Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Levinas Neg
Levinas Neg.............................................................................................................................................................1 Strategy ...................................................................................................................................................................3 Topicality Means Testing 1nc..............................................................................................................................4 Topicality Means Testing - 2nc ext interp...............................................................................................................5 Topicality Means Testing - 2nc standards.............................................................................................................. Topicality Means Testing - 2nc !o"peting interps...............................................................................................# Topicality Means Testing - 2nc $ote on potential a%&se ......................................................................................' Topicality (ersons Living )n (overty 1nc............................................................................................................* Topicality (L)( - 2nc interp..................................................................................................................................1+ Topicality (L)( - 2nc standard.............................................................................................................................11 Topicality (L)( - 2nc !o"peting interps .............................................................................................................12 Topicality (L)( , 2nc vote on potential a%&se......................................................................................................13 State Solvency - -d&cation./ead Start ...............................................................................................................................................................................14 States solve /ealt0care..........................................................................................................................................15 State Solvency- /o&sing........................................................................................................................................1 States solvency - 1ood Sta"ps..............................................................................................................................1# 2niversal !o&nter (lan , Speci3ic 433ense...........................................................................................................1' 5t6 Means Testing..................................................................................................................................................2+ 5t6 Means Testing..................................................................................................................................................23 5t6 Means Testing..................................................................................................................................................24 1rontline 71.48.......................................................................................................................................................25 1rontline 72.48 .......................................................................................................................................................2 1rontline 73.48........................................................................................................................................................2# 1rontline 74.48........................................................................................................................................................2' !ase , 9enocide - -xt...........................................................................................................................................2* !ase , S&33ering o3 t0e ot0er - -xt.......................................................................................................................3+ !ase - 1acing t0e ot0er - -xt.................................................................................................................................31 Solvency - -xt........................................................................................................................................................32 Solvency - -xt........................................................................................................................................................33 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt.....................................................................................................................................34 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................35 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................3 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................3# 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................3' 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................4+ 5t6 calc&lations %ad - -xt......................................................................................................................................41 5t6 4ntology..........................................................................................................................................................42 5t6 &til %ad.............................................................................................................................................................43 5t6 (redictions %ad - -xt........................................................................................................................................44 5t6 (redictions - -xt..............................................................................................................................................45 5t6 (redictions - -xt..............................................................................................................................................4 5t6 (redictions - -xt..............................................................................................................................................4# 5t6 (redictions - -xt..............................................................................................................................................4' 5t6 (redictions - -xt..............................................................................................................................................4*

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

2 5t6 Negs -t0ics......................................................................................................................................................5+ 5t6 Negs -t0ics......................................................................................................................................................51 5t6 Neg Morality ...................................................................................................................................................52

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Strategy
Potential plan text: T0e 2nited States 3ederal govern"ent s0o&ld provide s0elter: 3ood: 0ealt0 care: and ed&cation to all persons
in t0e 2nited States regardless o3 citi;ens0ip <0o cannot a33ord t0ese services on a "eans-tested %asis.

Topi ality !"eans Test# $ t0ere is a reasona%le 1ederal (overty Line 5rg&"ent to %e "ade on t0is a33ir"ative 3or t<o reasons.
1irst is t0e speci3ic targeting nat&re o3 t0e plan t0ey &se Means Testing <0ic0 t0eir evidence concl&des to as "any people as possi%le incl&ding t0ose <0ic0 t0e 3ederal govern"ent "ay de3ine as not i"poveris0ed. T0e second arg&"ent is t0e <ay in <0ic0 t0ere plan text is <orded prevents t0e" 3ro" "eeting t0eir "ost li=ely o3 co&nter interpretations to t0is arg&"ent Means testing good T/-> ?4 N4T M-5NS T-ST t0ere plan clai"s to send to citi;ens regardless o3 t0ose <0o can not a33ord t0e listed services: t0&s t0e plan does not i"ple"ent a Means Test to allocate 3&nding %&t rat0er t0ey @&st entitle individ&als <0o can not a33ord t0ose "aterials t0ro&g0 t0e plan.

Topi ality $ !PL%&# T0ere plan is to give aide to persons <0o cannot a33ord ) t0in= its reasona%le to clai" t0is is a non topical
action %eca&se t0e %oarder %et<een cant a33ord and in poverty doesnAt al<ays over lap: t0e arg&"ent 0ere is t0e plan <o&ld incl&de people li=e yo&rsel3 <0o" cant a33ord all o3 t0ose t0ings %&t arenAt living in poverty eit0er: rig0tB Li=e t0e plan <o&ld give aide to college =ids <0o cant 0ave t0eir o<n place and need a roo""ate: T0ey even gain o33ense 3ro" t0is %eca&se t0eir evidence is incl&sive o3 an et0ical connection %et<een o&rselves and all individ&als incl&ding t0ose college =ids <0ic0 "a=es t0e" at %est extra topical. >o& s0o&ld only extend 1 o3 t0e Ts in t0e %loc= as t0e extensions are laid o&t to "a=e T a very serio&s option in t0e 2nr: also t0e %eca&se t0ere is a considera%le a"o&nt o3 over lap %et<een T0ey decide <0o" to give it to t0e <rong <ay and t0ey give it to t0e <rong people reading t0e" %ot0 @&st repeats "ost o3 yo&r o33ense on t<o separate 3lo<s.

States $ 4n a scale o3 1 to Solves: t0e States co&nter plan solves. T0e only potential iss&e 0ere is it is t0e a33ir"atives o%vio&s intent
to = a standard calc&lation . &til . prediction %ased disadvantage scenario. T0&s yo& s0o&ld <in a states disad co"%o provided yo& are a%le to <in i"pact level o3 t0e disad de%ate 3airly easily.

'niversal (ounter Plan $ 4M9 CT1 (CN /5D E T/D 4 T-/ C)N: t0is s0o&ld %e yo&Are 5 strat. 5ll o3 t0eir evidence and
solvency advocates indicate t0at aide s0o&ld %e given to everyone &nder any circ&"stance: yet t0ere plan is a Means Test to (eople <0o cant a33ord <0ic0 "eans t0ey still isolate gro&ps o3 people or individ&als <0ic0 <ill not get aide. T0e co&nter plans nor"al net %ene3it is si"ply %eing a%le to give aide to "ore people: %&t it is s&per c0arged against t0is a33: 5l"ost every t&rn in t0is 3ile is a net %ene3it to t0is co&nter plan as <ell 5s t0e Means Testing co"ponents and t0e T&rns 3ro" t0e 9eneric 2niversal !( 3ile <0ic0 are not incl&ded. T0eir solvency advocates concl&de as long as t0e plan doesnAt give aide to everyone 5nd t0ey target people t0en t0ey cant solve . t&rns case it s&pports t0e cp "ore t0en t0e a33 on a critical level. T0is !p slays t0is a33 3or 3 reasons 1.8 t0ey can not E t0e net-%ene3its li=e t0ey can <it0 states %eca&se t0ey are case . solvency t&rns 2.8 t0ey cant go 3or plan pl&s t0eory %eca&se itAs 5.8 a pic o&t o3 Means Testing in t0e plan and F.8 it &ses an entirely di33erent "et0od o3 targeting 3.8 t0e cp is no< 1&nctionally !o"petitive as opposed to @&st Text&ally co"petitive %eca&se t0ey speci3y t0e Means Testing in t0e plan and <e 0ave speci3ic o33ense against it <0ic0 ot0er<ise prevents a per"&tation

)ront Line $ 4 cards !ase T&rn: Solvency T&rn: 5t calc&lations: 5t (redictions , T0ey all 0ave extensions and are all critical
co"ponents to t0e a33: i3 yo& are going to go 3or a disad <it0 a &tilitarian style i"pact >o& Need to <in (redictions and !alc&lations good.

Kriti s $ >arp t0ey lin= to everyt0ing ) didnAt c&t anyt0ing speci3ic: )3 yo& =no< yo& are going to go 3or t0e E &se t0e case t&rns as
a Net Fene3it to t0e alternative t0e ;i;e= +5 card pg 1' is especially good 3or t0is.

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Topi ality !"eans Testing# 1n

1+, De-inition 2+, (overty is de3ined %y t0e -e.eral poverty line (am/ri.ge Di tionary0 2111 !a"%ridge 2niversity (ress p+222 T0e poverty level.line is t0e a"o&nt o3 inco"e a person or a 3a"ily needs in order to "aintain an accepta%le standard o3 living: and %elo< <0ic0 t0ey are considered poor. 2+, &iolation $ The plan implements a !"eans Test# metho. o- allo ation 3+, Stan.ar. Limits 3+, &oter -or Topi Spe i-i 4.u ation 5 6ithout the )e.eral Poverty Line the a--irmative an -un tionally provi.e a means test to target an. allo ate ai.e to anyone /eyon. the germanity o- the resolution /+, &oter -or )airness (reates an %mpossi/le resear h /ur.en -or Negatives there7s no 6ay 6e an /e prepare. to .e/ate anything other then the alrea.y massive resolutionaly .esignate. topi area *+, 8u.ge shoul. .e-ault to a ompeting interpretations -rame6or9 :+, Topi ality is a voter 5 -or 4.u ation0 )airness an. Potential a/use

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Topi ality "eans Testing 5 2n ext interp

1+, ;est %nterpretation 3+, "ost pre.i ta/le Poli yma9ers .e-ault to the -e.eral line -or poverty statisti s+

Gotts hal90 econ pro3 at Foston !ollege: 9* 7(eter T. 9ottsc0al=: (overty: The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics [ed Douglas Greenwald), 199 ) )n order to 3ig0t t0is <ar: poli yma9ers nee.e. to 9no6 the si<e o- the poverty pro/lem. ?e3ining t0e scope o3 poverty proved to %e di33ic&lt. C0ile t0ere <as <ide agree"ent t0at a 3a"ily <as poor i3 its inco"e 3ell %elo< so"e poverty t0res0old: t0ere <as "&c0 less agree"ent over <0ere to set t0e t0res0old. 53ter "&c0 disc&ssion: a poverty line <as de3ined in ter"s o3 t0e ?epart"ent o3 5gric&lt&reAs "ini"&" 3ood %&dget. T0e cost o3 t0e "ini"&" 3ood %&dget necessary to s&stain a 3a"ily d&ring te"porary e"ergencies <as "&ltiplied %y t0ree to re3lect t0e ass&"ption t0at 3ood constit&ted one-t0ird o3 t0e total %&dget. T0ese poverty lines0 <0ic0 vary %y 3a"ily si;e and 3ar"-non3ar" residence: /e ame the /asis -or ta%&lating poverty statisti s+ ;+, ;est Groun. $ has the most in5.epth an. 6i.est s ope o- empiri al examples o- use in the -ormation o- poli y in ;est ;right Line 5 Due to the varying .e-initions o- poverty0 the a/solute measure o- a !poverty line# shoul. /e .e-aulte. to in poli y5ma9ing /e ause it is the only a/solute .e-inition in terms oin ome evaluation

