1AC R1

Framework
Currently, difference equals the other. This mantra is regurgitated by neoliberal
elites, incessantly committing acts of violence on marginalized populations. This
equivocation of difference destroys subjectivities and justifies violence. The role of
the judge is to resist the conversion of difference to otherness.
Schoolman 8 [Morton Schoolman is Professor of Political Science at SUNY Albany, and the author of The Imaginary Witness: The Critical Theory of Herbert Marcuse. The new
pluralism: William Connolly and the contemporary global condition. Duke University Press, 2008. Page 1-2]//roman

That generous and warm feeling for living Nature which flooded my heart with such bliss, so that I saw
the world around me as a Paradise, has now become an unbearable torment a sort of demon that persecutes me wherever I go... There is not one moment which

does not consume you and yours, and not one moment when you yourself are not inevitably
destructive; the most harmless walk costs the lives of poor, minute creatures; one step of your foot annihilates their
painstaking constructions, and stamps a small world into its ignominious grave. My heart is worn out by this consuming power latent in the whole of Nature which has formed nothing that will

I see nothing but an eternally devouring monster. GOETHE, The Sorrows of the Young Werther
not destroy its neighbor and itself...

GOETHE'S THOUGHT OF AN INELIMINABLE violence plaguing life, a violence intrinsic to

the human condition, haunts political theory after the Second World War. It invites reflection on
the possibility that genocide may be the raison d'tre of violence organized by states which, as dupes of
generic human drives, act to destroy the "other" as they organize those drives to serve systemic ends. Following this

reflection is unavoidably another. Perhaps all "ordinary/' and everyday constructions and punishments of

difference as otherness also may be driven by what is human, all too human. Political theorists
drawn to this pessimism by the horror of holocaust could be drawn to theoretical schools under
the spell of such thought as Goethe's and prone to the despair that it would induce. Thus was I drawn to the work
of Max Horkheimer and of Theodor Adorno, whose Dialectic of Enlightenment seemed to support Goethe's claim. Seeking antidotes to the disease of reason diagnosed in this great work, I have
found several, though they do not abound. Two in particular offer relief, in different ways, from the violence toward difference that Horkheimer and Adorno relentlessly track through their dark,

genealogical history of reason. Both antidotes recognize violence that is not less embedded in modernity and not less
ubiquitous than the violence that Goethe fears. Yet because neither antidote agrees with his
premise that violence is the nature of human and nonhuman being, they both avoid the
impotency attached to a trajectory of endless violence that is, according to Horkheimer and
Adorno, aided and abetted by global capital without opposition. One antidote, an approach to the problem of violence toward
difference that is thoroughly historical and political, is the politics and vision of a democracy of "agonistic respect" theorized by William Connolly. Agonistic respect

promises an end to violence, though Connolly makes no such claim explicitly. A second approach to the problem of violence toward difference is developed in my
own work, in which I turn to aesthetic theory to conceptualize a form of democratic individuality resistant to pressures to convert difference to otherness.l Having been influenced by George
Kateb, my approach to violence perhaps is less political than Connolly's, indebted as it is to an ensemble of different democratic workings whose formative impact on the private sphere has been
conceptualized in Kateb's The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture,2 a work whose contributions to my efforts I have gratefully recorded.3

The role of the ballot is to endorse agonistic democracy as a form of contestation.

Education must be grounded in pluralist modes of thought.
Hogg and Mcomb 69 [Cultural Pluralism: Its implications for education. Association for supervision and curriculum development.
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196912_hogg.pdf ]//roman

Cultural pluralism and its attendant conflicts in America are increasing under the impact of
industry; pluralism plus conflict appear to part of the new quality of industrial, social, and
cultural life. Thus, a condition which in eras only recently past was viewed as a strain in the social system now appears to be the system. The new adaptation is
not a matter of choosing one of many cultures, it is to succeed with many cultures. Cultural
Adaptations for Education It is our view, then, that the school in the American setting, and the
educational process more generally, must adapt to cultural conditions. Given the existence of varying cultural traditions and
assuming that a setting's institutions are formal and enduing manifestations of local culture, then the
school and the educational process must formally adjust to extant pluralism if they are to retain
their institutional character. Moreover not only must education itself adapt to cultural pluralism, it must educate the young for
cultural pluralism. This latter task necessarily involves revision of not only educational technology and Organization, but the ideology as well. In this process of change the
following considerations must be given due weight. First, in cultural terms. The school must provide each student with a set of relevant

cultural experiences so that successful and meaningful cultural adaptations might be made. In
accomplishing this task, it must work within and tolerate multiple ranges of interaction and ideology, providing reasons for expression of and respect for distinctive behaviors and thoughts. Basic

