Iut

this "oes not #re)ent the #roblem that structural )iolence still refers to anything an author 3ants it to . 'nterestingly, many of8oberts choice of e4am#les can be incor#orate" un"er the title of "irect )iolence in any case 7they are #re)entable female "eaths% infantici"e, maternal mortality, intimate(illings 7normal "omestic mur"er, "o3ry mur"ers an" honour (illings>, lethal female genital mutilationO an" a)oi"able "eaths in chil"ren un"er fi)e>.=< -ome caution isnee"e" in this a##roach, ho3e)er. 't is easy to thin( of e4am#les 3here )iolence is not intentional, for e4am#le a natural "isaster, or bombing an em#ty buil"ing that

acci"entally harms someone nearby. 6e ha)e alrea"y recognise" that the conce#t has fu99y boun"aries, an" thus 3e can recognise that some )iolence occurs naturally. The#ointhere is to "iscuss that )iolence 3hich is most rele)ant for the stu"y of international #olitics .This is not the same as acce#ting that e)erything that causes harm in some 3ay can be ca#ture" 3ithin the term )iolence. 't is also not going so far as to say that acci"ental actsof )iolence are not )iolence at all. Collateral "amage is still )iolent. The #oint of inclu"ing the i"ea of intentionality in the "efinition of )iolence is that it ensures the )iolence 3e


17/31

are "iscussing in international #olitics has an actor an" "oes not en" u# inclu"ing in"eterminate i"eas li(e a state of )iolence. 't "oes not /ust ha##en on its o3n. 't is also anaction that is "one 3ith the intention of harming, unli(e acts such as a "octor causing some #ain in or"er to heal.

No risk of endless warfareGray 7Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at theUniversity of Reading, graduate of the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, Founder and Senior ssociate to the !ational Institutefor Pu"lic Policy, for#erly $ith the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the %udson Institute &Colin, 'uly, ()he I#*licationsof Pree#*tive and Preventive +ar Doctrines Reconsideration-, htt*..$$$/ciaonet/org.$*s.ssi01230.ssi01230/*df4

5/ *olicy that favors *reventive $arfare ex*resses a futile 6uest for a"solute security/ It could do so/ Most controversial *olicies contain $ithin the# the

*ossi"ility of #isuse/ In the hands of a *aranoid or "oundlessly a#"itious *olitical leader , *reventioncould "e a *olicy for endless $arfare/ %o$ever, the #erican *olitical syste# , $ithits chec7s and "alances, $as designed ex*licitly for the *ur*ose of constraining theexecutive fro# excessive folly/ 8oth the 9ietna# and the conte#*orary Ira6iex*eriencesreveal clearly thatalthough the conduct of $ar isan executive *rerogative, in *ractice that authorityis disci*lined "y *u"lic attitudes/ Clause$it: #ade this *oint su*er"ly $ith his designation of the *assion, the senti#ents, of the*eo*le as a vital co#*onent of his trinitarian theory of $ar/ 20 It is true to clai# that *o$er can "e, and indeed is often, a"used, "oth *ersonally andnationally/ It is *ossi"le that a state could ac6uire a taste for the a**arent s$ift decisiveness of *reventive $arfare and overuse the o*tion/ One #ightargue that the easy success achieved against )ali"an fghanistan in ;110, *rovided fuel for the urge to see7 a si#ilarly ra*id success against Sadda#%ussein


