Скачать 103.99 Kb.
A. Counter-narcotics forces do not constitute military presence
Chad DeWaard, President of Department of Political Science in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale 5/2006, http://www.scribd.com/doc/6570993/Official-Development-Assistance-Unmasked-Theoretical-Models-of-International-Relations-and-the-Determinants-of-American-German-And-Swedish-Aid
Military presence is defined by at least one hundred active-duty military personnel who are permanently stationed in host countries. Forces that are temporarily deployed for covert or classified operations or forces deployed for humanitarian relief do not constitute a “presence” in the sense employed here.
B. Violation – the plan reduces counter-insurgency forces
C. Vote neg:
1. Limits – There are an infinite number of specific missions that exist in topic countries – removing specific forces performing training exercises, security advisors or stopping targeted operations would all be topical – multiply by six for all the topic countries.
2. Precision – our definition is from a qualified source with the intent to define, there is an inherent delineation between special forces and military forces.
3. Ground – We’ll always lose Disad and CP debates because they’re forcing us to research from an unpredictable lit base.
4. Real world – helps us better understand the role of policymakers in military affairs because specific mission questions are handled by generals rather than civilian military planners.
A Subpoint – Crisis Representations
Crisis representations naturalize imperialist orientalism. They naturalize the west as a rational source of security and oriental others as irrational, dangerous, and in need of intervention.
Toine van Teffelen, Prof. in Discourse Analysis @ Birzeit Univ, ’95 [The Decolonization of imagination: Culture, Knowledge, and Power, p. 113-8]
A major methodological problem in the study of Western images of the non-Western other is how precisely such images surface in discourse. Much post-structuralist theorizing, preeminently concerned with texts and self--other contrasts, pays scant attention to the concrete manifestations of images as they are evoked, negotiated, and adapted in talk and in writing. In the modern media, self-other divides cannot be taken for granted. Powerful as they are, such divides are not immune to interrogation and challenge; in fact, their viability partially depends on their adaptive capacity in the face of new arguments and new developments. Critical discourse analysis is an approach intended to reveal the subtle linguistic re-creation and negotiation of self-other oppositions against a background of commonsense reasonings. In following one strand of this tradition, I will inquire here into the workings of a set of metaphors commonly brought into association with the Arab-Islamic world. Since the 1970S regular media hypes about the dangers of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and (nuclear) war have suggested the Middle East to be a 'powder keg' where problems are 'explosive', or a 'volcano' where crises reach a 'boiling point'. In associating the domains of physics and nature with a political situation, these crisis metaphors give expression to a fear of a Middle East out of control.A political issue in the Middle East that has long been regarded as defying control is the Palestine question, and of all the various events and places related to this conflict those pertaining to the West Bank and especially to the Gaza Strip have obtained special metaphoric treatment. During the Intifada, soldiers petitioned for withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, feeling they were 'sinking' in an 'ocean' of hostility, 'engulfed' by crowds. In a reversal of the image, Israeli prime minister Rabin wished the Gaza Strip, in an offstage remark made in 1993, 'to sink into the se-a'. An article headline such as 'West Bank explodes' or 'Gaza explodes' has for a long time been routine in the Israeli media in the same way as similar metaphors dominated the coverage of violence in Soweto during
apartheid. In the case of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip some Israeli lournalists have in fact become aware of the cliché:
Expression like 'pressure cooker', 'powder keg', 'playing with fire', and a 'match liable at any moment to ignite a terrible conflagration here' sounded especially true this time. (Gid'on Levi, 'The Gaza Strip: 'A dog in Tel Aviv lives a more normal life than we do", Haaretz weekly supplement, 12 June I992. In its turn the Western press took over crisis discourse on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is quite likely that this discourse has contributed to the political viewpoint, gradually endorsed by a dominant current of Israeli society, that Israel should abandon Gaza; not as a matter of principle, out of concern for Palestinian political rights, but rather to protect Israeli lives and interests, and to realize control by other means. This viewpoint became reality after the Gaza-.Jericho agreement between Israel and the PLO made in I993-94.
Here I consider a number of articles on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and especially Gaza, written in the 59805 by Israeli and Western Dutch journalists, in order to show the ideological implications of the above-mentioned metaphors; how they shaped attitudes and definitions of reality within an argumentative context not without ambiguity.
The explosion metaphor Recently communication studies, psychology and social anthropology have paid a great deal of attention to metaphors. As has been argued by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), metaphors should not be treated as simply rhetorical decorations or convenlions of figurative language but rather as keys to people's imagining and reasoning about the world. Some cognitive studies regard metaphors as economic devices - frames or schemas suitable to grasp quickly divergent or new situations where a non-metaphoric, literal approach would render understanding and reasoning laborious. More socially or culturally inclined authors (for instance, Quinn 1987, and contributions in Fernandez 1991) regard metaphors as linguistic cues to widely shared cultural models, Whereas metaphors can be applied in a deliberate way, as handy devices to think through dilemmas or to shed light on new realities, most of the time they are employed routinely and unconsciously to express commonsense notions. Although such approaches have helped to give metaphor a more prominent status in cognitive and cultural studies they run the risk of losing sight of the constructive as well as ideological potential of metaphor. Metaphors are not mere windows on or tools to understand a pre-existing reality, but rather they take part in a situated practice of defining reality (see Haste 1993 and Lupton 5994 for recent case studies on the political use of metaphors). In conveying authority to a particular reasoning about reality they discredit or de-emphasize rival interpretations They thus have a bearing upon social and political reality, including relations of domination and control.