The purpose of
to the task is the necessity for the school to go through the process of a fundamental redefinition and redirection of assumptions presently made about our society.

the school and the school's organization and external relationships in culturally pluralistic
settings. Failing this, the school is encouraging the range of social problems afflicting all
culturally different youthdropping out of school, unemployment, deteriorated self- image,
hostility toward authority, and withdrawal from social involvement. Moreover by a failure to recognize cultural pluralism,
the school discourages innovation and syncretism of conflictive cultural elements, thereby
increasing conflict and public apathy. What education has done to the American Indian it is also doing to those of a different culture not recognized through
skin color and tongue. Second, in educational terms, through a premise Of individual "cultural worth" the school must establish means for cultural

expression in the widest variety Of school con- textsclassrooms, assemblies, clubs, and
curricula. This could mean a revision Of Curriculum including redirection of language and other art programs as well as technical expression (rather than training) programs an
expansion of the technical concept beyond training simply for placement in economic technology. Such means as these require special training

and recruitment of teachers and administrators and their sensitization to cultural pluralism. In order to
ensure its community future, the school must maintain constant contact with community members in family and organizational contexts, this means with and study of other private and public

Finally,
agencies through consciously sought "cultural feedback" the school must restructure its organization and activities and attempt to become a center of community interaction.

the school must go beyond just becoming a reflection of cultural diversity. It must participate in
and prepare youth for a culturally pluralistic life and society; and such an educational strategy
must become a major and clearly articulated set of goals in the educational process. The extent to which these
challenges can be met in culturally pluralistic settings depends ultimately upon the extent to which the school is sensitized to cultural differences within the setting. So long as cultural pluralism
is a factor, the school's role must be to educate itself.

Exclusive ethics are complicit in a system of capital through their never ending need
to define themselves as important to society.
Schoolman 2 [Morton Schoolman is Professor of Political Science at SUNY Albany, and the author of The Imaginary Witness: The Critical Theory of Herbert Marcuse. The new
pluralism: William Connolly and the contemporary global condition. Duke University Press, 2008. Page 27-29]//roman

By taking up Connolly's critique of the opposing frameworks of individualist and collectivist theories, we begin to trace the work performed by contestation in both senses just distinguished, and

Connolly focuses on the challenges that

to see how pluralist thinking leads to the conception of a democracy of "agonistic respect." As a starting point,

people face in a late modern world whose dominant institutions and practices tacitly revolve
around the idea of the "death of God." Deeply inscribed in the recent history of western society and an operative cultural presumption, although one resisted
widely and often in fundamentalist terms, the death of God threatens to deprive people of theological assurances for

which contemporary political theories, of which individualist and collectivist theories are
examples, provide compensations. Contemporary political theories' compensations exploit the secular view
pervading the modern individual's cultural subconscious of how life is related to death, which
Connolly refers to as the "serene phenomenology of life and death," or the "serene
phenomenology of freedom and mortality," or "freedom and finitude. "A As compensations for an afterlife that modernity
renders dubious, serene phenomenology lays ever-greater stress on the rewards to be expected in a

lifetime. It does so by emphasizing a string of implicit understandings attached to an affirmation

of life that remains encumbered, however, by a foreknowledge of death: the brevity of life and the burden that finitude imposes on each of us to become someone
in particular; the discretion that mortality requires us to exercise in using freedom to achieve self-

definition; and the labor to which the pursuit of identity conscripts us. VA,'11ile serenity lies in the powerful drives to
individuality that the serene phenomenology sets free and in the thought that secular achievements constituting identity redeem sacred losses, nevertheless, Connolly adds, the " implicit
foreknowledge of death slips into every decision. "-41 Freedom and the modern agent's striving
for identity are plagued by uncertainty and resentment against the human condition for thwarting
our efforts at self-identity. Contemporary political theory easily colonizes the individual caught
in this vortex of discursive elements swirling about in this modern phenomenology. At one level, political
theories war with one another for the individual's allegiance by offering competing ideals of social order. At a deeper level, where conflicting ideals offer different versions of how social order

It is precisely
can furnish opportunities for achieving identity, competing theories draw upon the same aspirations for identity released by the serene phenomenology of modern life.