18/31

Des#ite the many "ifferences among the #ragmatists, theyten" to share se)eral features. Perha#s most salientto thesub/ect of this )olume is their #resum#tionKthat human agencyin all of its higher manifestations has e)ol)e"from ... concrete circumstances in 3hich a )ulnerable organism is confronte", often 7if not usually> inconcert 3ith other organisms of the same s#ecies,3ith #ossibilities of both in/ury an" fulfillment.KN 't is thecontinuous remin"er of Khuman fallibility an" finitu"eKN that onstrains pragmatists from#ositions such as foun"ationalism an" "ogmatism an" thus against i"eologies that encourage the use of arme"force, an" es#ecially of 6MD, in all but the most e4treme circumstances. 't is also a remin"er thatarme" conflicts are com#ose" of embo"ie" human beings, eah of 'hom has the apaityfor suffering as 3ell as ha##iness, a #oint stresse" by feminist analyses of arme" conflicts.There are se)eral significant #oints of commonality or intersection bet3een #ragmatism an" feminism.2 Perha#s most im#ortant forthin(ing about the ethics of 3ea#ons of mass "estruction is that both are acti)ely engage" in attem#ting to sol)e social #roblems.The early #ragmatists )ie3e" the #ur#ose of #hiloso#hical reflection to be Kthe intelligent o)ercoming of o##ressi)e con"itions.KDe3ey, for e4am#le, recommen"e" the criticism of beliefs un"erlying society that ha)e le" to Kunsatisfactory con"itions in or"er tora"ically reconstruct our society accor"ing to non*o##ressi)e an" coo#erati)e stan"ar"s.K

&eminist goals of liberating 3omen from o##ressionthus eho pragmatist ones . 6hile most oftenfeminist mo)ements ha)e been focuse" s#ecifically on en"ing the male "omination an" o##ression of 3omen, a moreinclusi)e feminist )ision has as its ob/ect the elimination of all hierarchical an" o##ressi)erelationshi#s, inclu"ing the o##ression of so*calle" thir" 3orl" or "e)elo#ing nations 7es#ecially of the !lobal -outh> by thoseof the so*calle" first 3orl" or in"ustriali9e" nations 7es#ecially of the !lobal 5orth>, of ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious minorities

by ma/orities, homose4uals by heterose4uals, the #oor by the 3ealthy, chil"ren by a"ults, an" so on.'n a""ition, #ragmatists a")ocate the elimination of shar# "i)isions bet3een theory an" #ractice,reason an" e4#erience, an" (no3ing an" "oing.; Pragmatists fous muh more ononse.uenes rather than on a #riori abstract conce#tuali9ing, ca#ture" in the #hrase that #ragmatistsassign )alue on the basis of K3hat 3or(sK or 3hat #ro)i"es Kemotional satisfaction.KB &rom a #ragmatist #ers#ecti)e, the mostim#ortant ?uestions are #ractical ones.

Pragmatists consi"er moral agents to be ators'ithin a onrete partiular ontet thatboth influences 3hat is e4#erience" an" is influence" by those e4#eriences. The ine4tricability of the#ercei)er from 3hat is #ercei)e" means that ation , 3hether in the conte4t of arme" conflict an" the use of

6MD or other3ise,must be situated 'ithin the larger ontet of 3hich it is a #art. -incee)ery "ecision to enter or engage in an arme" conflictan" e)ery "ecision to "e#loy 6MD, of 3hate)er ty#e,must be consi"ere" 3ithin the full conte4t of other relevant ators% agenies% and term

strategies or results ,+0 a #ragmatist #ers#ecti)e is unli+ely to result in the (in" of abstractthin(ing that anti3ar feminism critici9es in "ominant /ust 3ar an" realist a##roaches.+2&eminism also shares #ragmatismNs re/ection of tra"itional rationalist an" em#iricist a##roaches an" its commitment to theinse#arability of theory an" #ractice.+$ Ioth belie)e that reason must be groun"e" in e4#erience an" re?uires being su##lemente",at least in #articular circumstances, by emotion.+ 'n this res#ect, feminists also fa)or a #osteriori rather than a #riori forms of(no3le"ge, those that "e)elo# on the basis of e4#erience rather than those that are #osite" #rior to it.+G