In much crisis discourse about the Gaza Strip we see the elaborate use of a metaphoric construction of politics in which increasing tension or pressure is said to culminate in an explosion. Consider an example from David Grossman's preface to the Dutch translation of his Yellow Wind (1988). In this book Grossman, a widely known Israeli journalist and an acclaimed writer, relays his experiences during his journeys in the Occupied Palestinian Territories just before the Intifada
began. [The first stone was thrown in Gaza, ... Emotions and forces which were repressed for twenty years erupted in an explosion of violence. (p. 8, translation TvT) In December 1987 the Palestinian uprising started. It was not planned: it was the fruit of prolonged dissatisfaction. The violence suddenly erupted, nourished by years of bitterness and hatred. Not only were the Israelis surprised. For the Arab countries and the PLO the uprising was a surprise as well. Indeed, the Palestinians themselves were surprised. Until that moment they had never dared to make use of the energy which they had bottled up for twenty years without action. (p. io, translation Tv1) The main metaphors suggest the situation at hand, the beginning of the Intifada, is to he understood through the consecutive stages of built-up 'energy'/'tension' followed by 'eruption'/'explosion'. In the commonsense schema presented here, three conditions seem to influence the explosion's intensity: the repression of tension, the 'prolonged' duration of this repression as emphasized by the repeated mentioning of the occupation's length, and the lack of an opportunity to release the 'bottled-up' tension. The level of tension apparently determines the size of the explosion. Concepts of energy arid tension refer to the emotions and unspecified 'forces' of the refugees; concepts of eruption and explosion refer to the resulting violent behaviour. This reasoning seems primarily based upon ordinary metaphoric thinking about the psychology of anger. Lakoff and Kovecses (1987) have demonstrated how Western discourse tends to understand anger in terms of a central metaphoric construction: 'the heat of a fluid in a container'. Examples are when somebody 'boils over', 'seethes with rage' or 'makes your blood boil'. Their analysis indirectly suggests why anger metaphors can be effective devices for constructing self-other relations. The metaphor tension/explosion suggests a breakdown of self control and a loss of rationality that violate a broadly shared set of Western values. Ideally speaking, the expression of anger should be guided by reason, which means that it must be based on a legitimate grief; that other ways should be tried to redress the grief; that when anger is allowed to come out, it should happen in a controlled way, and that it should be directed towards the wrongdoer, and retributive in proportion to the grief (Lakoff and Koveeses 1987). Apparently, all this does not apply here: the Palestinians simply release their tension, they are even 'surprised' by their own anger. The intifada appears to lack planning or a meaningful target. Both literary criticism and the social sciences provide authoritative sources for the reasoning associated with the deviant anger model that is imposed upon the Palestinians. The literary prototype of ressentimeni, extensively theorized by Nietzsche, has been a common device in Western novels to discredit forms of resistance of the working class or the nonWestern Other as being reactive and based on griefs and feelings of envy and hate that can be easily manipulated to suit exterior ends (Jameson 1980). In the social sciences the 'volcanic' model of rebellion or revolution equates collective violence with the 'periodic eruption of social-psychological tensions that boil up in human groups like lava under the earth's crust' (Aya 1979: 14, quoted in Farsoun and Landis 1991: I-f). In this model, society is epitomized by the 'mass', the fearful phenomenon which, according to popular psychologies, is not only a threat to the social order but in fact its very negation. In mass society there is 'lurking ... the undefined mass, the anonymous crowd, a formless aggregation of little entities, each isolated from the others' (Moscovici 1990: 70). The individual is nothing but 'a molecule in an expanding gas'. Such a society is prone to explosion. Social reasoning here easily ties in with the above-mentioned conception of the individual being overpowered by emotions. When society is nothing more than a sum of individuals, it can only reflect the laws of individual behaviour. According to this line of thinking, discontent, if not put into constructive action, transforms itself into madness and hysteria which in their turn are prime sources of criminal individual behaviour or destabilizing mass action when people mindlessly imitate each other's behaviour (a process that Gustave Le Bon, a writer who was particularly instrumental in popularizing mass psychology, called 'contagion'). Isolated from their political context, oppositional violence or resistance can thus he easily dismissed as destructive, senseless and dangerous from a functional point of view. More generally, these reasonings are informed by the reason-versus emotion dichotomy that permeates Western discourse. Emotion points to a fearful threat to order: to wildness, chaos, nature, femininity, alternatively, rationality points to control, order, predictability, culture, masculinity. Both person and society are viewed as being physically divided into spheres of rationality and spheres of emotion. This division, and the wish to keep it intact, also seem to inform the metaphors under discussion here. By evoking two domains separated by a physical border vulnerable to penetration - when the tension explodes, the lava erupts, or the hot water flows over - the metaphors graphically construct a fragile boundary in need of protection (van Teeffelcn ii). By naturalizing 'Others' and making them the object of uncontrollable forces, the energy-tension and eruption-explosion metaphors also down play human agency. Although it is impossible to discuss linguistic elements other than metaphor in detail here, it should be noted that the example above contains syntactic devices that serve to reinforce the draining of discourse from human agency (Kress and Hodge 1979), especially intransitives ('the violence ... erupted'; 'emotions and forces which were repressed.') and nominalizations (when processes or actions are represented by nouns, as in the clause 'bitterness and