(+,

=o/s/a6m0 polisci pro3 and (resident o3 Fir%ec= !ollege G2 o3 LondonH: 2> 7-.I.: (overty: )nternational -ncyclopedia o3 t0e Social Sciences Ged ?avid SillsH: $ol&"e 128
(overty 0as al<ays 0ad several not entirely separa%le "eanings and is al<ays de3ined according to t0e conventions o3 t0e society in <0ic0 it occ&rs. )or a.ministrative reasons .e-inition may also ta9e the -orm o- -ixing an a/solute riterion o- poverty ?e+g+ a !poverty line#,. Ce "ay disting&is0 t0ree "eanings6 718 social poverty: 728 pa&peris": and 738 "oral poverty

2+, they .on7t meet their ounter interpretation $ plan states !3llo ation those 6ho ant a--or.# ross apply their o6n .e-inition this isn7t 6hat a -e.eral poli y /ase. means tests in lu.es

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Topi ality "eans Testing 5 2n stan.ar.s

Limits 3+, 4valuate the limits on a pre e.ent /asis0 "eans testing means "ilitary personal0 prisoners0 ollege stu.ents0 interim immigrants or anyone that simply ant a--or. something the a--irmative an .ru.ge up an. .e-ine as a so ial servi e+ They set the pre e.ent -or 111s o- more a--irmatives to /e a..e. to the resolution 4xample Sanitation an. hygiene an loosely /e a so ial servi e .oes that me 6e shoul. !means test# to give 6ashing ma hines to /ro9e 9i.s in ollege@ Ar 6oul. 6e learn more allo ating resour es to homeless@ The ans6er is intuitive ;+, "a9e the .istin tion the e.u ation is not /etter /y in lu.ing these aspe ts $ that7s our (am/ri.ge 2111 (+, Aver ;ur.ens the negative resear h0 the topi is alrea.y massive0 ouple. 6ith stru tural a.vantages that om 6ith /eing a--irmative li9e -irst an. last spee h 6e nee. to maintain a limite. topi $ Key to -airness

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Topi ality "eans Testing 5 2n (ompeting interps

1. !4M(-T)N9 )NT-J( M)N)M)K-S I2?9- )NT-J$-NT)4N , one @&dgeAs s&%@ective vie< o3 t0e topic is di33erent t0an anot0erAs. !o"peting interpretations is t0e only <ay to avoid @&dge intervention. 5nd @&st %eca&se @&dge intervention is inevita%le doesnAt "ean <e s0o&ldnAt try to "ini"i;e it. 2. N4 J5!- T4 T/- F4TT4M , i3 anyt0ing: co"peting interpretations leads to a race to t0e top to 3ind t0e %est de3inition 3or %ot0 tea"s. a8 T0is is an ar%itrary standard: t0is is t0e ot0er tea"s perspective on 0o< t0e ro&nd is going %8 T0is race to t0e %otto" allo<s 3or "ore clas0 %et<een t0e t<o interpretations. !las0 c0ec=s. c8 !o"peting interpretation can access t0e ed&cation standard %etter %eca&se <e learn a%o&t t0e core o3 t0e topic <0ic0 is co"pletely %ased o33 o3 <0at t0e <ords in t0e resol&tion "ean.
3. NO STANDARD TO EVALUATE REASONABILITY every debate must be judged ! s me sta!dard " r eva#uat$ !. T%ey ""er ! sta!dard " r eva#uat$!g t &$'a#$ty. Eve! $" y u use reas !ab$#$ty( use ur $!ter&retat$ ! t eva#uate )%et%er t%ey*re reas !ab#y t &$'a# r ! t.

4. C-ALL ST)LL C)N T/)S T ?-F5T- -$-N )1 J-5S4N5F)L)T> )S 944?,-ven i3 t0ey <in reasona%ility is good: <e still <in topicality %eca&se o&r interpretation proves t0ey are not reasona%ly topical. 5. T4()!5L)T> )S 5N 5LL 4J N4T/)N9 )SS2- , T0ere is no s&c0 t0ing as %eing at least #+L topical. -it0er yo& are or yo& arenAt and reasona%ility "erely allo<s t0e" to get as "&c0 lee<ay as possi%le <0en it co"es to topicality. !o"peting interpretations is t0e only <ay to set a %rig0t line as <0et0er t0e a33 is topical or not. . !4NT-D25L ?-1)N)T)4NS , o&r interpretation co"es 3ro" context&al so&rces. T0is "a=es o&r interpretation pre3era%le %eca&se it co"e directly 3ro" t0e literat&re <0ic0 is at t0e core o3 t0e de%ate. Jat0er t0an %eing %ased on <0at t0e @&dge "ay li=e <0ic0 c0anges %et<een every single ro&nd: t0ese de3initions are rig0t 3ro" <0at <e are researc0ing. T0is also "a=es o&r interpretation predicta%le %eca&se anyone loo=ing t0ro&g0 t0e literat&re s0o&ld 0ave 3o&nd o&r de3initions.

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

>

Topi ality "eans Testing 5 2n &ote on potential a/use

1+ Ce prove that there %S in roun. a/use 6ith pre.i ta/ility0 extrapolate. a.vantages0 an. solven y on topi ality+ Dou grant us even Eust one o- these three s enarios an. their args go a6ay+ 2+ 4ven i- they 6in no in5roun. a/use0 setting a pre e.en e is important /e ause there 6ill /e in5roun. a/use in other .e/ates+ ;e ause it is Eusti-ie.0 6hen the negative goes -or topi ality0 they 6ill lose+ 3+ 4ven they say 6e an7t Fuanti-y0 setting a pre e.en e is sure to .eter a/use -rom not only this team /ut -rom other teams running the same a--irmative+ *+ Ce nee. Topi spe i-i e.u ation mostG only the negative interpretation aptures this0 ma9ing our interpretation net /etter than the a--7s+

Last printed

>

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

Topi ality !Persons Living %n Poverty# 1n

1+, De-inition Persons Living %n Poverty
2nited States !ens&s F&rea&: 2++4 0ttp6..<<<.ca"%ridge"a.gov.M!??.data.inco"e.poverty.0t"l - L8r&

T0e !ens&s F&rea& &ses a set o3 inco"e t0res0olds t0at vary %y 3a"ily si;e and co"position to deter"ine <0o is poor. T0e poverty t0res0olds do not vary geograp0ically: %&t t0ey are &pdated ann&ally 3or in3lation &sing t0e !ons&"er (rice )ndex. T0e o33icial poverty de3inition co&nts "oney inco"e %e3ore taxes and does not incl&de capital gains and noncas0 %ene3its. (overty is not de3ined 3or people living in college dor"itories: instit&tional gro&p N&arters s&c0 as n&rsing 0o"es and @ails: or 3or t<o c0ildren &nder 1' <as O13:423 2+, &iolation 5 persons living in poverty .oesn7t mean !Those 6ho ant a--or.# 3+, Stan.ar. Limits 3+, ;+, &oter -or e.u ation $ Plan generates o--ense -or a groun. o- people /eyon. the resolution 9ills topi spe i-i e.u ation &oter -or )airness 5 "assivly expan.s the negative resear h /ur.en people 6ho ant a--or. H is in lusive o- everything theres no 6ay the neg oul. ompete

*+, 8u.ge shoul. .e-ault to a ompeting interpretations -rame6or9 :+, Topi ality is a voter 5 -or 4.u ation0 )airness an. Potential a/use

Last printed

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

11

Topi ality PL%P 5 2n interp

1+, ;est %nterpretation 3+, "ost pre.i ta/le Poli yma9ers .e-ault to the term !Persons Living in Poverty# $ 4xten. the (ensus ;ureau 2111 evi.en e ;+, ;est Groun. $ PL%P provi.es the most in .epth an. 6i.est /rea.th o- empiri al examples /y 6hi h -e.eral so ial servi e programs have provi.e. ai.e to in.ivi.uals (+, ;est ;right line $ Aur evi.en e puts a num/er to poverty in the ontext o- so ial servi e0 it7s the only 111I lear /right line that an /e esta/lish $ this prevents Eu.ge intervention /y as9ing the Fuestion ! an they a--or. it#@

Last printed

11

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

11

Topi ality PL%P 5 2n stan.ar.

1+, Limits 3+, 4valuate the limits on a pre e.ent /asis0 !Persons Cho (ant 3--or.# means "ilitary personal0 prisoners0 ollege stu.ents0 interim immigrants or anyone that simply ant a--or. something the a--irmative an .ru.ge up an. .e-ine as a so ial servi e+ They set the pre e.ent -or 111s o- more a--irmatives to /e a..e. to the resolution 4xample Sanitation an. hygiene an loosely /e a so ial servi e .oes that me 6e shoul. allo ate ai.e to /ro9e 9i.s in ollege 6ho ant a--or. a 6ashing ma hine@ Ar 6oul. 6e learn more allo ating resour es to homeless@ The ans6er is intuitive ;+, "a9e the .istin tion the e.u ation is not /etter /y in lu.ing these aspe ts (+, Aver ;ur.ens the negative resear h0 the topi is alrea.y massive0 ouple. 6ith stru tural a.vantages that om 6ith /eing a--irmative li9e -irst an. last spee h 6e nee. to maintain a limite. topi $ Key to -airness 2+, 4xtra T a, 4xten. the 4xtra Topi al parts o- the plan are all o- the people they gain a.vantage -rom 6ho re eive ai.e an. are outsi.e the .esignate. topi area $ Persons 6ho ant a--or. goes /eyon. the terms o- the resolution /, This =urts Topi Spe i-i 4.u ation5 3t /est 6e learn a/out something that isn7t germane to poli yma9ing or the topi Cho ares a/out the moral o/ligation to the ollege 9i. 6ho nee.s a roommate@ Ce shoul. /e evaluating persons living in poverty 5 this 9ills in .epth learning a/out the resolution , Destroys Pre.i ta/ility5 i- the a-- an ta9e a tion outsi.e o- the resolution0 they oul. literally .o 3NDT=%NG+ That ma9es .e/ate un-air an. impossi/le -or the neg+ ., &oting issue -or -airness an. e.u ation5 no one 6ants a 6orl. o- .e/ate 6here pre.i ta/ility an. e.u ational .epth are non5existent e, JeEe t the entire a--0 not Eust the extra topi al part5the a-- Eusti-ies a 6orl. o- .e/ate 6here every roun. is inherently s9e6e. against the neg+ voting -or them ma9es extra topi ality a no ris9 option -or the a--+

Last printed

11

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

12

Topi ality PL%P 5 2n (ompeting interps

1. !4M(-T)N9 )NT-J( M)N)M)K-S I2?9- )NT-J$-NT)4N , one @&dgeAs s&%@ective vie< o3 t0e topic is di33erent t0an anot0erAs. !o"peting interpretations is t0e only <ay to avoid @&dge intervention. 5nd @&st %eca&se @&dge intervention is inevita%le doesnAt "ean <e s0o&ldnAt try to "ini"i;e it.