at this level that the serene phenomenology has made agency vulnerable to colonizationthe
connections between freedom, mortality, and individual identity are sources for normalized
thought and action required by social imperatives and their theoretical formulations. Individualist
and collectivist theories, Connolly argues, which are examples of interdependent frameworks
whose key concepts are defined through their exclusion of what belongs to their theoretical
opponent, oppose and compete with one another by emphasizing different elements of the serene
phenomenology as they share others. Whereas individualist and collectivist theories differently
prioritize the right and the good, even though individualist theories valorize individualization and collectivist theories valorize the common good, individualization
becomes the instrument to fulfill normative commitments to individual identity, while the common good weds individuals to community (collective identity) by converting their particular
achievements to legacies obligating them to a future of ends outside themselves. In the final analysis, in other words, it makes less difference than imagined whether political theory gives

primacy to the individual or to the whole. The different pressures for normalization that either type of theory brings to
bear on the individual draw upon the same set of serene phenomenological assumptions that fuel
the individual's appetite for identity and distinguish the modern liberal agent. In addition to those relating to freedom,
mortality, and identity, Connolly explicates other assumptions shared by individualist and collectivist theories. Both genres suppose a close alignment

between the quests for identity, whether in individualist or collectivist form and the opportunities
for identity that each genre advertises. Both suppose, secondly, that this correspondence between
the pursuit of identity and its socially available possibility will be able to build a future
continuous with individuals' efforts. Yet neither of these two assumptions, Connolly objects, can be
justified, as both intensify society's dependency for obtaining selfdefinitional opportunities on local, national, and international forces whose contingencies are
too complex to master politically or technically. Extreme societal dependency of this sort in the
context of obstacles to mastery posed by global contingencies, which is, Connolly proposes, the
world-historical predicament that earns modernity the designation "late modernity, " jeopardizes
the individual's expectation of socially available opportunities and erodes implicit confidence in
the future that it sustains. Contingency and the obstacles to mastery posed by it are thus bases for Connolly's objections to a pair of assumptions that he has already
shown to be colonized by pressures for normalization. Connolly's critique of individualist and collectivist theories is concluded, though, when he revisits a concept first examined in The Terms of
Political Discourse to lay bare one final assumption that accompanies the serene phenomenology of freedom and finitude upon which the late modern condition is balanced precariously.
 Contention
Thus the advocacy, public colleges and universities ought not restrict
constitutionally protected free speech.

Restriction on free speech are common, and more are coming now.
Lukianoff 16, Greg Lukianoff, 1-4-2016, "Campus Free Speech Has Been in Trouble for a Long
Time," Cato Unbound, https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/01/04/greg-lukianoff/campus-free-speech-
has-been-trouble-long-time //AD

2015 will be remembered as a year in which campus free speech issues took center stage,
receiving extensive coverage in outlets like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The
Atlantic, Slate, Vox, and Salon. Even President Obama voiced concerns about the lack of debate on college campuses. For those of us who have been fighting
campus censors for years, its hard not to ask: Where has everyone been? My organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has been defending freedom of

free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom have always been
expression on campus since 1999. We can attest that

threatened on campus by one force or another, even long before we were founded. Most people are familiar with
the supposed heyday of political correctness of the 1980s and 90s, but there is a popular misconception that speech codes and censorship were defeated in the courts of law and public opinion by
the mid-90s. In reality, the threats to campus speech never went away. Before examining what has changed to alarm the publicrightfullyabout the state of open discourse in higher education,
its important to note what hasnt changed. Speech Codes and Political Correctness Never Went Away Scholars, including First Amendment expert Robert ONeil, claim that politically correct

But despite being repeatedly defeated in court, speech codes

speech codes were given a decent burial in the mid-90s.

became the rule rather than the exception on campus. FIRE has been tracking and rating speech
codes at hundreds of colleges and universities since 2006. Eight years ago, 75 percent of the institutions we surveyed maintained
policies worthy of FIREs red light rating, meaning they clearly and substantially restricted freedom of speech. Since then, the percentage of schools with red light speech codes has steadily
declined each year. This good news is due, at least in part, to FIREs aggressive campaigning and lawsuits. Over the past few years, the number of campuses with red light policies decreased from
62.1 percent (2013) to 55.2 percent (2015). And, in FIREs 2016 speech code report, that figure is below 50 percent (49.3 percent) for the first time. Unfortunately, this may be only a temporary

pressure from students and the federal government makes the resurgence of speech
high-water mark;