'n sum,both #ragmatism an" feminism accor" a central #lace to the #articular, the concrete, an"the factual elements of e4#erience, as o##ose" to the uni)ersal, the generali9able, an" theabstract.+= This o##osition to abstraction is a##arent, for e4am#le, in feminist un"erstan"ings of 3omenNs K"ifferent )oiceK an"De3eyNs )ie3s about the im#ortance of the ?ualitati)e bac(groun" of situations. 'n contrast to mainstream #hiloso#hy, both feminist

an" #ragmatist #ers#ecti)es focus on e)ery"ay life an" em#hasi9e res#ect for others an" the constituti)eness of community. The#ragmatistsN sensiti)ity to the social embe""e"ness of #ersons le" them to un"erstan" the K'KKonly in relation to other sel)es, so that the autonomy of in"i)i"ual agents nee"e" to beintegrate" 3ith their status as social beingsK e4isting in community. +;This common conce#tion of the Krelational selfK suggests that both #ragmatists an" feminists

3ill resist turning others into Kthe Fther,K 3ho can then be "emoni9e" an" ma"e into Ktheenemy,K suitable to be (ille". The feminist commitment to the 3ell*being of others, in both thelocal an" the global community, is3ell illustrate" byCarol CohnNs an"-ara 8u""ic(Ns contributiontothis )olume. o3e)er, this commitment also #ro)i"es the basis for the #ragmatist feminist #ositionarticulate" here that refuses to ategorially rule out the moral legitimay of anyresort to armed fore or 'ar , since such resort may be morally imperative to protetinnoent others .


19/31

'n a""ition to these mar(e" similarities, it is also im#ortant to ac(no3le"ge ho3 a #ragmatist feminism "iffers significantly fromAmerican Pragmatism. Perha#s most im#ortant is #ragmatist feminismNs attention to the gen"ere" character of the social 3orl" an"gen"erNs im#act on the formation an" maintenance of male an" female i"entities. These sub/ects largely 3ere ignore" by theAmerican Pragmatists+B but influence the analysis of the ethics of 6MD outline" here. 'n a""ition, feminists ten" to gi)e greaterim#ort to the cogniti)e as#ects of affect than #ragmatists, e)en though, as alrea"y "iscusse", #ragmatists recogni9e the im#ortanceof emotions to agency an" cognition.

Des#ite its "ifferences from more mainstream stran"s of feminism, #ragmatist feminism shares the goals of manystran"s of feminism to ma+e gender a entral onsideration of the analysis 7here of arme"force an" 6MD>0< an" to era"icate 7#atriarchal> o##ression an" "omination. These goals result in astrong presumption against the use of any'eapons , not only 6MD, since they are in their

)ery ince#tion "esigne" as tools for "omination an" su##ression of others "esignate" as Ktheenemy.K This o##osition to the use of arme" force is relate" to feminist obser)ations of the#atriarchal an" hierarchical, male*"ominate" an" *controlle" character of the military an" theo##ressi)e effects of 3ar an" militarism aroun" the 3orl", es#ecially on 3omenan" chil"ren. 'n a""ition, the#ragmatist feminist )ie3 "escribe" here affirms much in the Kconstituti)e #ositionsK of anti3ar feminism articulate" by Cohn an"8u""ic(,0+ es#ecially its obser)ation of the gen"ere" character of 3ar an" militarism, its sus#icion of masculinist a##roaches to 3aran" conflict resolution, an" its criti?ue of the "ominant tra"ition for its focus on the #hysical, military, an" strategic effects of these3ea#ons se#arate from their embe""e"ness in the rest of social an" #olitical life.6ith this brief o)er)ie3 in min", in the follo3ing section, ' "escribe ho3 a #ragmatist feminist #ers#ecti)e com#ares 3ith theanti3ar feminist #osition outline" by Cohn an" 8u""ic( in Cha#ter 0+ 3ith res#ect to the s#ecific issues a""resse" by this )olume.-FU8CE- A5D P8'5C'PLE-Although #ragmatist feminism itself "oes not "irectly #ro)i"e general norms go)erning the use of 3ea#ons in 3ar, it "oes so

in"irectly through its affirmation of elements of /ust3ar theory, as "escri be" belo3. Pragmatist feminism doesnot ategorially rule out the use of armed fore or engagement in 3ar. 'ts #ragmatist#ers#ecti)e steers in a "ifferent "irection from the anti3ar feministsN K#racticalK o##osition to