2.

N4 J5!- T4 T/- F4TT4M , i3 anyt0ing: co"peting interpretations leads to a race to t0e top to 3ind t0e %est de3inition 3or %ot0 tea"s. a.8 T0is is an ar%itrary standard: t0is is t0e ot0er tea"s perspective on 0o< t0e ro&nd is going %.8 T0is race to t0e %otto" allo<s 3or "ore clas0 %et<een t0e t<o interpretations. !las0 c0ec=s. c.8 !o"peting interpretation can access t0e ed&cation standard %etter %eca&se <e learn a%o&t t0e core o3 t0e topic <0ic0 is co"pletely %ased o33 o3 <0at t0e <ords in t0e resol&tion "ean. N4 ST5N?5J? T4 -$5L25T- J-5S4N5F)L)T> , every de%ate "&st %e @&dged on so"e standard 3or eval&ation. T0ey o33er no standard 3or eval&ating topicality. -ven i3 yo& &se reasona%ility: &se o&r interpretation to eval&ate <0et0er t0eyAre reasona%ly topical or not. C-ALL ST)LL C)N T/)S T ?-F5T- -$-N )1 J-5S4N5F)L)T> )S 944?,-ven i3 t0ey <in reasona%ility is good: <e still <in topicality %eca&se o&r interpretation proves t0ey are not reasona%ly topical. T4()!5L)T> )S 5N 5LL 4J N4T/)N9 )SS2- , T0ere is no s&c0 t0ing as %eing at least #+L topical. -it0er yo& are or yo& arenAt and reasona%ility "erely allo<s t0e" to get as "&c0 lee<ay as possi%le <0en it co"es to topicality. !o"peting interpretations is t0e only <ay to set a %rig0t line as <0et0er t0e a33 is topical or not. !4NT-D25L ?-1)N)T)4NS , o&r interpretation co"es 3ro" context&al so&rces. T0is "a=es o&r interpretation pre3era%le %eca&se it co"e directly 3ro" t0e literat&re <0ic0 is at t0e core o3 t0e de%ate. Jat0er t0an %eing %ased on <0at t0e @&dge "ay li=e <0ic0 c0anges %et<een every single ro&nd: t0ese de3initions are rig0t 3ro" <0at <e are researc0ing. T0is also "a=es o&r interpretation predicta%le %eca&se anyone loo=ing t0ro&g0 t0e literat&re s0o&ld 0ave 3o&nd o&r de3initions.

3.

4. 5.

Last printed

12

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

13

Topi ality PL%P $ 2n vote on potential a/use

1+ Ce prove that there %S in roun. a/use 6ith pre.i ta/ility0 extrapolate. a.vantages0 an. solven y on topi ality+ Dou grant us even Eust one o- these three s enarios an. their args go a6ay+ 2+ 4ven i- they 6in no in5roun. a/use0 setting a pre e.en e is important /e ause there 6ill /e in5roun. a/use in other .e/ates+ ;e ause it is Eusti-ie.0 6hen the negative goes -or topi ality0 they 6ill lose+ 3+ 4ven they say 6e an7t Fuanti-y0 setting a pre e.en e is sure to .eter a/use -rom not only this team /ut -rom other teams running the same a--irmative+ *+ Ce nee. Topi spe i-i e.u ation mostG only the negative interpretation aptures this0 ma9ing our interpretation net /etter than the a--7s+

Last printed

13

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

1*

State Solven y 5 4.u ationK=ea. Start

States an provi.e pre5s hool e.u ation programs
Golon9a0 progra" director N95 center social: econo"ic: and <or=3orce progra"s division0 an. =o--man: sr. policy analyst: -5-1> 79olon=a: S&san and /o33"an: Linda: PState strategies to Jed&ce !0ild and 1a"ily (overtyP 0ttp6..<<<.nga.org.1iles.pd3.+'+ (4$-JT>FJ)-1.(?1 G!ILH p.128 accessed6 #-21-+* Many poor c0ildren enter =indergarten as "&c0 as a year %e0ind c0ildren 3ro" 3a"ilies <it0 0ig0er inco"es. ?espite e33orts to target reso&rces to<ard lo<-inco"e sc0ools: t0is ac0ieve"ent gap persists t0ro&g0o&t t0eir sc0ool years and res&lts in lo<er rates o3 ed&cational ac0ieve"ent and lo<er earnings 3or t0ese c0ildren as ad&lts. /o<ever: 0ealt0y environ"ents and positive parent-c0ild interactions can 3oster t0e early develop"ent o3 s=ills in yo&ng c0ildren: <0ic0 can set t0e" on a positive co&rse 3or li3e. State policy"a=ers can adopt initiatives t0at en0ance t0e develop"ent o3 c0ildren in lo<-inco"e 3a"ilies: res&lting in i"proved o&tco"es in sc0ool: <or=: and li3e. Many states invest general 3&nds and ot0er so&rces o3 reven&e to s&pport parent ed&cation progra"s s&c0 as t0e /o"e )nstr&ction 3or (arents o3 (resc0ool >o&ngsters progra" and t0e (arents as Teac0er progra". 1or exa"ple: in 2++#: Misso&ri designated "ore t0an O32 "illion in general 3&nds 3or t0e (arents as Teac0ers progra". (arenting s&pport progra"s can 0elp individ&als <it0 yo&ng c0ildren %y increasing =no<ledge o3 c0ild develop"ent: rein3orcing parental resilience: providing %roader social connections: and lin=ing parents <it0 concrete s&pport in ti"es o3 need.

States an /uil. the in-rastru ture -or =ea. Start

Daily: Sr. policy analyst: N95: 5.19 7?aily: Sara0: P!reating a !o"pre0ensive State -arly !0ild0ood 5dvisory !o&ncilP 0ttp6..<<<.nga.org.1iles.pd3.+*+5-!5!15Q.(?1 G!ILH8 accessed6 #.22.+* Q&ality )"prove"ent6 ?e3ining <0at N&ality loo=s li=e: and 0o< to enco&rage it: are t<o c0allenges "any co&ncils 3ace. 4ne priority o3 t0e 5ri;ona -arly !0ild0ood ?evelop"ent and /ealt0 Foard: =no<n as 1irst T0ings 1irst 7created in 2++ 8: 0as %een to %&ild t0e in3rastr&ct&re needed to i"ple"ent a state<ide N&ality i"prove"ent and rating syste" 3or c0ild care 7=no<n as Q&ality 1irstR in 5ri;ona8. 5 co""on rating syste" is an easy <ay to co""&nicate t0e N&ality o3 care to parents see=ing c0ild care and to provide a co""on set o3 standards across di33erent types o3 care: s&c0 as c0ild care: /ead Start.-arly /ead Start: and state-s&pported pre=indergarten.

Last printed

1*

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

1:

States solve =ealth are

The states must ta9e ontrol o- health are again0 not the -e.eral government
7The =eritage )oun.ation: I&ne 11: 2+19 5 9&ide to State /ealt0care Je3or" 0ttp6..<<<.0eritage.org.researc0.0ealt0care.sr++55.c3" SSS8

4ver t0e past 0al3-cent&ry: t0e 3ederal govern"ent and ot0er instit&tions 0ave increasingly ta=en control o3 every 5"ericanSs 0ealt0 care. )t is ti"e to restore t0at control to individ&als and 3a"ilies: %ot0 as patients and as cons&"ers. T0is <ill reN&ire a &niN&ely 5"erican sol&tion to o&r 0ealt0 care crisis--a sol&tion t0at can and s0o&ld arise 3ro" t0e states. States 0ave a cr&cial role in ens&ring t0at every 5"erican 0as t0e opport&nity and t0e a%ility to c0oose t0e 0ealt0 ins&rance and "edical care t0at o33ers t0e %est val&e 3or t0eir 0ealt0 care dollars. 1or too long: =ey 0ealt0 care decisions 0ave %een "ade 3or
patients %y so"eone else: o3ten e"ployers or t0e govern"ent. Too o3ten: t0is 0as "eant t0at t0e interests o3 ot0ers are given priority over t0e needs o3 patients. )t is only <0en individ&als and 3a"ilies are a%le to c0oose 3or

t0e"selves a"ong co"peting private ins&rance plans t0at 0ealt0 ins&rers and 0ealt0 care providers <ill 0ave t0e rig0t incentives to provide patients <it0 %etter prod&cts and %etter res&lts at %etter prices . 5n
essential c0aracteristic o3 5"erican 0ealt0 care re3or" "&st %e t0at any re3or" respects t0e diversity and a&tono"y o3 t0e states. Signi3icant variations exist a"ong states: not only in geograp0y and de"ograp0ics: %&t also in

0o< t0eir 0ealt0 ins&rance "ar=ets and "edical delivery syste"s are organi;ed and 3inanced. T0e states "&st %e per"itted to retain and exercise t0eir a&t0ority to c&sto"i;e sol&tions to "eet t0eir citi;ensS partic&lar circ&"stances and needs.