hatred'). They make it easier to suggest that human properties are part of a quasi-physical rather than a moral realm. Let us move from the linguistic construction of a self-other divide to the ideological implications for the situation described, the Israeli control over the Gaza Strip. In describing a border situation that defies control, the discourse of fear is said to accomplish a double purpose: the justification of suppression and the mobilization of support for the colonizing power (AbuLughod and Lutz 1990: 14). It is pertinent here to reflect upon the question of to what extent Grossman, in creating a self-other boundary by emphasizing the Other's deviant expression of anger, in fact exploits such a discourse of fear for ideological ends. To begin with, those familiar with the journalistic and literary work of Grossman will remark that the example above should be considered in relation to the remainder of the book, and also in the context of the public climate in Israel, Grossman is a journalist who was courageous enough to present the Israeli public with the harsh reality of Palestinian daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories before the Intifada started. In the Introduction to the book he asserts that his account of the Occupied Palestinian Territories delivered all the facts needed to understand the emergence of the Intifada. The crisis metaphors served to urge Israel to realize that long-term control over Gaza is untenable,
It may seem paradoxical that Grossman constructs a self-other contrast while at the same time opting for a liberal politics of changing the political status quo. Here we arrive at a point of supreme importance for understanding the politics of metaphor, namely, its employment to lend authority to a particular definition of reality as opposed to rival definitions. In other words, political metaphors attain their rhetorical effect within what Billig (1987) calls 'a context of controversy'. Like many other Israeli liberal writers, Grossman pursues two polemics. He objects to the normalizing discourse practised by the Israeli right, which pretended that the army was in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that the occupation was benevolent in nature. Yet he also warns against a definition of Palestinian reality in terms of curtailed political rights, a definition supported in many liberal Western circles. In addressing a Dutch public Grossman explicitly states that his descriptions of the occupation must not be misunderstood as evidence of support for the Palestinian cause. The use of the tension and explosion metaphors in crisis discourse serves to effectuate this dual demarcation vis-ã-vis normalizing discourse and political rights discourse. On the one hand, the metaphors negate the idea of a normal situation; they ring the bell warning that something may happen. On the other hand, they maintain and even reinforce a self-other divide by casting the reasoning in a mechanistic form. This device creates distance and prevents identification with the victims of the occupation. It does not matter what emotions they have: grief, anger, hatred, or whatever. All emotions are lumped together as potential sources of violence. It is difficult to sympathize with undifferentiated emotions or with people who function in a mechanistic way and are controlled by outside forces; the more so when they internally 'build up tension' and 'explode' at an unpredictable time, You had better get out of their way. In the Grossman example, the interaction with the other discourses remains implicit. I now turn to other examples to show how the metaphors function when conflict between the rival discourses surfaces in the text, and how the metaphors are used to reframe a definition of the problem from one based on a denial of political rights to one created by a loss of control. At the same time, the new examples render it possible to illustrate some other theoretical issues that inform the politics of metaphor.
The Affirmative practice and discourse constructs towards the middle east is a performance of racial power, even though the plan reduces pressure, the aff’s approach legitimizes colonialism and ensures constant intervention.
|Determine of Some Parameters of Age Specific Traits From Stage Specific Models||How do you select and limit your topic? Read your assignment thoroughly and ask questions to clarify what you do not understand. 1 Selecting a Topic|
|Stress and adaptation specific Experience of Using Technology for Planning and Monitoring the Training Process||To find a specific presentation please press "Crtl" and "F". Type in the author's name or a part of the paper's title to find a specific presentation|
|Midterm (March 20) (30%), Term Paper (April 9) (30%) and Final (May 8) (40%). Paper (12 pages maximum) – on major current policy issue facing one of the countries studied. Please submit to ta by email and note class title and number. Readings||E-governance and Developing Countries|
|Unit 14. So many countries, so many customs||Gandhian and Indian Influence in the Nordic Countries|
|Vienna’s cooperation projects with other cities and countries 8||With more than 86,000 constituents in more than 160 countries, isaca|