codes almost inevitable. The past 15 years are rife with examples of speech-policing. There are the classic political correctness cases, such as the 2004 incident in which a
University of New Hampshire student was evicted from his dorm for posting flyers joking that freshman women could lose the Freshman 15 by walking up the dormitory stairs. In 2009, Yale
University students were told they shouldnt quote F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Bucknell University students were forbidden from handing out Obama Stimulus Dollars. But many cases do not
follow the PC mold and just involve old-fashioned abuses of power. Examples include the University of Wisconsin-Stouts censorship of a professors Firefly poster, Central New Mexico
Community Colleges shutdown of a student newspaper for publishing a Sex Issue, and former Valdosta State University student Hayden Barnes unjust expulsion for protesting a parking
garage (which led to an eight-year-long legal battle that finally concluded in 2015). Federal Antidiscrimination Law as the Secret Engine of Campus Censorship Some trends that long precede
(and may explain) the current threats to campus free speech include the massive expansion of the bureaucratic class at universities, which officially began outnumbering the number of full-time
instructors in 2005, and the rise of the risk management industry, which makes a fortune teaching universities how to avoid lawsuits by regulating almost every aspect of student life. This
brings us to the institution that is perhaps most responsible for exacerbating the problems of speech codes and hair-trigger censorship: the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights
(OCR). By the late 1980s, colleges were adopting anti-harassment codes that restricted protected speech. In the mid-1990s, the campus speech code phenomenon converged with the expansion
of federal anti-discrimination law by the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR encouraged and even required harassment codes, and although its guidance tried to
balance the need for these codes with the First Amendment, by the time FIRE was founded in 1999, universities were using the federal government made me do it excuse to justify even the
most laughably unconstitutional speech codes. In 2003, in perhaps its most redeeming moment, OCR issued a letter clarifying that it has no power to mandate that universitiespublic or private
police speech that is protected under the First Amendment. OCR explained that public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment, cannot ban merely offensive speech. And if
private universities, which are not bound by the First Amendment (except in California through the Leonard Law), pass such speech codes, OCR made clear that they can in no way argue that the
federal government forced their hand. This message was never fully accepted by campus administrators, who wanted expansive speech codes, or by risk managers, who believed it was safer to

the Obama
discourage offensive speech than face a lawsuit. Nonetheless, the 2003 letter did help defuse an old excuse. Unfortunately, the Department of Education under

administration has been much more aggressive, granting itself new powers and redefining
harassment in such broad language that virtually any offensive speech could be considered a
matter of federal oversight. In May 2013, OCR and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a resolution agreement with the University of Montana that the
agencies deemed a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country. This blueprint mandates an extraordinarily broad definition of sexual harassment: any unwelcome conduct
of a sexual nature, including verbal conducti.e., speech. The blueprint holds that this conduct need not be objectively offensive to constitute sexual harassment. This means that if a
listener takes offense to any sex- or gender-related speech, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker has engaged in sexual harassment. Additionally, the final UM policy reviewed
and approved by OCR and DOJ as part of their resolution agreement goes beyond policing sex-related speech by also prohibiting discriminatory harassment on the basis of 17 different
categories, including political ideas. Treating this resolution agreement as a blueprint puts public universities in an impossible situation: violate the First Amendment or risk investigation and
the possible loss of federal funding. OCR backed away from its characterization of the Montana agreement as a blueprint in a November 2013 letter to me. But unlike the clarification it issued
in 2003, OCR has never communicated this to universities. As a result, as universities revise their sexual misconduct policies, they now include the blueprints definition of sexual harassment.
There can be little doubt that the number of institutions doing so will only increase until OCR clarifies that it cannot require universities to adopt such a definition. OCR is unlikely to forego
unconstitutional speech-policing any time soon. In October, OCR announced that it would open a Title IX investigation into the University of Mary Washington after students filed a complaint
about the schools handling of sexist and racist Yik Yak posts. If this investigation leads to new federal guidance on colleges responsibility to police students social media activity, even more
protected campus speech could be threatened. What Has Changed: Students Using Their Free Speech to Limit Free Speech The biggest and most noticeable change in campus censorship in
recent years has been the shift in student attitudes. Today, students often demand freedom from speech rather than freedom of speech. Media coverage of the campus free speech crisis exploded
in 2014 after a rash of disinvitationsstudent and faculty attempts to disinvite controversial speakers from campus, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and International
Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde. Attention from the media has increased as more student-led efforts have gained popularity, such as demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, and
efforts to police so-called microaggressions. Critiquing PC culture is nothing new for conservative outlets, but even left-leaning authors at the New Republic, The Nation, New York Magazine,
and The New York Timeshave been writing extensively about how these trends reflect very new, often alarming student attitudes about open discourse. In my 15 years at FIRE, students have
historically been the most reliably pro-free-speech constituency on campus. Students often showed more common sense than the professoriate, and certainly much more than the administrators.
But when stories about campus race-related protests inundated the news in the fall of 2015, I knew something had changed. It began when students at Wesleyan University demanded that the
schools primary student newspaper be defunded after it published a student op-ed that was critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. Shortly after, Wesleyans student government
unanimously approved a resolution that will tentatively cut the papers printing budget by half. Things escalated when I saw firsthand that Yale students were demanding the resignations of two
faculty members for sending out an email that questioned whether universities should tell students what they should or shouldnt wear as Halloween costumes. Then, just days later, student
protests at the University of Missouri soured when protesters manhandled a student journalist. These protests put First Amendment defenders and free speech advocates like me in a somewhat
difficult position. Of course, Im supportive of students exercising their free speech rights. Indeed, I find it refreshing that students have overcome their oft-diagnosed apathy towards serious
social issues. However, its distressing that many of the protesters are using their free speech to demand limitations on others free speech. The irony of these demands was particularly prominent
at the University of Missouri, where FIRE recently helped pass a state law making it illegal to limit free speech activities on public university campuses to tiny zones. This new law helped make