%- multiple states uni-ormly an. simultaneously re-orm health are they an in-luen e an. re.e-ine -e.eral health are poli y Strauss an. .e Groot0 B1 7Marvin ?.: M.(./.: 1.5.(./.5.: )do: M.(./.: 5 F44ES/-L1 4N !4MM2N)T> (L5NN)N9 14J /-5LT/: 0ttp6..<<<.a@p0.org.cgi.reprint. 1.4. 5 8 T0e 3ederation recogni;ed t0at t0e Ppartners0ip 3or 0ealt0P incl&ded state and 3ederal govern"ents. MarN&ette "ade 3reN&ent appearances to testi3y on legislation: and it <as no coincidence t0at t0e late Senator Jo%ert Ta3t o3 40io. a !incinnati resident: <as a strong s&pporter o3 p&%lic 0o&sing. )t is o%vio&s t0at opport&nities 3or individ&al state or area<ide 0ealt0 planning agencies or &niversity 0ealt0 planning training centers to in3l&ence national 0ealt0 policy <ill %e li"ited. /o<ever: i3 all o3 t0e 0ealt0 planning agencies and training centers no< in operation cooperate and agree on co""on goals: and can "o%ili;e t0e s&pport o3 t0eir constit&ent co""&nities: <e can expect to see a ne< national di"ension added to t0e Ppartners0ip 3or 0ealt0.PPS

Last printed

1:

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

12

State Solvency- /o&sing

T0e 3ed 9ovt 0as ta=en little action 3or several 0o&sing tax credits: states solve %est )loren e Cagman Joisman: Presi.ent an. )ello6s o- =arvar. (ollege0 =arvar. La6 L Poli y Jevie60 211>: /o&sing (olicy in 5"erica6 -nd Jesidential Jacial Segregation6 F&ild !o""&nities T0at Loo= Li=e 5"erica lexis
5lt0o&g0 t0e 1* 4 and 1* ' !ivil Jig0ts 5cts <ere enacted to end residential racial segregation and t0e 1* ' 5ct directed /2? and all ot0er 3ederal depart"ents and agencies Pa33ir"atively to 3&rt0erP 3air 0o&sing: incl&ding desegregation: n the

-e.eral government has ta9en little e--e tive a tion to .esegregate even its o6n programs and residential racial segregation contin&es at a very 0ig0 level . )n t0e /4(- $) progra": /2? is sN&andering an
opport&nity to &ndo segregation in t0e <orst o3 t0e racially-isolated p&%lic 0o&sing develop"ents %y sponsoring t0e de"olition o3 #5:+++ p&%lic 0o&sing &nits and replacing t0e" <it0 3e<er: s"aller: and o3ten "ore expensive d<ellings. T0e incentives /2? %&ilt into t0e /4(- $) progra" virt&ally g&aranteed t0at replace"ent 0o&sing <o&ld %e li"ited to t0e sa"e racially isolated neig0%or0oods rat0er t0an racially diverse: 0ig0 opport&nity areas: and /2? 0as ad"inistered t0e vo&c0er progra" in s&c0 a <ay as to disco&rage 3a"ilies 3ro" "oving to t0ose 0ig0 opport&nity areas. (er0aps "ost egregio&sly: t0e 3ederal govern"ent contin&es to spend tax dollars deli%erately to concentrate ne< and re0a%ilitated 0o&sing develop"ents 3or lo<er-inco"e: "inority 0o&se0olds in t0e poorest: "ost reso&rce-starved neig0%or0oods: <0ere t0e p&%lic sc0ools are <orst. T0e 3ederal

govern"ent does t0is t0ro&g0 its largest 0o&sing prod&ction progra": t0e Lo< )nco"e /o&sing Tax !redit progra": <0ic0 is ad"inistered %y t0e GT3H Treasury Department through state an. lo al housing -inan e agen ies+

Last printed

12

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

1B

States solven y 5 )oo. Stamps

States ontrol -oo. stamps implementation
N((P0 !ol&"%ia 2niversity: Mail"an sc0ool o3 (&%lic 0ealt0 *- 1* 7National !enter 3or !0ildren in (overty: Preceipt o3 9overn"ent S&pports $aries Cidely %y StateP 0ttp6..<<<.nccp.org.p&%lications.pd3.textU543.pd3 G!ILH8 accessed6 #.21.+* T0e 3ood sta"ps progra" is s&%@ect to 3ederal eligi%ility r&lesV 0o<ever: states 0ave <ide discretion over application and recerti3ication proced&res: <0ic0 i"pacts enroll"ent in t0is progra". Nation<ide: 2' percent o3 c0ildren in lo<-inco"e 3a"ilies receive 3ood sta"ps: %&t t0is rate varies 3ro" a lo< o3 13 percent in Nevada to a 0ig0 o3 4+ percent in Cest $irginia 7t0e ?istrict o3 !ol&"%ia is 0ig0er at 4* percent8 7see Ta%le8. T0ere is no clear pattern o3 3ood sta"p &se across states 7see Map 28. M&c0 o3 t0e so&t0east 0as 0ig0 rates o3 3ood sta"p participation <it0 t0e exception o3 Nort0 !arolina: 9eorgia: $irginia: and 1lorida. Many <estern states 0ave lo< rates o3 3ood sta"p enroll"ent: <it0 t0e exception o3 4regon: Montana: and Nort0 ?a=ota.

Last printed

1B

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

1>

'niversal (ounter Plan $ Spe i-i A--ense

4ngaging our responsi/ility to the Ather ex lu.es all that is the Thir.G -or every statement o- love is ountere. /y one o- hate+ Thus0 6e must reEe t any ethi al /on. 6ith the Ather+ Mi<e9 71: 7Slavo@: (olitical T0eorist: S"as0ing t0e Neig0%orAs 1ace: Lacan.co": 0ttp6..<<<.lacan.co".;i;s"as0.0t"l -L8r&
4ne s0o&ld t0ere3ore ass&"e t0e ris= o3 co&ntering LevinasSs position <it0 a "ore radical one6 ot0ers are pri"ordially an 7et0ically8 indi33erent "&ltit&de: and love is a violent gest&re o3 c&tting into t0is "&ltit&de and privileging a 4ne as t0e neig0%or: t0&s introd&cing a radical i"%alance into t0e <0ole. )n contrast to love: @&stice %egins <0en ) re"e"%er t0e 3aceless "any le3t in s0ado< in t0is privileging o3 t0e 4ne . I&stice and love are t0&s str&ct&rally inco"pati%le6 @&stice: not love: 0as to %e %lind: it 0as to disregard t0e privileged 4ne <0o" ) really &nderstand.P C0at t0is "eans is t0at t0e T0ird is not secondary6 it is al<ays-already 0ere: and t0e pri"ordial

et0ical o%ligation is to<ards t0is T0ird <0o is N4T 0ere in t0e 3ace to 3ace relations0ip: t0e one in s0ado<: li=e t0e a%sent c0ild o3 a love-co&ple. T0is not si"ply t0e ?erridean-Eier=egaardian point t0at ) al<ays %etray t0e 4t0er %eca&se to&te a&tre est &n a&tre: %eca&se ) 0ave to "a=e a !/4)!- to S-L-!T <0o "y neig0%or is 3ro" t0e "ass o3 t0e T0irds : and t0is is t0e original sin-c0oice o3 love. T0e str&ct&re is si"ilar to t0e one descri%ed %y -"ile Fenveniste
apropos ver%s6 t0e pri"ordial co&ple is not active-passive: to <0ic0 t0e ne&tral 3or" is t0en added: %&t active and ne&tral 7along t0e axis o3 engageddisengaged8. T0e pri"ordial co&ple is Ne&tral and -vil 7t0e c0oice <0ic0 dist&r%s t0e ne&tral %alance8: or: gra""atically: i"personal 4t0er and "e Pyo&P is a secondary addition. 4 )n order to properly grasp t0e triangle o3 love: 0atred and indi33erence: one 0as to rely on t0e logic o3 t0e &niversal and its constit&tive exception <0ic0 only introd&ces existence. T0e tr&t0 o3 t0e &niversal proposition PMan is "ortalP does not i"ply t0e existence o3 even one "an: <0ile t0e Pless strongP proposition PT0ere is at least one "an <0o exists 7i.e.: so"e "en exist8P i"plies t0eir existence. Lacan dra<s 3ro" t0is t0e concl&sion t0at <e pass 3ro" &niversal proposition 7<0ic0 de3ines t0e content o3 a notion8 to existence only t0ro&g0 a proposition stating t0e existence o3 -

C0at t0is "eans <it0 regard to love is t0at t0e &niversal proposition P) love yo& allP acN&ires t0e level o3 act&al existence only i3 Pt0ere is at least one <0o" ) 0ateP - t0e t0esis a%&ndantly con3ir"ed %y t0e 3act t0at &niversal love 3or 0&"anity al<ays led to t0e %r&tal 0atred o3 t0e 7act&ally existing8 exception: o3 t0e ene"ies o3 0&"anity. T0is 0atred o3 t0e exception is t0e Ptr&t0P o3 &niversal love: in contrast to tr&e love <0ic0 can only e"erge aganst t0e %ac=gro&nd - N4T o3 &niversal 0atred: %&t - o3 &niversal indi33erence6 ) a" indi33erent to<ards 5ll: t0e totality o3 t0e &niverse: and as s&c0: ) act&ally love >42: t0e &niN&e
not t0e at least one ele"ent o3 t0e &niversal gen&s <0ic0 exists: %&t - at least one <0ic0 is an exception to t0e &niversality in N&estion .

individ&al <0o stands.stic=s o&t o3 t0is indi33erent %ac=gro&nd. Love and 0atred are t0&s not sy""etrical6 love e"erges o&t o3 t0e &niversal indi33erence: <0ile 0atred e"erges o&t o3 &niversal love. )n s0ort: <e are dealing 0ere again <it0 t0e 3or"&las o3 sex&ation6 P) do not love yo& allP is t0e only 3o&ndation o3 Pt0ere is no%ody t0at ) do not love:P <0ile P) love yo& allP necessarily relies on P) really 0ate so"e o3 yo&.P PF&t ) love yo& all:P de3ended 0i"sel3 -ric0 Miel=e: t0e Secret (olice %oss o3 t0e ??J - 0is &niversal love <as o%vio&sly gro&nded in its constit&tive exception: t0e 0atred o3 t0e ene"ies o3 socialis". T0is %rings &s to t0e radical anti-Levinasian concl&sion6 t0e tr&e et0ical step is t0e one

F->4N? t0e 3ace o3 t0e ot0er: t0e one o3 S2S(-N?)N9 t0e 0old o3 t0e 3ace6 t0e c0oice 595)NST t0e 3ace: 3or t0e T/)J?. T0is coldness )S @&stice at its "ost ele"entary. -very pree"pting o3 t0e 4t0er in t0e g&ise o3 0is 3ace relegates t0e T0ird to t0e 3aceless %ac=gro&nd . 5nd t0e ele"entary gest&re o3 @&stice is not to s0o< respect 3or t0e 3ace in 3ront o3 "e: to %e open 3or its dept0: %&t to a%stract 3ro" it and re3oc&s onto t0e 3aceless T0irds in t0e %ac=gro&nd. )t is only s&c0 a s0i3t o3 3oc&s onto t0e T0ird t0at e33ectively &proots @&stice: li%erating it 3ro" t0e contingent &"%ilical lin= t0at renders 0er We"%eddedX
in a partic&lar sit&ation.)n ot0er <ords: it is only s&c0 a s0i3t onto t0e T0ird t0at gro&nds @&stice in t0e di"ension o3 &niversality proper. C0en Levinas endeavors to gro&nd et0ics in t0e 4t0erSs 3ace: is 0e not still clinging to

t0e &lti"ate root o3 t0e et0ical co""it"ent: a3raid to accept t0e a%yss o3 t0e rootless La< as t0e only 3o&ndation o3 et0icsB I&stice as %lind t0&s "eans t0at: precisely: it cannot %e gro&nded in t0e relations0ip to t0e 4t0erSs 3ace: i.e.: in t0e relations0ip to t0e neig0%or6 @&stice is e"p0atically N4T

Last printed

1>

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

19 @&stice 3or - <it0 regard to - t0e neig0%or.

