The Crowdsourced List of Critical IR and Critical Security Studies Journals has been updated to include links to most of the publications that have been recommended. I have also created a Google Reader Bundle that includes all of the listed journals as well as several others that I think will be helpful when researching the 2010-2011 military/police presence topic. You’ll still need to access the journals/articles through a subscribing institution, but this way you’ll be notified whenever a new issue is posted. If anyone has suggestions for adding new journals to the bundle, please let me know.
The consolidated K answer project has gotten a lot of good responses with a few people in particular going above and beyond and contributing quite a bit.
But there is always more to do! Please email in any contribution you can- cards, cites, books/articles that look good.
Especially for the sort of stock K args that cross over to many different K’s like
-value to life
-serial policy failure/error replication
-defenses of empiricism and qualifications
-terminal extinction impacts like modernity/rationality/technology/neoliberalism/militarism/biopower cause extinction
The Forer effect (also called the Barnum Effect after P.T. Barnum‘s observation that “we’ve got something for everyone”) is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, and some types of personality tests.
A related and more generic phenomenon effect is that of subjective validation. Subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectancy, or hypothesis demands a relationship. Thus people seek a correspondence between their perception of their personality and the contents of a horoscope.
An article quoted on the dish today has a more specific application
The tendency to believe vague statements designed to appeal to just about anyone is called the Forer Effect, and psychologists point to this phenomenon to explain why people fall for pseudoscience like biorhythms, iridology and phrenology or mysticism like astrology, numerology and tarot cards.
The Forer Effect is part of larger phenomenon psychologists refer to as subjective validation, which is a fancy way of saying you are far more vulnerable to suggestion when the subject of the conversation is you.
How does this relate to K impacts? Read on to find out
In a few of the podcasts I have mentioned that one of the reasons the K is so successful is that over the years people have spent a ton of time refining their evidence/arguments so that now a K debater going for the cap K has the best evidence on each issue produced by thousands of hours of college and high school debaters working (in isolation but ultimately cooperatively) on their own files.
Bill and I are going to attempt to replicate a similar process this summer and produce answers to some common K arguments that incorporate the best possible evidence for each issue. Our goal is not to try and eradicate the K by making answers so good its impossible to win on it, but to foster better debates by reducing the disparity in quality between neg evidence and aff answers.
There is a big error in one of the cards in the security K file I posted.
On page 26 “AT: DA To Alt/Threats Real” the card from Rule 10 is actually 2 cards that I accidentlly smushed together with the elim hard returns macro. Half way down you can see in the small text it says “Hegemony advantage makes the perm impossible- this card will end them”. That should of been a tag to a separate card for the text that follows. In between that section and the section above it text has been omitted.
The text in between should read:
Sometimes recourse to force is inevitable. In international affairs, as in civil life, some particularly destructive personalities and processes can only be blocked with coercion. Confronted by mass killings, unilateral invasion, imminent threat to one’s own territory, widespread ethnic cleansing, and other preventable disasters, all nations should be prepared to act together in response. And the United States should play its part—no more, no less.
But let us never believe the neocons and their allies, for whom all interventions are of a piece. That was the appeal of the liberal hawks, as they canvassed for support for the war at its outset: if you liked American-sponsored peacekeeping in Bosnia, what objection could there be to a reprise of that operation in Iraq? By now, nearly everyone realizes what more thoughtful commentators noted in 2002. The aims and the scale of military efforts were vastly different in these two cases. The Bosnian operation aimed at separating antagonists, stopping massive ethnic cleansing, and forcing the Bosnian Serbs into a peace agreement. The invasion of Iraq sought extirpation of an entrenched regime, followed by top-to-bottom remaking of the country’s political institutions and practices.
Decisions to invoke military force should never be easy. But it is easy to cite a few basic [End Page 86] standards. Obviously, authentic self-defense provides compelling reason for force. Aggressive pre-emption of possible future antagonists does not. Similarly, truly multilateral efforts to quell evident humanitarian emergencies—mass killings, widespread ethnic cleansing, avoidable starvation, and epidemics—should win our support. By contrast, we should look with utmost suspicion on military projects touted with grandiose and speculative future payoffs—”wars to end all wars,” efforts to “nudge” whole regions to adopt new forms of government, or to “drain the swamp” of future terrorists. By now, we should all know better.
A corrected version of the file is here
hat tip- Thomas Hodgman for the correction
On the heels of yesterday’s introduction to critiques, many students are probably delving into critical international relations and critical security studies literature for the first time. In an effort to improve the quality of the critique research that occurs in preparation for next season’s debates, I would like to compile a crowdsourced list of the best critical IR journals. Below the fold you will find my initial contributions; please post additional journals that I have omitted but which you believe to be high-quality sources of debate evidence in the comments.
The list was last updated on July 12, 2010.
Today at the Georgetown Debate Seminar, students will be attending a “Kritik Survey” with John Turner, a graduate assistant at the University of Georgia and one of the nation’s foremost experts in the application of critical theory to debate. In order to prepare the rising sophomores for this survey, we will first be providing an introduction to critique arguments—something that some post-novice students dread, others crave, and all most definitely need. Many other students throughout the country are probably in a similar position, so below the fold are some resources that will help young debaters gain a basic grasp of “The K”.
This could include a lot of country specific arguments (from China threat to certain brands of orientalism) or your garden variety security K. The concept of where identity comes from is often not really debated, or debated crudely in the form of “you make china a threat”. This card imo is one of the best I have seen for the aff vs such args.
In a new series I will be asking the question “is X or Y legit?”
I will refrain from inserting my opinion in the original post, and depending on how the discussion goes may interject later on.