3ar. 6hereas the realist tra"ition has been un"uly #essimistic in its assum#tion that 3ar an" arme" conflict are necessary, certain,an" ine)itable, on a #ragmatist feminist )ie3, anti3ar feminist thin(ing ten"s to be unduly optimistiabout the human ca#acity to transcen" the use of)iolent metho"s of resol)ing "is#utes, gi)en theconsistent an" continual resort to such means throughout most of human history.

&rom a #ragmatist feminist #ers#ecti)e, the historical an" contem#orary e4#erience of there#eate" resort to )iolence an" the inability of humanitythus far to "e)elo# alternati)emechanisms for resol)ing large*scale "is#utes suggests the li(elihoo" of future3ars an" arme"conflicts. 'n light of this history, overoming the 'ar ulture K that anti3ar feminists )ie3

so unfa)orably can be #ossible only outside the immediate situation of armedonflit . Fnce the aggressor has struc( or threatens to "o so imminently, it is too lateto hange our soieties and ourselves in order to avoid 'ar. 8ather, it is thennecessary to act in or"er to avoid annihilation in one form or another.!i)en its )ie3 that some 3ars an" some o##osition to 3ar an" arme" conflicts are morally necessary to #rotect oursel)es an" othersfrom harm, #ragmatist feminists see( to im#ose moral limits on the harm an" suffering to the minimum necessary. Des#ite ana3areness of its limitations,00 a #ragmatist feminist #ers#ecti)e consi"ers /ust 3ar theory to #ro)i"e a fle4ible an" mo"ifiable set ofcriteria for attem#ting to act morally an" in accor"ance 3ith #rinci#les of /ustice, both in entering into an arme" conflict 7/us a"bellum> an" in the actual engagement of that conflict 7/us in bello>. 'n #articular, #ragmatist feminism shares /ust 3arNs starting#remise of a strong #resum#tion against the legitimacy of the use of arme" force an" )iolence to resol)e conflicts.

A #ragmatist feminist #ers#ecti)ethus re&ets Cohn6s and Ruddi+6s ontention that/ust3ar theoristsKim#licitly aept 'ar as a pratie even 'hen ondemning partiular'ars .K02 8ecogni9ing the historical an" global reality of 3arma(ing an" arme" force as means of

resol)ing conflicts an" adopting strategies to maimi/e &ustie and minimi/eimmorality 3hen such means are a"o#te" is not the same as impliitly aepting thepraties of 'ar ,K at least in the absence of demonstrably effetive means of eliminatingsuh onflits . To ignore the reality of the continuing resort to 3aran" arme" force is itself tore)ert to abstration rather than offering a pratial method for eliminating thehuman suffering an" incalculable "amage cause" by 3aran" arme" conflict.ere Colin an" 8u""ic( re)eal7intentionally or other3ise> their situate"ness as citi9ens of a 3ar*ma(ingstate, one that has ha" the choice in many, if not all, instances since the mi"*t3entieth century, at least, of "eci"ing 3hether or not