Last printed

19

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

21

3t: "eans Testing

Programs targeting poverty have a positive vie6 $ poor people are seen as har.56or9ing an. .iligent0 not the passive Ather your evi.en e assumes+
Mar@orie -. Kornhauser. (ro3essor o3 La<: Sandra ?ay 4S!onnor !ollege o3 La<: 5ri;ona State 2niversity.: 5rticle6 !ognitive T0eory and t0e ?elivery o3 Cel3are Fene3its: Loyola 2niversity !0icago Sc0ool o3 La<: Loyola 2niversity !0icago La< Io&rnal:

2119 , L8r&
!onventional <isdo" 0olds t0at t0e p&%lic s&pports general <el3are 7s&c0 as Social Sec&rity8 "ore t0an poor <el3are 7e.g.: 3ood sta"ps8. /o<ever: t0e expansion o3 progra"s targeting t0e poor - <0et0er indirect
7-)T!8 or direct 7Medicaid8 - s&ggests %roader s&pport 3or poor <el3are t0an co""only %elieved. n2# 5 partial explanation 3or t0is strong s&pport "ay %e t0at t0ese progra"s involve positive <orldvie<s and nor"s. T0e -arned )nco"e Tax !reditSs goal: 3or exa"ple: is to 0elp only t0e PdeservingP poor <0o are trying to %e sel3 s&33icient and only need te"porary assistance &ntil t0ey are. )ndeed: one o3 t0e attractions o3 t0e -)T! is t0at people vie< it as an e33ective "eans o3 rising o&t o3 poverty and dependency to sel3-s&33iciency. Medicaid also involves t0e GT2 4H deserving poor: <0o "erit 0elp %eca&se o3 illness: not slot0. )"proving t0eir 0&"an capital 70ealt08 "ay 0elp so"e %ene3iciaries ac0ieve sel3-s&33iciency: %&t "any <ill never %e a%le to <or=.

Last printed

21

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

21

3t: "eans Testing

Stru tural /arriers to means5teste. programs pre lu.e solven yG only a universal a tion solves+ Mhan Toung.ahl sherra.en 211* Min Mhan: (0?: is assistant pro3essor: Sc0ool o3 Social Cor=: 2niversity o3 )llinois at 2r%ana-!0a"paign: . Mic0ael Sherra.en: (0?: is Fen@a"in -. Toung.ahl (ro3essor o3 Socia ?evelop"ent: and director. !enter 3or Social ?evelop"ent: and Mar=
Sc0reiner: (0?: is senior sc0olar: 9eorge Carren Fro<n Sc0ool o3 Social Cor=: Cas0ington 2niversity: St. Lo&is. Social Cor= Jesearc0: $ol 2': N&"%er 3: Septe"%er 211*. Cel3are Jecipiency and savings o&tco"es in individ&al develop"ent acco&nts. (. -FS!4 , L8r& Cel3are recipients acc&"&late little <ealt0. G1or exa"ple: in 1**4 "ore t0an *+L o3 <el3are recipients reported less t0an O5++ o3 acc&"&lated 3inancial liN&id assets 7/&rst Y Kilia=: 2++18. Cel3are recipients "ay 0ave little <ealt0 %eca&se o3 li"ited a%ility to acc&"&late assets and str&ct&ral %arriers to <ealt0 acc&"&lation. 4ne str&ct&ral %arrier "ay %e t0eir response to disincentives created %y "eans-tested trans3er progra"s s&c0 as 5id to 1a"ilies <it0 ?ependent !0ildren 751?!8.Te"porary 5ssistance 3or Needy 1a"ilies 7T5N18: S&pple"ental Sec&rity )nco"e 7SS)8: Medicaid: and 3ood sta"ps. To N&ali3y 3or %ene3its: a 0o&se0oldSs inco"e and assets "&st %e s&33iciently lo<. 1or exa"ple: %ene3its are c&t o33 in so"e states i3 liN&id assets in t0e 3or" o3 cas0 and deposits in %an= acco&nts exceed O1:+++. 2nder t0ese conditions: asset li"its "ay li"it savings. 5lso: "any nonpoor 0o&se0olds 0ave incentives 3or asset acc&"&lation in t0e 3or" o3 0o"e "ortgage interest tax ded&ctions: tax de3er"ents on retire"ent savings: and ot0er tax %ene3its 7/o<ard: 1**#V Seid"an: 2++18: %&t 3e< lo<-inco"e 0o&se0olds %ene3it 3ro" t0ese asset-%&ilding policies

Last printed

21

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

22

3t: "eans Testing The academia of the neg eclipses the reality of the situation people in poverty NEED these social services to gain equality in society. M)J5N?5 (-JJ> )L4%S(=4J: 5ssociate (ro3essor and Jic0ard C. and Marie L. !or"an
Sc0olar: 2niversity o3 )llinois !ollege o3 La<: 5JT)!L-6 !0arita%le !ontri%&tions in an )deal -state Tax : Ne< >or= 2niversity Sc0ool o3 La<: Tax La< Jevie<: S&""er 211B: p. Lexis , L8r& !0arities Targeting t0e (oor and ?isadvantaged !0arita%le %eN&ests to organi;ations t0at target t0eir c0arita%le
activities to t0e poor and disadvantaged <o&ld %e 3&lly ded&cti%le in an estate tax designed to 3&rt0er eN&al opport&nity: 3or t0ey clearly 0elp t0e non<ealt0y develop t0eir talents 7and do not contri%&te to a 0ead start 3or t0e

non<ealt0y8. -xa"ples o3 s&c0 easy cases <o&ld incl&de gro&ps s&c0 as t0e Salvation 5r"y: so&p =itc0ens: t&toring progra"s in inner-cities and r&ral areas: ?ress 3or S&ccess: lo<-inco"e 0ealt0 clinics: and t0e li=e. S&c0 gro&ps 0elp t0e poorest "e"%ers o3 o&r society develop so"e o3 t0e %asic s=ills necessary to participate in o&r society. 5lt0o&g0 even "iddle-class people "ay ta=e s&c0 s=ills 3or granted: econo"ic circ&"stances "ay =eep t0e very poorest 3ro" developing t0e" <it0o&t assistance 3ro" ot0ers. 5 poor c0ild cannot learn to read i3 0e or s0e is too 0&ngry to eat V poor ad&lts "ay 0ave a 0ard
ti"e 3inding a @o% to s&pport t0e"selves <it0o&t an intervie< s&it 3ro" ?ress 3or S&ccess: and so on.

Last printed

22

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

23

3t: "eans Testing

Targeting -ails $ it is less e--i ient than universal programs an. reates a stigma aroun. people in poverty+ Kornhauser0 Pro-essor o- La6 2119
Mar@orie -. Kornhauser. (ro3essor o3 La<: Sandra ?ay 4S!onnor !ollege o3 La<: 5ri;ona State 2niversity.: 5rticle6 !ognitive T0eory and t0e ?elivery o3 Cel3are Fene3its: Loyola 2niversity !0icago Sc0ool o3 La<: Loyola 2niversity !0icago La< Io&rnal:

2119, L8r&
5 "ore 3&nda"ental N&estion is <0et0er progra"s t0at target t0e poor 7<0et0er directly or t0ro&g0 tax expendit&res8 are t0e "ost e33ective "eans o3 3ig0ting poverty. So"e t0eoretical and e"pirical literat&re s&ggests t0at t0is is not t0e case. n#5 Targeting t0e poor 0as GT2#*H several 3la<s 3ro" an e33iciency standpoint: incl&ding leaving "ore poverty t0an &niversal progra"s. n# 5s noted in t0e disc&ssion o3 t0e -)T! : targeting can ca&se econo"ic disincentives to <or= as t0e aid p0ases o&t <0en inco"e rises. Targeting also involves ad"inistrative costs %eca&se r&les "&st %e devised to prevent t0e non-poor 3ro" receiving t0e aid: eit0er &nintentionally or intentionally on acco&nt o3 3ra&d. Targeting entails costs to t0e participants as <ell. T0ere are 0idden costs in ter"s o3 social stig"a: %&t t0ere are also real costs. T0e co"plexity o3 targeting "eans t0at "any individ&als need 0elp in o%taining %ene3its . )n t0e case o3 t0e
-)T!: participants 3reN&ently reN&ire 0elp 3iling 3or"s: and t0is 0elp o3ten costs "oney: <0ic0 decreases t0e net a"o&nt o3 t0e %ene3it 0e or s0e act&ally receives. Moreover: so"e individ&als are g&lled %y "erc0ants <0o sell t0e" goods %ased on t0e expectation o3 an -)T! re3&nd. T0e "erc0ant 3ills o&t t0e 3or": applying 3or an in3lated a"o&nt <0ic0 t0e cons&"er never receives. Nevert0eless: t0e cons&"er re"ains lia%le 3or t0e 3&ll 7in3lated8 price o3 t0e "erc0antSs prod&ct: s&c0 as 3&rnit&re. T0e reN&ire"ent t0at t0e recipient <or= also i"poses costs on t0e recipient t0at red&ce t0e overall %ene3its 7increased costs o3 transportation: clot0ing: c0ild care: etc.8. n## !0ildren "ay also s&33er to t0e extent t0at t0eir psyc0ological: social: and ed&cational develop"ent "ay %e i"peded %y poor N&ality c0ild care and t0e lac= o3 a parent at 0o"e. Society "ay also inc&r a loss %eca&se pro%le"s 3or t0e c0ild "ay spill over and a33ect t0e <ider co""&nity.

Last printed

23

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

2*

3t: "eans Testing

People in the mi..le5 lass ma9e up most poor people in the -uture $ only the (P solves poverty in its entirety+
Iens

Lu.6ig

is pro3essor o3 p&%lic policy at 9eorgeto<n 2niversity and a 3ac&lty researc0 3ello< at t0e National F&rea& o3

3n. S&san "ayer is pro3essor o3 p&%lic policy and dean o3 t0e )rving F. /arris Sc0ool o3 9rad&ate (&%lic (olicy St&dies at t0e 2niversity o3 !0icago. T0e 1&t&re o3 !0ildren 1 .2 721128 1#5-1* , L8r&
-cono"ic Jesearc0.