at
the Mizzou students protests possible. But in a twist, the protesters created their own free speech exclusion zone to prevent media from covering the protest. Now student protestors at

least 75 American colleges and universities have released lists of demands to end systemic and
structural racism on campus. Although this is a laudable goal, a troubling number of these
demands would prohibit or chill campus speech. For example, many of the demands try to make the expression of racial bias, which is generally
protected speech, a punishable offense. At Johns Hopkins University, protesters demand impactful repercussions for anyone who makes Black students uncomfortable or unsafe for racial
reasons. Similarly, protesters at Georgias Kennesaw State University demand strong repercussions and sanctions for those who commit racist actions and racial bias on campus. And Emory
University protestors want a bias response reporting system and sanctions for even unintentional acts or behaviors, including gestures. Others go as far as to mandate that universities forbid
hate speech. At Missouri State University, protesters demand that administrators announce a commitment to differentiating hate speech from freedom of speech. Protesters at Dartmouth
College want a policy with serious consequences against hate speech/crimes (e.g. Greek house expelled for racist parties). Similarly, student protesters at the University of Wyoming demand
that the code of conduct be revised to hold students accountable for hate speech, complete with a detailed reporting structure. The evidence that todays students value freedom of speech less
than their elders is not just anecdotal. In October, Yale Universitys William F. Buckley, Jr. Program released a survey that found that 51 percent of U.S. college students favor campus speech
codes, and that 72 percent support disciplinary action against any student or faculty member on campus who uses language that is considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive.
These troubling results were echoed by a November 2015 global survey from Pew Research Center finding that a whopping 40 percent of U.S. millennials [ages 1834] believe the government
should be able to punish speech offensive to minority groups (as compared to only 12 percent of the Silent generation [7087 year-olds], 24 percent of the Boomer generation [5169 year-olds],

Just one
and 27 percent of Gen Xers [3550 year-olds]). Conclusion Thankfully, through old strategies and new ones, we can improve the climate for free speech on campus.

student or professor can protect free expression for thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, by
filing a lawsuit against his or her school with the help of FIREs Stand Up For Speech Litigation
Project. SUFS is undefeated so far and has resulted in seven settlements that send the clear
message to institutions that it will be expensive to ignore their obligations under the First
Amendment. Whats more, with every speech-protective judgment, it becomes harder for
administrators to defend themselves with qualified immunity, which shields individuals from personal liability where the law
isnt clear. Litigation might also be our best shot at forcing OCR to step back from its efforts to coerce institutions into adopting unconstitutional policies. Clearer and narrower policies than
OCRs May 2013 definition of sexual harassment have been struck down in court on numerous occasions. But until institutions see a real threat of an expensive judgment against them for

colleges will
overbroad harassment policies, theyll continue to be motivated by the threat of OCR pulling their funding for what it seems to consider underbroad policiesi.e.,

err on the side of prohibiting protected expression. And because money talks, alumni should withhold donations to institutions that break the law
or renege on promises to respect students and professors rights. And of course, anyone can contact his or her legislators and ask them to support billslike the ones FIRE helped enact in
Missouriand Virginiathat ensure students may fully exercise their free speech rights on public campuses statewide. These strategies may motivate schools to make quick changes, but free
speech advocates know that long-lasting progress comes through cultural change. How do we teach a generation about the value of free expression when speech is too often presented as a
problem to be overcome, rather than part of the solution to many social ills? This is our great challenge, and it must be faced with both determination and creativity if the always-fragile right of
freedom of speech is to endure.

Free speech is contestation protests facilitate learning and expose problems within
institutions. Specifically on universities, contestation is important to foster
discussions and learning.
ACLU 16. American Civil Liberties Union. [For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and
preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.],
Hate Speech on Campus, ACLU, 2016. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus//AD

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate,
have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech
codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that

all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a
bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with
most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one
of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech
-- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to
facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way
to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted.
Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize
effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces
of intolerance. College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one
critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the
symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment
to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.