20/31

to go to 3ar. Just as Cohn an" 8u""ic( critici9e /ust 3ar theoryfor failing to e4#lore non)iolent alternati)es oncea /ust cause is "etermine" or 3ar has begun, their anti'ar feminist approah fails to offer onrete

suggestions for avoiding armed onflit 3hen a nationor #eo#le is confronte" 3ith arme"aggression or assault by others, the situation3here the o#tions boil "o3n to Kfight or die .K This#ers#ecti)e fails to loo+ at 'ar from the point of vie' of the aggressed-against ,3hen

arme" conflict becomes a necessityin or"er to retain national an"or cultural an"or ethnic i"entity from sub/ugationby the aggressor7s>. 'n such circumstances, the moral necessity of arme" force loo(s ?uite "ifferent .An" in such circumstances, the threatened use of 6MD can be seen as less evil than thealternatives , such as doing nothing an" being con?uere" or fighting a onventional'arand faring poorly.8ather than re)erting to abstract thin(ing about 3ar, #ragmatist feminism affirms /ust 3ar theoryNs casuistic a##roach to #articulararme" conflicts as 3ell as its #osition that such means are sometimes morally /ustifiable or e)en morally obligator>N in or"er to

#rotect oneself 7in"i)i"ual or nation> or innocent thir" #arties. &urther, #ragmatist feminism affirms/ust 3ar thin(ingNsattention to partiular onflits rather than 'ar in the abstrat an" its stance ofmo"eration an" of imposing the minimal suffering necessary to accom#lish the ob/ecti)e of restoring the#eace.0$ Thus, 3ith res#ect to the military res#onse of the Unite" -tates to the -e#tember ++ terrorist attac(s, a #ragmatist feminista##lication of /ust 3ar criteria yiel"s the conclusion that the /us a" bellum #rinci#les of Klast resortK an" K#ro#ortionality,K as 3ell asthe in hello #rinci#les of K#ro#ortionalityK an" K"iscrimination,K 3ere not satisfie".

A secon" "ifferencein the t3o feminist #ers#ecti)es emerges out of the anti3ar feminist obser)ation that3ar an" militarism are not se#arate from e)ery"ay lifebut integral as#ects of it.06hile this isane4tremely im#ortantinsight into the un"erlying con"itions of 3ar an" militarism, it nee"s to be /oine" 3ithalternative proposals for addressing the large-sale military onflit .K There has

been scant attention to this issue in anti3ar feminist scholarshi#. E)en if one assumes, as anti3arfeminists "o, that 3ar is a K#resenceK in e)ery"ay life an" not merely a "iscrete Ke)entKthat occasionallyKeru#ts,K0G it is nonetheless the case that K'ar is more damaging and harmful% and

reates greater suffering in a multipliity of 'ays , than the absence of 3ar.Pragmatist feminist thin(ingabout the ethics of 6MD is attentive to ho' suh differenes inonse.uenes "ifferentiate 3ar from e)ery"ay life.

A thir" significant area of "ifference bet3een the t3o ty#es of feminist theories concerns res#onses to the causes of 3ar. 6hereas#ragmatist feminists agree 3ith anti3ar feminists that 3ars are #artially a mutual construction, they also insist that some 3ars ha)e

much more to "o 3ith un/ust aggression for 3hich o##osing si"es "o not share e?ual res#onsibility. Anti3ar feminism fails to acce#tthat some 3ars are not only necessary as a matter of #ru"ence, but also morally /ustifiable on feminist grounds, for e4am#le,humanitarian inter)ention to en" the se)ere o##ression of innocent )ictims.

&or a #ragmatist feminist , the current state of international affairs unfortunately re.uires

consi"eration of the circumstances in 3hich the threatened or actual use of suh'eapons for defensive or deterrent purposes may bemorally allo3able or e)en morallyneessary. !i)en these circumstances, #ragmatist feminism consi"ers the /ust 3ar tra"ition to #ro)i"e a morally usefulsource of norms relating to the use of 3ea#ons in 3ar.