5 pri"ary goal o3 conte"porary 2.S. social policy is to re3or" t0e Pc&lt&reP o3 poor parents to "a=e it less li=ely t0at t0eir c0ildren <ill gro< &p to %e poor . Feca&se t0e indicators o3 c&lt&re t0at policy"a=ers &s&ally
e"p0asi;e are "arriage: <or=: and religion: in t0is paper <e assess 0o< "&c0 poverty rates in t0e c0ildrenSs generation <o&ld 3all i3 all c0ildren 0ad "arried: <or=ing: and religio&s parents. Jesearc0 in t0is area is less in3or"ative t0an one "ig0t expect. Little e"pirical researc0 esti"ates t0e relations0ip %et<een parentsS "arriage: <or=: and

religion and c0ildrenSs event&al inco"e as ad&lts: and in o&r vie< "&c0 o3 t0at researc0 is serio&sly 3la<ed. 4&r o<n esti"ates s0o< t0at c0anging t0ese t0ree aspects o3 3a"ily c&lt&re <ill red&ce poverty in t0e c0ildrenSs generation "&c0 less t0an "any policy"a=ers: policy analysts: and voters see" to %elieve. T0e p&%licSs concern a%o&t intergenerational econo"ic "o%ility appears to spring 3ro" a desire to see
t0at c0ildren are not conde"ned to a li3eti"e o3 poverty @&st %eca&se t0ey <ere %orn to poor parents. Many p&%lic disc&ssions ass&"e 7as t0e N&ote a%ove s&ggests8 t0at red&cing poverty a"ong 3&t&re generations and red&cing

t0e intergenerational trans"ission o3 poverty are eN&ivalent goals. T0ey are not. T0e poverty rate in t0e c0ildrenSs generation depends not only on 0o< "any poor c0ildren gro< &p to %e poor ad&lts: %&t also on 0o< "any nonpoor c0ildren gro< &p to %e poor ad&lts. Jed&cing t0e c0ances t0at poor c0ildren %eco"e poor ad&lts <ill dra"atically lo<er 3&t&re poverty rates only i3 "ost poor ad&lts %egin li3e as poor c0ildren. -ven i3 parental <or=: "arriage: and religion i"prove c0ildrenSs econo"ic 3&t&re as ad&lts: getting all parents to <or=: "arry: and attend religio&s services <o&ld not ca&se poverty to pl&nge in t0e next generation %eca&se "ost poor ad&lts do not gro< &p in 3a"ilies 0eaded %y parents <0o are &n"arried: do not <or=: and do not attend religio&s services . -pide"iologists o3ten enco&nter a si"ilar pro%le" in 3ig0ting
disease. 1 5s 9eo33rey Jose p&ts it: Pa large n&"%er o3 people at a s"all ris= "ay give rise to "ore cases o3 disease t0an t0e s"all n&"%er <0o are at 0ig0 ris=:P <0ic0 li"its <0at "ig0t %e acco"plis0ed %y 3oc&sing on 0ig0-ris= cases. 2 (&%lic

policies t0at see= to end to"orro<Ss poverty %y c0anging todaySs parental c&lt&re enco&nter a si"ilar pro%le". Ce call t0is t0e poverty-prevention paradox.

Last printed

2*

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

2:

)rontline ?1K*,
Their !a/solute responsi/ility# is an ethi al -alla y it alls -or the vi tim to re ipro ate the vie6s o- the oppresse. $ Turns ase

;al9in0 Knight Pro-essor o- (onstitutional La6 an. the 1st amen.ment at Dale La60 199*
Iac= M. Fal=in: Enig0t (ro3essor o3 !onstit&tional La< and t0e 1irst 5"end"ent at >ale La<: Transcendental ?econstr&ction: Transcendent I&stice-- (art )): *2 Mic0. L. Jev. 1131: 1**4: 0ttp6..<<<.yale.ed&.la<<e%.@%al=in.articles.trans+2.0t"-L8r&

?erridaSs et0ics o3 4t0erness 0as a second co"ponent6 )t e"ploys a di33erent sense o3 individ&ality and &niN&eness. 2nder t0is vie<: @&stice reN&ires one to spea= in t0e lang&age o3 t0e 4t0er %y trying to see t0ings 3ro" t0e 4t0erSs point o3 vie<. 7#'8 T0is conception o3 @&stice see"s "ost attractive <0en <e are t0e in@&rer or t0e stronger
party in a relations0ip: or <0en <e are in t0e position o3 a @&dge <0o is atte"pting to ar%itrate %et<een co"peting clai"s. 1or exa"ple: s&ppose t0at <e are t0e State: t0e stronger party: t0e oppressor: or t0e in@&rer: or s&ppose t0at <e are conte"plating an action t0at "ig0t p&t &s in s&c0 a position. )t see"s only @&st t0at <e s0o&ld try to &nderstand 0o< <e 0ave in@&red or oppressed t0e 4t0er 7or "ig0t %e in a position to in@&re or oppress8. Ce can only do

t0is i3 <e try to see t0e pro%le" 3ro" t0e 4t0erSs perspective and &nderstand 0er pain and 0er predica"ent in all o3 its &niN&eness. T0e d&ty <e o<e to t0e 4t0er is t0e d&ty to see 0o< o&r actions "ay a33ect or 0ave a33ected t0e 4t0er V to 3&l3ill t0is d&ty <e "&st p&t a<ay o&r o<n preconceptions and voca%&lary and try to see t0ings 3ro" 0er point o3 vie<. Si"ilarly: i3 <e are a @&dge in a case atte"pting to ar%itrate %et<een t0e parties: t0e et0ics o3 4t0erness de"ands t0at <e try to &nderstand 0o< o&r decision <ill a33ect t0e t<o parties: and t0is <ill reN&ire &s to see t0e "atter 3ro" t0eir perspective . S&ppose: 0o<ever: t0at <e are not t0e in@&rer: %&t t0e victi"V not t0e State: %&t t0e individ&alV not t0e strong: %&t t0e <ea=V not t0e oppressor: %&t t0e oppressed. ?oes @&stice reN&ire t0at <e spea= in t0e lang&age o3 t0e person <e %elieve is in@&ring or oppressing &sB M&st a rape victi" atte"pt to &nderstand 0er violation 3ro" t0e rapistSs point o3 vie< B ?oes @&stice de"and t0at s0e atte"pt to spea= to t0e rapist in 0is o<n lang&age - one <0ic0 0as treated 0er as less t0an
0&"anB M&st a concentration ca"p s&rvivor address 0er 3or"er captor in t0e lang&age o3 0is <orldvie< o3 5ryan s&pre"acyB Ce "ig0t <onder <0et0er t0is is <0at @&stice really reN&ires: especially i3 t0e in@&stice <e co"plain o3 is

precisely t0at t0e 4t0er 3ailed to recogni;e &s as a person: re3&sed to spea= in o&r lang&age: and declined to consider o&r &niN&eness and a&t0enticity.

Last printed

2:

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

22

)rontline ?2K*,
Levinas7s !other an. oppressor# .i hotomy is a sna9e eating its o6n tail only repli ating the harms0 the vi tim /e omes the violator $ Turns Solven y =Ngglun. "artin0 PhD an.i.ate in (omparative Literature at (ornell 'niversity0 2112
/Zggl&nd Martin: (0? candidate in !o"parative Literat&re at !ornell 2niversity: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: 2++ 7(ro@ect M&se8 -L8r&

5s a res&lt: LevinasSs in@&nction o3 &nconditional s&%"ission %e3ore t0e ot0er cannot %e s&stained. 5lt0o&g0 Levinas clai"s to proceed 3ro" t0e 3ace-to-3ace relation : 0e evidently post&lates t0at t0e s&%@ect in t0e et0ical enco&nter eit0er ga;es &p<ard 7to<ard t0e 4t0er as t0e /ig08 or do<n<ard 7to<ard t0e 4t0er as so"eone <0o is 0elplessly in need: %earing P t0e 3ace o3 t0e poor: t0e stranger: t0e <ido< and t0e orp0anP as a re3rain declares in Totality and )n3inity8. F&t regarding all t0e sit&ations <0ere yo& are con3ronted <it0 an ot0er <0o assa&lts yo&: t&rns do<n t0e o33ered 0ospitality: and in t&rn denies yo& 0elp <0en yo& need it: Levinas 0as not0ing to say. )3 t0e ot0er <0o" ) enco&nter <ants to =ill "e: s0o&ld ) t0en s&%"it "ysel3 to 0is or 0er co""andB 5nd i3 so"eone disagrees <it0 "e: s0o&ld ) t0en a&to"atically accept t0is criticis" as a la< t0at is not to %e N&estioned or co&nterattac=edB Q&estions li=e t0ese "a=e it clear t0at Levinas does not at all 3o&nd 0is et0ics on an inters&%@ective enco&nter. Jat0er: 0e pres&pposes t0at t0e et0ical enco&nter ex0i%its a 3&nda"ental asy""etry: <0ere t0e ot0er is an a%sol&te 4t0er <0o reveals t0e transcendence G-nd (age 52Ho3 t0e 9ood. 5ccordingly: Levinas conde"ns every 3or" o3 sel3-love as a corr&ption o3 t0e et0ical relation: and prescri%es t0at t0e s&%@ect s0o&ld devote itsel3 entirely to t0e ot0er . To %e et0ical is 3or Levinas
to %e p&rely disinterested: to ta=e responsi%ility 3or t0e ot0er <it0o&t see=ing any recognition on oneSs o<n %e0al3.1* )t s&33ices: 0o<ever: to place yo&rsel3 3ace-to-3ace <it0 so"eone else to reali;e t0at t0e asy""etry ass&"ed %y Levinas is sel3-re3&ting. )3 yo& and ) are standing in 3ront o3 eac0 ot0er: <0o is t0e ot0erB T0e ans<er can only %e do&%ly a33ir"ative since Pt0e ot0erP is an interc0angea%le ter" t0at s0i3ts re3erent depending on <0o prono&nces t0e <ords. ) a" an ot0er 3or t0e ot0er and vice versa: as ?errida rein3orces in P$iolence and Metap0ysics.P ?erridaSs arg&"ent not only contradicts LevinasSs idea o3 t0e a%sol&tely 4t0er: %&t also &nderc&ts 0is r0etoric. T0at Pt0e ot0erP is a reversi%le ter" "eans t0at all o3 LevinasSs et0ical declarations can %e read against t0e"selves. To say t0at t0e ) s0o&ld s&%@ect itsel3 to t0e ot0er is

at t0e sa"e ti"e to say t0at t0e ot0er s0o&ld s&%@ect itsel3 to t0e ): since ) a" a yo& and yo& are an ) <0en <e are ot0ers 3or eac0 ot0er. To conde"n t0e sel3-love o3 t0e ) is %y t0e sa"e to=en to conde"n t0e sel3-love o3 t0e ot0er. )ndeed: <0oever advocates a Levinasian et0ics <ill %e con3ronted <it0 a "erciless irony as soon as 0e or s0e co"es &p to so"eone else and 3ace-to-3ace declares: P>o& s0o&ld s&%@ect yo&rsel3 to t0e 4t0er:P <0ic0 t0en literally "eans: P>o& s0o&ld s&%@ect yo&rsel3 to Me: yo& s0o&ld o%ey My la<.P