Conservative flights of neo-liberalism have corrupted micropolitical sites the

1ACs engagement with the micropolitical motivates change which ruptures
macropolitical exclusion.
Campbell 08 (David Campbell [insert quals]. The new pluralism: William Connolly and the contemporary global condition. Duke University Press,
2008. Page 280-281) //WW JA 12/16/16

either/ or logic is the relationship between

In Connollys terms, what Hardt and Negri have failed to allow for with this

micropolitics and macro-politics that animates large parts of Connollys recent writings. Micro-
politics related to arts of the self, and techniques of the self in some formulations involves
those practices that work on us or are drawn on by us to establish us, individually or collectively.
They are techniques through which existing identities can be stabilized, new identities permitted, or new

formations enabled. They can be located in a multitude of cultural and social sites (clubs,
families, neighborhoods, the media, the military, religious groups, and the like) though they
always work at numerous in-between points, nodes, and lines of the network state.
Micropolitics flows from the paradoxical relationship of identity\ difference and is vital to a
deep, multidimensional pluralism. 33 Notwithstanding the term and its examples, micropolitics cannot be confined to
a sense of the local, regional, or substate. It is not a conception that translates into the idea of a
confined space or particular scale. Instead, micropolitics indicates the significance of the
transversal rather than the transnational, highlighting how the global is simultaneously local and
the local necessarily global. As Connolly maintains, therefore, there is a constitutive relationship between the
micropolitical and the macropolitical, with the latter understood in more formal political and institutional terms. As he writes,
micropolitics operates below the threshold of large legislative acts and executive initiatives,

even as it ranges widely and sets conditions of possibility for these more visible actions.
Technique and micropolitics form connective links joining practices of memory, perception,
thinking, judgment, institutional design and political ethos. 34 Although far from being the only transversal links
market, antimarket practices (such as oligopolies, monopolies, and command systems), state

decrees, and interstate agreements also play critical roles they do play an especially important
role below the threshold of political visibility inside every domain of life. What the emphasis on the
micropolitical points to is the significance of the visceral for contemporary thought and politics.
In contrast to the epistemological register of intellectualism, where a sometimes narrow and shallow conception of reason
governs thinking, the visceral is the densely layered register of political thought where affect those

dispositions to perceive, believe, associate, and decide gives texture and direction to the
level of refined intellectuality. Although it is infused with ideas and not antithetical to the intellectual, the visceral register is
not susceptible to modification by argument, dialogue or conversation alone. 35 This is why methodological
contests are often bitterly fought in the humanities and social sciences each represents a question of faith as much as it does method. 36 Addressing the visceral
coming to terms with the importance of relational techniques of the self and
register therefore means

micro-politics. Such tactics mix image, movement, posture, concept and argument to new effect,
simulating the process by which the habit in question became embodied the first time around.
37 Paying attention to the affective and the visceral requires a new understanding of causality.
Intellectualism implies a sense of what Connolly calls efficient causality, in which you first separate factors and then show how one is the basic cause, or they
emergent causality,
cause each other, or how they together reflect a basic cause. 38 In contrast though not in place of efficient causality there is

whereby elements have effects at multiple levels, infusing areas and issues beyond their domain,
and then, through adaptations, circuits, and feedback, themselves changing in response to these
effects. Emergent causality thus refigures causation as resonance, whereby the elements affected
fuse, metabolizing into a moving complex. 39 For Connolly this recasting of causation as resonance is the basis for a trenchant
political critique of contemporary American politics at home and abroad. Seeing the country governed by a theo-econopolitical machine the result of
cowboy capitalism, evangelical Christians, the electronic news media, and the Republican Party
forming an assemblage Connolly offers a radical new way of explaining how (among other
degradations) state practices of torture, an international climate of fear and loathing against
the Islamic world, and the Guantnamo Gulag have come to be accepted, with lies and
distortions about alternatives and those who promote them made equally acceptable. In large part, the
power of the evangelical-capitalist resonance machine is established by media presentations
[that] do much of their work below the level of explicit attention and encourage the intense
coding of those experiences as they do. 40 So while the objects of concern are micropolitical and
American (at least in the first instance), the effects of concern are macropoliti-cal and global.
Connollys jeremiad is an appeal to citizens who refuse to have their thinking placed under the
automatic purview of the regime in which they reside, of religious authorities tied to the state, or
corporate interests linked to either. 41 The task for those citizens both in and beyond America,
united in cross-state, non-national movements is to engage in their own micropolitical work
on the subliminal register. 42 This is an especially challenging task, because given the idea of emergent rather than efficient causality, and the
techniques of the self employed below the level of conscious politics by the evangelical-capitalist resonance machine, it is not clear how this micropolitical resistance
can be undertaken consciously and deliberately toward a desired outcome.