21/31

2NC


22/31

T

>* re.uires physial stationing of armed foresDegang Sun 1$, Ph.D. in 'nternational Affairs from -hanghai 'nternational -tu"ies Uni)ersity,senior )isiting researcher at Mi""le East Centre of -t. AntonyNs College, Uni)ersity of F4for" an"

F4for" Centre for 'slamic -tu"ies, associate #rofessor of Political -cience an" a seniorresearcher at the Mi""le East -tu"ies 'nstitute, -hanghai 'nternational -tu"ies Uni)ersity, The-trategic E)olution of U- Military Presence in 'ra?,htt#%mercury.eth9.chser)iceengine&iles'-5+;$+Gicha#tersectionXsingle"ocument0


23/31

argument7abermas, 0 nee"e" to enhane1in ?uality an" ?uantity1rational*critical "eliberation in e)ery"ay #ractical argumentation7Chambers, +BBGO abermas, +BBGa, #.20>. -#ecific resources 3ill "e#en" on conte4t, but accor"ing to abermas 7+BBGa, 0 a mass me"ia system regulate" in relation to the i"eali9e" criteria, 7secon"> a net3or( ofautonomous ci)il society associations su##orting communicati)e reasoning an" #ublic o#inion formation, the emergence,re#ro"uction, an" influence of 3hich "e#en" on 7thir"> a liberal*egalitarian #olitical culture sensiti)e to #roblems affecting societyas a 3hole 7abermas, +BBGa, #. $;;>, 3hich, in turn, re?uires 7fourth> social rights to the #ro)ision of sustainable li)ingcon"itions, an" 7fifth> a #o#ulation accustome" to 7uni)ersal> free"om an" )erse" in criti?ue.This "eliberati)e #ublic s#here norm, as alrea"y note", is reconstructe" from #resu##ositions of actual argumentation. o3e)er,there is al3ays a ga# bet3een i"eali9ation an" #ractice% "ue to their i"eali9ing content, the uni)ersal #resu##ositions ofargumentation can only be a##ro4imately fulfille" 7abermas, +BBGa, #. +=;, see also ##. 20220G>. As an i"eali9ation, rational*critical "eliberation 7communicati)e rationality> is not bur"ene" by the "eman"s an" im#e"iments of e)ery"ay communicati)e#ractice, 3hich means the latter al3ays falls short of the i"eali9e" #resu##ositions that are ma"e. abermas acce#ts the

im#ossibility of reali9ing the al3ays*alrea"y*#resu##ose" i"eali9ation of communicati)e rationality% the #ublic s#here i"ealis not perfetly reahable 7abermas +BB0b, #. $==>. This im#ossibility is not /ust "ue to em#irical"istortions 73hich 3ill be "iscusse" further in the ne4t section>,but also to logical limits% 8es#on"ing to his critics,Gabermas has, #articularly in recent times, argue" that communicati)e rationality, an"thus the "eliberati)e#ublic s#herenorm, annot be understood as an 4end state%5 a final stage 3hich can be reali9e" intime 7abermas as cite" in Carlehe"en W !abri_ls, +BBG, #. +, because if reali9e" it 3oul" ma(e all further communication

su#erfluous 7abermas, +BBGb, #. ++;>. 'n other 3or"s, the full reali9ation of communicati)e rationality3oul" mean the en" of communication, an" human history, as it 3oul" eliminate those negati)esocial con"itions that ma(e communication in social life necessary, con"itions such as ina"e?uateinformation, inter#ersonal misun"erstan"ings, lac( of insight, an" so on 7Coo(e, 0 of e)ery"ay communication, along 3ith the i"eali9e" criteria of