Last printed

22

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

2B

)rontline ?3K*,
The 3-- is in apa/le o- !not /eing al ulative# an. re-usal to /e a 9no6le.ge the out omes o- their .e isions reates the 6orst -orms o- violen e $ al ulations goo. (amp/ell0 Pro-essor o- %nternational Politi s at the 'niversity o- Ne6 astle0 1999
7?avid: T0e ?eterritoriali;ation o3 Jesponsi%ility: Moral Spaces: -ds. Mic0ael I. S0apiro Y ?avid !a"p%ell: p. 45-#8 -L8r& T0at &ndecida%ility resides <it0in t0e decision: ?errida arg&es: Pt0at @&stice exceeds la< and calc&lation: t0at t0e &npresenta%le exceeds t0e deter"ina%le cannot and s0o&ld not serve as ali%i 3or staying o&t o3 @&ridico-political %attles: <it0in an instit&tion or a state: or %et<een instit&tions or states and ot0ers.P*1 )ndeed: P incalc&la%le @&stice reN&ires &s to calc&late.P 1ro" <0ere does t0is insistence co"eB C0at is %e0ind: <0at is ani"ating: t0ese i"perativesB ) t is

%ot0 t0e c0aracter o3 in3inite @&stice as a 0eterono"ic relations0ip to t0e ot0er: a relations0ip t0at %eca&se o3 its &ndecida%ility "&ltiplies responsi%ility : and t0e 3act t0at Ple3t to itsel3: t0e incalc&la%le and giving 7donatrice8 idea o3 @&stice is al<ays very close to t0e %ad: even to t0e <orst: 3or it can al<ays %e reap-propriated %y t0e "ost perverse calc&lation.P*2 T0e necessity o3 calc&lating t0e incalc&la%le t0&s
responds to a d&ty: a d&ty t0at in0a%its t0e instant o3 "adness and co"pels t0e decision to avoid Pt0e %ad:P t0e Pperverse calc&lation:P even Pt0e <orst.P T0is is t0e d&ty t0at also d<ells <it0 deconstr&ction and "a=es it t0e starting point: t0e Pat least necessary condition:P 3or t0e organi;ation o3 resistance to totalitarianis" in all its 3or"s. 5nd it is a d&ty t0at responds to practical political concerns <0en <e recogni;e t0at ?errida na"es t0e %ad: t0e perverse: and t0e <orst as t0ose violences P<e recogni;e all too <ell <it0o&t yet 0aving t0o&g0t t0e" t0ro&g0: t0e cri"es o3 xenop0o%ia: racis": antiSe"itis": religio&s or nationalist 3anaticis".P*31&rt0er"ore: t0e d&ty <it0in t0e decision: t0e o%ligation t0at

recogni;es t0e necessity o3 negotiating t0e possi%ilities provided %y t0e i"possi%ilities o3 @&stice: is not content <it0 si"ply avoiding: containing: co"%ating: or negating t0e <orst violence [ t0o&g0 it co&ld certainly %egin <it0 t0ose strategies. )nstead: t0is responsi%ility: <0ic0 is t0e responsi%ility o3 responsi%ility: co""issions a P&topianP strategy. Not a strategy t0at is %eyond all %o&nds o3 possi%ility so as to %e considered P&nrealistic:P %&t one <0ic0 in respecting t0e necessity o3 calc&lation: ta=es t0e possi%ility s&""oned %y t0e calc&lation as 3ar as possi%le: P"&st ta=e it as 3ar as possi%le: %eyond t0e place <e 3ind o&rselves and %eyond t0e already identi3ia%le ;ones o3 "orality or politics or la<: %eyond t0e distinction %et<een national and international: p&%lic and private : and so on.P*4 5s ?errida declares: PT0e
condition o3 possi%ility o3 t0is t0ing called responsi%ility is a certain experience and experi"ent o3 t0e possi%ility o3 t0e i"possi%le6 t0e testing o3 t0e aporia 3ro" <0ic0 one "ay invent t0e only possi%le invention: t0e i"possi%le invention.PS1SS T0is leads ?errida to en&nciate a proposition t0at "any: not t0e least o3 <0o" are 0is /a%er"asian critics: co&ld 0ardly 0ave expected6 PNot0ing see"s to "e less o&tdated t0an t0e classical e"ancipatory ideal. Ce cannot atte"pt to disN&ali3y it today: <0et0er cr&dely or <it0 sop0istication: at least not <it0o&t treating it too lig0tly and 3or"ing t0e <orst co"plicities.P* \

Last printed

2B

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

2>

)rontline ?*K*,
Their /ullshit laims the -uture ant /e pre.i te. .oesn7t mean 6e shoul.n7t try0 Turn even i- they 6in 6e ant reate a urate ausalities then 6e shoul. /e -ully a6are o- the potential onseFuen es $ Pre.i tions goo. Kurasa6a0 3ssistant Pro-essor o- So iology0 211*
E&rasa<a: 5ssistant (ro3essor o3 Sociology at >or= 2niversity: Toronto: and a 1ac&lty 5ssociate o3 t0e !enter 3or !&lt&ral Sociology at >ale: 2++4 71&y&=i: !a&tionary Tales: !onstellations $ol&"e 4 No. 11: ?ece"%er8 -L8r&

C0en engaging in t0e la%or o3 preventive 3oresig0t: t0e 3irst o%stacle t0at one is li=ely to enco&nter 3ro" so"e intellect&al circles is a deep-seated s=epticis" a%o&t t0e very val&e o3 t0e exercise. 5 radically post"odern line o3 t0in=ing: 3or instance: <o&ld lead &s to %elieve t0at it is pointless : per0aps even
0ar"3&l: to strive 3or 3arsig0tedness in lig0t o3 t0e a3ore"entioned crisis o3 conventional paradig"s o3 0istorical analysis. )3: contra teleological "odels: 0istory 0as no intrinsic "eaning: direction: or endpoint to %e discovered t0ro&g0 0&"an reason: and i3: contra scientistic 3&t&ris": prospective trends cannot %e predicted <it0o&t error: t0en t0e a%yss o3 c0ronological inscr&ta%ility s&pposedly opens &p at o&r 3eet. T0e 3&t&re appears to %e &n=no<a%le: an o&tco"e o3 c0ance. T0ere3ore: rat0er t0an e"%ar=ing &pon grandiose spec&lation a%o&t <0at "ay occ&r: <e s0o&ld adopt a prag"atis" t0at a%andons itsel3 to t0e t<ists and t&rns o3 0istoryV let &s %e content to 3or"&late ad 0oc responses to e"ergencies as t0ey arise. C0ile t0is arg&"ent 0as t0e "erit o3 &nderscoring t0e 3alli%ilistic nat&re o3 all predictive sc0e"es: it con3lates t0e necessary recognition o3 t0e contingency o3 0istory <it0 &n<arranted assertions a%o&t t0e latterAs total opacity and indeter"inacy. 5c=no<ledging t0e 3act t0at t0e 3&t&re cannot %e =no<n <it0 a%sol&te certainty

does not i"ply a%andoning t0e tas= o3 trying to &nderstand <0at is %re<ing on t0e 0ori;on and to prepare 3or crises already co"ing into t0eir o<n. )n 3act: t0e incorporation o3 t0e principle o3 3alli%ility into t0e <or= o3 prevention "eans t0at <e "&st %e ever "ore vigilant 3or <arning signs o3 disaster and 3or responses t0at provo=e &nintended or &nexpected conseN&ences 7a point to <0ic0 ) <ill ret&rn in t0e 3inal
section o3 t0is paper8. )n addition: 3ro" a nor"ative point o3 vie<: t0e acceptance o3 0istorical contingency and o3 t0e sel3li"iting c0aracter o3 3arsig0tedness places t0e d&ty o3 preventing catastrop0e sN&arely on t0e s0o&lders o3 present generations. T0e 3&t&re no longer appears to %e a "etap0ysical creat&re o3 destiny or o3 t0e c&nning o3

reason: nor can it %e slo&g0ed o33 to p&re rando"ness. )t %eco"es: instead: a res&lt o3 0&"an action s0aped %y decisions in t0e present , incl&ding: o3 co&rse: trying to anticipate and prepare 3or possi%le and avoida%le so&rces o3 0ar" to o&r s&ccessors.

Last printed

2>

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

29

(ase $ Geno i.e 5 4xt

(oming -a e to -a e 6ith the other ma9es us re ogni<e the horror o- geno i.e /ut hoo.inos us into ommitting sai. horror in the name o- prevention "eister0 pro- pltx university o- (ali-ornia0 1:
Meister A+5 7Jo%ert: (ro3essor o3 (olitics at t0e 2niversity o3 !ali3ornia , Santa !r&;: ANever 5gainA6 T0e et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or and t0e logic o3 genocide: (ost"odern !&lt&re: 0ttp6.."&se.@0&.ed&.@o&rnals.post"odernUc&lt&re.v+15.15.2"eister.0t"l -L8r& To prevent t0e repetition o3 5&sc0<it;: according to L]vinas: <e "&st 3ace &p to t0e "ec0anis"s t0at Elein <o&ld call pro@ective identi3ication6 P) a" G&nconscio&sly: Elein <o&ld sayH responsi%le 3or t0e persec&tions ) &ndergo . . . since ) a" responsi%le 3or t0e responsi%ility o3 t0e ot0erP 7L]vinas: PJesponsi%ilityP **8. 5lt0o&g0 t0is et0ical clai" can %e 3o&nd t0ro&g0o&t 0is <or=: L]vinas

