DDI09-GT-Biopolitics-K

DDI09-GT-Biopolitics-K - Zack and Sohan Biopolitics Same -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Zack and Sohan Same - 2K9 1 Biopolitics Biopolitics – GT Index got messed up – don’t know how to fix it Anyway, this file is designed for flexibility. I wasn’t aiming to create the “omg 6000 pages of biopower cards” file. Security isn’t really blocked out because all of the arguments must be round/aff specific or the argument loses a lot of its persuasive power. The ethics K is like a big case turn for affs about human dignity/agency/K affs in general. The evidence is fantastic. Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Zack and Sohan Same - 2K9 2 Biopolitics Welfare K 1NC (1/4) A. The discourse of social service disciplines those labeled as persons living in poverty. (Bold underlining = real underlining) Hartley DEAN Social Policy @ London School of Economics ’92 “Poverty Discourse and the Disempowermetn of the Poor” Critical Social Policy 12 (35) p. 86-87 Returning for a moment to the Working Together Against Poverty conference, one of the participants is reported as having said 'I think this word poverty is a real crusher' (Lister and Beresford, 1991 plO). Certainly, the data from our interviews with social security claimants reveals in its sheer complexity a certain crushing force behind the currency of 'p' word. The simple imagery of 'victims and villains' dissolves into a miasma of more subtle meanings. Poverty' evokes fear, resentment, guilt, confusion, mistrust and disempowerment . However, does this discursive analysis bring us any closer to the true meaning of 'poverty'? By interviewing social security claimants, were we in fact interviewing 'the poor'? Such questions cannot be answered because they miss the point. Poverty is a social construction -just as, for example, sexuality or criminality are social constructions. There is nothing inherently difficult about defining and describing sex (as a biologically conditioned aspect of human behaviour) or crime (as consensually embargoed forms of conduct), yet the socially constructed notions of sexuality and criminality are hugely difficult to define or describe. By same token, it is relatively straightforward matter to define and describe levels of material deprivation and inequalities distribution, but notion 'poverty' highly problematic , as we have seen. It has been argued (by Foucault and others) that through expert and administrative systems by which we regulate sexuality and criminality that create historically specific patterns sexual activity crime. Simi- larly, the role played by the welfare state and, in particular, the social security system in regulating the distribution of resources is inextricably bound up with the way that modern poverty is socially constructed , experienced and understood (see Dean, 1991). If therefore we wish to tease apart or 'deconstruct' the discourse of poverty, then it is not only reasonable but perfectly logical to investigate the perceptions of social security claimants . The social security system and its 'clients' are after all the most palpable objective phenomena around which poverty discourse is generated.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2010 for the course K 101 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '10 term at UMass Lowell.

Page1 / 62

DDI09-GT-Biopolitics-K - Zack and Sohan Biopolitics Same -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online