Unstable politics provides the chaos needed to generate ideas proceduralism cedes
public spaces to private institutions.
Honig 13 (Bonnie Honig is a political, feminist, and legal theorist specializing in democratic theory. In 2013-14, she became Nancy Duke Lewis Professor-
Elect of Modern Culture and Media and Political Science at Brown University, succeeding Anne Fausto-Sterling in the Chair in 201415. Honig was formerly Sarah
Rebecca Roland Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University and Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation. The optimistic agonist: an
interview with Bonnie Honig, OpenDemocracy. March 7, 2013. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nick-pearce-bonnie-honig/optimistic-agonist-interview-
with-bonnie-honig) //WW JA 12/15/16

BH: Most liberal and deliberative democratic theory treats proceduralism as a substitute for political
engagement or as exhaustive of proper modes of political engagement. So when one reads the written
work of these thinkers, often one can find (as with Habermas) that theres a way in which the procedural
mode of politics is, in a subtle or hidden way, dependent upon other modes of politics, but these other
modes are not treated in the same honorific terms as proceduralism or discourse ethics because these
other modes are unstable, or frightening or marginal . They are sometimes allowed to inform politics but they must be translated into the
stable forms that institutionalisation requires. Habermas talks about the sluices through which issues move from the streets into more formal channels. But
unstable and marginal political movements or tumults conjure up the passion and loyalty that fidelity to
procedure postulates. And they also provide the imagination and fantasy of possible and alternative
futures that bring people into politics, sweep them up into movements or give them a reason to
participate. That is why I say in my book Emergency Politics that, without the events that proceduralists want to marginalise like the crowd protests in the
streets of Philadelphia (discussed by Jason Frank inConstituent Moments) for example, the idea of attachment to a constitution is about as attractive as kissing a
typewriter. In short, the secret lifeblood of the constitutional patriot is connected to things that are destabilising of orderly constitutionalism or proper proceduralism
and therefore are defined out of the centre. But that centre of orderly politics is actually deeply dependent on the energy and animation and frankly, the fun, that come
from gathering together around issues that are affectively charged. Arendt once asked, while sitting on a panel debate on feminism, What would we lose if we win?
For the proceduralist thats a good question to think about. If you actually succeeded in turning politics into mere proceduralism
completely procedural practices with none of the tumult and chaos that attend democratic forms of life
you lose the things you need for a democratic form: first, the tumult and spontaneity and even surprise
that attend entry into the public sphere, and, second, public things . Admittedly procedures themselves are
public things, but you also need parks and schools, prisons, armies and land and all the kinds of things
people can struggle and fight over. In the US now, many of these are privatised or subcontracted out by
the government to private industry. For proceduralists, such public things are what the procedures are
there to manage. What weve seen over the last 20 years of neo-liberalism is a tendency to privatise or
undercut those public things. So Hannah Arendts great and annoying question about feminism, What would we lose if we win? is poignant in the
context of proceduralists struggle with neo-liberalism. If the proceduralists won wed have great procedures, but we would
have little need of them because we would have nothing to distribute, as all the public things would be
privately owned or managed. NP: With regards to public objects, are you saying that democracy requires objects of engagement, affection, ownership
and contest that, in some sense, must be public in order to exist? BH: Yes. I mean that democracy postulates not just a demos, the people,
about which we debate so much when it comes to the politics of immigration, multiculturalism and
assimilation. And it requires more than procedures, for reasons I just alluded to. Those are important dimensions of democratic theory and
practice, but the other term which is talked about less, is objects, whose thingness creates a sense of publicity beyond the so-called public sphere, and whose finitude
creates friction. Public things, to borrow from Wittgenstein, cannot be anything or nothing. They are something, and if a thing is something, it has a kind of
definiteness to it. This isnt to reduce things to pure materialism everything has a life in language but in their thingness, public things have a kind of finitude to
them, and the friction that comes of fighting over finite things, that friction can be seen as the electricity of political life, or one source of its charge. When we focus on
the demos and on procedure, we take our eye off what we should see as the important ball in the game having public objects. Under
neo-liberalism its
become quite clear that we can drown in proceduralism theres no problem keeping people busy with
paperwork and accountability, or in the case of deliberative democrats for example, we can have
important debates about how to redraw and then defend the borders of a democratic country legitimately
but if all those things take up all our time, well look up from our papers and our borders one day, and
see that there isnt anything left to fight over. What democracy has always been about is fighting over the
public thing. These could be airwaves, as in public broadcasting, or water or climate, or national history
or education or parks, prisons, or the military and its codes, membership and responsibilities.