24/31

communicati)e rationality that they limit, are con"itions of #ossibility an" im#ossibility of fullyreali9ing in actual argumentation the "eliberati)e #ublic s#here norm.This"eliberati)e conce#tion of the #ublic s#here isseen by a")ocates as radially demorati1in the sense of beingbase" solely on the 3ill of those affecte" by a "is#ute1for a number of reasons% &irst,because it concei)es of a rational*critical #ublic an" associate" #ublic o#inion that can srutini/e , inform , an" hold #ubliclyaountable #olitical "ecisionsO secon",because it seesall institute" #rocesses an" "ecisions asopen to ontestation byany eluded voies O an"thir",because it un"erstan"s the riteriafor guiding an"&udging the "eliberati)e #ractice of #artici#ants as immanent to thesepraties .o3e)er, #oststructuralist*influence" critics, inclu"ing those focusing on contem#orary communication systems 7e.g., 5guyen WAle4an"er, +BBGO Poster, +BB=>, see the abermasian #ublic s#here conce#tion failing to be as ra"ically "emocratic "ue to its notta(ing full account of e4clusion, both e4clusion in e)ery"ay "eliberati)e #ractice an" e4clusion resulting "irectly from theconce#tionNs formulation. ' 3ill no3 outline this criti?ue, an" e4amine ho3 abermasians ha)e res#on"e" an" might furtherres#on" to it.The abermasian #ublic s#here conce#tion an" e4clusion

Poststructuralist*influence" critics, generally s#ea(ing, arguethatby #romoting a uni)ersal rational norm asthe basis for #ublic s#here communication, abermasians ma(e 7at least> t3o fun"amental mista(es 3ith res#ect toe4clusion. &irst, they assume the #ossibility of the eliminability, or near eliminability, of e4clusions in actualargumentation, so that gi)en the right con"itions 3e coul" a##ro4imate 7if not fully re#ro"uce> communicati)e rationality,

3hich un"erestimates the pervasiveness of #o3er an" the e4tent of e4clusions in e)ery"aycommunicati)e interaction7e.g., &ly)b/erg, 0O strategic mani#ulation of )arious sorts, inclu"ing bribes, threats, or

)iolence 7abermas, +BBGa, ##. 2


25/31

of the instrumentali9ation of communication me"ia% o3 the #otential of the mass me"ia to su##ort rational*critical "eliberation,3ith ma4imum inclusion of )oices, is continually th3arte" by system coloni9ation, an" #articularly the intrusion of the functionalim#erati)es of the mar(et economy in the internal logic of the #ro"uction an" #resentation of messages 7abermas, 0 conte4ts. The inter#retation an" a##lication of #ublic s#here criteriaas 3ell as the )ali"ity an" strength of arguments 3ill al'aysbe ontetually affeted an"historically s#ecifie"7abermas, +BB0b, #. $==O +BBGa, #. 20$>. As a result,3hat comes to be "efine" as

legitimate "eliberation 3ill be colore" by ta(en*for*grante" meanings, lea"ing to some )oicesbeingillegitimately 7accor"ing to the "eliberati)e #ublic s#here norm>)alori9e" o)er others, 3ith the illegitimatemarginali9ation or e4clusion of these other )oices.

Thus abermas 70, able to refleively interrogate all as#ects of their situation , inclu"ing thepartiular deliberative rules a##lie" in #ractical "is#utes. Ff course, as critics #oint out, sub/ects


26/31

3hose e)ery"ay communicati)e #ractice is alrea"y more in line 3ith the "eliberati)e #ublics#here norm3ill be advantaged over others in becoming such rational*critical interlocutors. o3e)er, forabermasians, it is not the reconstructe" norm that shoul" be seen as at fault 1seeing thereconstructe" norm marginali9ing or e4clu"ing )oices1but the uneven distribution of thesociocultural resources neessary for engaging in rational-ritial deliberation 7that fall

un"er the fi)e general #ositi)e con"itions of the #ublic s#here liste" in the #re)ious section>. This une)enness, 3hich is in facthighlighte" by the abermasian #ublic s#here norm in its critical role, in"icates the nee" to #ro)i"e for theseresources so as to enhane an" etend ommuniative rationality. That is, 3e are face" here 3itha sociological #roblem, one that the abermasian #ublic s#here norm illuminates an" "eman"s be a""resse" for the a")ancementof "emocracy, rather than a #roblem internal to the character of the norm.

?sing a 4ballot as urreny5 model fails < ommunity hange is put solely in thehands of the &udge in a debate round 'hih is in no 'ay visible to the publi

michigan donovan meyerslevy neg texas round2

Documents