Respect and critical responsiveness create coherent discussions. Agonistic

democracy allows for minorities to have a safe discursive environment.
Bleiker 8 [Roland Bleiker grew up in Zrich, Switzerland, where he was educated and worked as a lawyer. He then studied international relations in Paris, Toronto, Vancouver and
Canberra. Bleiker worked for two years in a Swiss diplomatic mission in Panmunjom, the Korean DMZ. He held visiting research and teaching affiliations at Harvard, Cambridge, Humboldt,
Tampere, Yonsei and Pusan National University as well as the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. Bleikers current research focuses on the
role of images and emotions in world politics. He coordinates an interdisciplinary Research Program on Visual Politics, which brings together several dozen scholars from across UQ. He is also
collaborating with Emma Hutchison and David Campbell on an ARC-funded project that examines how images shape responses to humanitarian crises. The new pluralism: William Connolly
and the contemporary global condition. Duke University Press, 2008. Page 114]//roman

Two civic virtues are necessary, Connolly believes, to render a journey toward a pluralist notion
of democracy feasible in practice. The first is agonistic respect among multiple groups or
individuals. This respect is necessary even whenindeed precisely whenthese groups or
individuals passionately disagree. Whereas the liberal notion of tolerance assumes a majority that occupies an authoritative center and bestows
tolerance upon minorities, agonistic respect is operating when numerous interdependent minorities coexist

and interact in a safe and respectful environment thus generating and sustaining a form of
common governance.3-l These interacting units share a number of rights and duties, chief among them a willingness to respect each other's different
faith or value system. Accepting difference, Connolly believes, should even include the recognition that

each such value system, including one's own, is and should in principle be contestable.e-2 The
second of Connolly's virtues in a world of deep pluralism is critical responsiveness: the
willingness to listen carefully to others, particularly those who have not yet achieved sufficient recognition in the prevailing political and
social setting. Not all demands by a new constituency should necessarily be accepted, but and

Connolly admits this is the difficult part existing norms or laws cannot necessarily serve as a
base for judgment. A critical response must go beyond these foundations because they are often
part of the problem itself. Whatever form it takes, the new, more critical attitude should involve
cultivating a private disposition and the courage to express and defend this disposition in
public.33
Optimistic agonism is necessary for political action. Proceduralism and political
withdrawal fail theyre self-defeating, unrealistic, and ineffective.
Honig 2 (Bonnie Honig is a political, feminist, and legal theorist specializing in democratic theory. In 2013-14, she became Nancy Duke Lewis Professor-Elect
of Modern Culture and Media and Political Science at Brown University, succeeding Anne Fausto-Sterling in the Chair in 201415. Honig was formerly Sarah
Rebecca Roland Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University and Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation. The optimistic agonist: an
interview with Bonnie Honig, OpenDemocracy. March 7, 2013. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nick-pearce-bonnie-honig/optimistic-agonist-interview-
with-bonnie-honig) //WW JA 12/15/16

BH: Optimism is the agonists greatest asset. People who would like to be able to withdraw from politics, who are tempted
by the pleasures of private life untouched by contestation in other words, who dont think the private
sphere is infused with power relations that need to be addressed may feel put upon by the claims made by agonistic
politics. It seems to refuse to them the withdrawal they seek. From their perspective, then, the claim that
political contestation is unending seems to be quite pessimistic because, if your goal is withdrawal to a
private life untouched by political engagement, the argument that engagement is inescapable seems
pessimistic. But if you aspire to forms of life in common constellated around public things, in affectively charged ways that are both pleasurable and sometimes
infuriating, built around finding, promoting and building shared public objects, engaged in some common cause, but not disciplined into oppressive forms of
normalisation, then agonistic politics is very optimistic. Moreover, if
you crave withdrawal but find waiting for you in the so-
called private sphere, accretions of power and privilege that signal your impotence in a world beyond
your control and influence, then agonisms commitment to action in concert is for you, and its screams
optimism. We have talked a lot about publicity and public things, but to be really clear it is around these things that
equality and liberty and justice take shape. When they become merely procedural values, or when the
form they take has to do with targets or indicators, they become shapeless and unrewarding values. They
can only do the work that makes us value them if they are situated in the material life of citizens and
residents together. And that I think is the optimism of agonistic politics. There is always an ongoing contestation, some of it in
defence of historical achievements such as the welfare state, but agonism is not per se always oppositional or inherently contestational. It just anticipates resistance to
all efforts to institute and maintain equality or justice. I argued in my first book that even
the best of such efforts always generate
remainders and so we agonists must also be attentive to those and aware that a further politics must
follow to redress that. Thus, agonists hope that we can experience political engagement with pleasure and joy as well as the attending frustration that
always comes with the friction of life in common.
 Underview
Interpretation: Negative debaters may read counterplans as long as they dont
specify a right or permutations of rights to be restricted.
To clarify, you can read a counterplan, but it cannot be like restrict revenge porn and keep everything
else.

Standards:
Prep skew I cant research and prepare for every possible right that can be
restricted. Explodes aff burden because we need to predict what counterplan you
will read and independently prepare for that, whereas you only have to prep for a
single aff.