event&ally gro&nds it on t0e o%servation t0at a desire to co""it "&rder or genocide is intelligi%le only %eca&se <e see o&rselves eit0er as its s&%@ect or as its o%@ect. T0e i"agina%le reversi%ility o3 s&%@ect and o%@ect 7active or passive8 0as an et0ical signi3icance t0at L]vinas co"es to call Ps&%stit&tion.P PT0e ego:P 0e says: Pis a s&%stit&tionP 7PS&%stit&tionP 12#8. Fy t0is 0e "eans t0at Ps&%@ectivity no longer %elongs to t0e order <0ere t0e alternative o3 passivity and activity retains its "eaningPV it 3ollo<s t0at Pt0e sel3: a 0ostage: is already s&%stit&ted 3or t0e ot0ersP 711'8. 4n t0is vie<: every evil t0at <e are capa%le o3 3earing--and no< <e "&st incl&de even radical evil--is also so"et0ing 3or <0ic0 <e are capa%le o3 <is0ing. Ce "&st gro&nd et0ics not in a33inity or reciprocity: %&t in o&r prior responsi%ility to<ard t0ose to <0o" <e <ill relate only as neig0%ors--and <0o" <e "&st treat as t0o&g0 o&r 3eelings to<ard t0e" <ere "erely pro@ective. )n a L]vinasian et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or: "y responsi%ility not to =ill is %ased on proxi"ity alone. )t can t0&s %e arg&ed t0at t0e et0ics o3 0&"an rig0ts Pa3ter 5&sc0<it;P pres&pposes t0e si"&ltaneo&s existence and repression o3 genocidal t0o&g0ts. T0is =ind o3 arg&"ent is not0ing ne<. 1re&d 0i"sel3
gro&nds "ass 7or gro&p8 psyc0ology %ot0 on t0e <is0 to =ill t0e 3at0er and on t0e repression o3 t0e "e"ory o3 0aving already done so in oneSs "ind 7t0at is: in &nconscio&s 3antasy8. /e arg&es t0at t0e 3o&ndation o3 t0e gro&p is a "e"ory t0at lies o&tside t0e real" o3 per"issi%le t0o&g0ts in t0e 3or" o3 a ta%oo.1# S&%seN&ent 1re&dian interpretations o3 t0e social contract 0ave evo=ed real and 3antas"atic scenarios o3 regicide and 3ratricide 7Fro<n 3-318. T0e N&estion is <0et0er t0e i"agery o3 5&sc0<it;--<0ic0 is also and ind&%ita%ly so"et0ing real--no< also 3&nctions on a 3antas"atic level <it0in t0e glo%al r0etoric o3 0&"an rig0ts in t0e <ay t0at t0e i"agery o3 regicide 3&nctioned in disco&rses on t0e Jig0ts o3 Man t0at 3ollo<ed t0e 1renc0 Jevol&tion 7see Cal;er and /&nt8. My general clai" a%o&t t0e 3&nction o3 genocide in t0e glo%al et0ic o3 t0e neig0%or is t0at it 3&nctions li=e 1re&dSs arg&"ent a%o&t t0e role o3 parricide in t0e et0ics o3 t0e 3a"ily. )n t0e ne< glo%al et0ics o3 Pnever again:P 0o<ever: t0e collectivity is not seen as a type o3 3a"ily: %&t as a type o3 neig0%or0ood in <0ic0 spatial rat0er t0an generational relations predo"inate. Li=e all 3o&ndational acts:

genocide is constit&tively o&tside t0e sovereign po<er t0at 73ro" ti"e to ti"e8 calls a gro&p: even a P<orld co""&nity:P into %eing. T0e g]nocidaire is t0e N&intessential cri"inal against 0&"anity as s&c0: t0e in0&"an "onster to <0o" Pterrorists:P 3or exa"ple: "&st no< %e co"paredV genocide 0as %eco"e t0e "orally inco"para%le act t0at is constantly s&%@ect to repetition. )n 3in-de-si^cle 0&"an rig0ts disco&rse: genocide %eco"es t0e <is0 t0at an i"aginary sovereign po<er "a=es ta%oo--&nt0in=a%le %eca&se it is repressed: and 3or t0at very reason at t0e root o3 all o&r conscio&s 3ears

Last printed

29

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

31

(ase $ Su--ering o- the other 5 4xt

%n attempt to alleviate the su--erings o- the Ather0 the a--irmative -ails to a..ress the nee.s o- the other Ather+ This Eusti-ies violen e in their -rame6or9 o- ethi s Gilli 90 ph. la6yer0 12
9illic= A+ 7Mic0ael /: I? (0? La<yer: Ce 0old t0ese tr&t0s6 t0e re%irt0 o3 t0e 5"erican ideal a3ter Levinas: !entennial !on3erence on Levinas and La<: *.1#: 0ttp6..ccll."cgill.ca.presentations.gillic=.0t"l-L8r&

actions o3 a govern"ent: i3 tr&ly gro&nded in t0e inaliena%le rig0ts o3 all 4t0ers: <ill necessarily %e a calc&l&s: "&c0 li=e t0e &tilitarian calc&l&s: and <ill necessarily involve a 3ail&re to 0onor so"e o3 t0ose inaliena%le rig0ts. To &se ter"inology t0at ) very "&c0 disli=e %eca&se o3 t0e religio&s
T0e point 0ere is t0at t0e connotations <it0 <0ic0 it 0as %een %&rdened: no one is innocent. )3 t0e 3ail&re to satis3y all de"ands can %e called g&ilt: t0en <e are all constantly and &navoida%ly g&ilty. )n a <orld <0ere t0ere is a scarcity o3 goods: t0e govern"ent "&st adopt policies regarding t0e distri%&tion o3 t0ose goods: and every s&c0 policy <ill necessarily involve a 3ail&re to satis3y everyoneAs need 3or s&c0 goods. )3 it is t0e 3&nction o3 govern"ent to provide protection against 0ar" 3ro"

nat&re or 3ro" aggressors: t0e providing o3 t0at protection <ill necessarily involve t0e denial o3 %asic 0&"an rig0ts to so"e. Jestraint: detention: even in@&ry: even =illing: "ay %e necessary in t0e calc&l&s o3 0&"an rig0ts 3or all.

Last printed

31

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

31

(ase 5 )a ing the other 5 4xt

Chen the a-- laims to -orm an ethi al relationship 6ith the other it hen e on.emns that 6hi h is not the other !The other other# 6hi h reveals itsel- in the em/o.iment o- geno i.e against that 6hi h is not !the other# "eister0 pro- pltx university o- (ali-ornia0 1:
Meister A+5 7Jo%ert: (ro3essor o3 (olitics at t0e 2niversity o3 !ali3ornia , Santa !r&;: ANever 5gainA6 T0e et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or and t0e logic o3 genocide: (ost"odern !&lt&re: 0ttp6.."&se.@0&.ed&.@o&rnals.post"odernUc&lt&re.v+15.15.2"eister -L8r&

T0e pres&"ed &nt0in=a%ility o3 genocide--t0e repression: not t0e a%sence: o3 t0e <is0--is t0&s %ot0 t0e 3o&nding pre"ise o3 t0e 3in-de-si^cle /&"an Jig0ts ?isco&rse and t0e stated goal o3 "ost 0&"an rig0ts advocacy.1' T0e recollection o3 genocidal experiences 3ro" t0e victi"sS standpoint: 0o<ever: is t0e overt s&%@ect "atter o3 "any 0istories and o3 "&c0 science 3iction.1* 4n its s&r3ace: t0is literat&re clai"s to <arn &s o3 t0e dangers o3 genocide so t0at <e <ill 3ear and avoid t0e" at all costs .2+ 5t a deeper level: 0o<ever: t0e 3ear o3 genocidal victi"0ood and o&r en0anced i"agination o3 it are also tro&%ling. C0at does it really "ean: a3ter all: to i"agine genocide: to 3ear it: and to avoid it at all costsB )s it not &lti"ately t0is political "indset t0at 0as "ade Pt0in=a%leP in t0e t<entiet0 cent&ry t0e genocides o3 <0ic0 so"e ot0er<ise civili;ed nations 0ave %eco"e capa%leB 1or t0e": t0e t0in=a%ility o3 et0nic cleansings and exter"ination 0as %een a de3ense 7%y pro@ection8 against t0eir 0eig0tened a%ility to i"agine t0e"selves as t0e o%@ects o3 genocidal intent.21 5s t0e <orld e"%ar=s on t0e t<enty-3irst cent&ry: genocide 0as never %een "ore t0in=a%le--especially t0e genocide o3 <0ic0 <e "ay %e victi"s. )t 0as no< %eco"e al"ost conventional to arg&e 3or t0e existence o3 genocide: 3or exa"ple in ?ar3&r: %y p&%lis0ing p0otograp0s o3 dead %odies and daring t0e vie<er to re3&se e"pat0y.22 T0e t0in=a%ility o3 genocide as a de3ense against t0e 3ear o3 genocide is a dist&r%ing point to ac=no<ledge. To say t0at genocide is "orally intelligi%le is not to say t0at it is no<: or ever co&ld
0ave %een: "orally rig0tV instead: it is to note t0at "ost genocides are not "ere acts o3 inadvertence or insensitivity: %&t rat0er "o"ents o3 intense "oral concentration invo=ing 0ig0 concepts li=e 0&"an rig0ts and de"ocracy. )3 <e cannot i"agine t0e logic o3 genocide 7and 0o< t0at logic e"ploys o&r "oral concepts8: <e <ill never &nderstand 0o< a 0&"an rig0ts disco&rse 7<0ic0 "ay: 3or a period o3 ti"e: see" <ell-esta%lis0ed in places li=e Sara@evo8 can dissolve into <0at co""entators gli%ly descri%e as Ppri"ordial gro&p 0atreds:P and 0o< t0at sa"e disco&rse can later re-e"erge as a sel3conscio&s ret&rn to civili;ed val&es.23

Last printed

31

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

32

Solven y 5 4xt
The a--irmative7s a t o- ethi s is groun.e. in sel- interest0 this 9ills any genuine relation 6ith the Ather Gilli 90 ph. la6yer0 12
9illic= A+ 7Mic0ael /: I? (0? La<yer: Ce 0old t0ese tr&t0s6 t0e re%irt0 o3 t0e 5"erican ideal a3ter Levinas: !entennial !on3erence on Levinas and La<: *.1#: 0ttp6..ccll."cgill.ca.presentations.gillic=.0t"l -L8r& -go-%ased et0ical syste"s contain <it0in t0e" a core pro%le". T0ey are all pri"arily in t0e nat&re o3 social contracts: <0et0er t0e ra< version %y /o%%es or t0e "ore sop0isticated t0o&g0t experi"ent o3 Io0n Ja<ls. T0e pro%le" is t0at: since t0e syste" is gro&nded in sel3-interest: it is also revoca%le on t0e %asis o3 sel3-interest. T0e pre"ise o3 s&c0 a syste" is t0at 0&"ans are: %y nat&re: at <ar <it0 eac0 ot0er: and t0at t0ey %and toget0er: and even s&rrender so"e individ&al rig0ts: %eca&se t0ey see t0e"selves as 3aring %etter t0at <ay t0an on t0eir o<n. Morality itsel3 is a contract: <0et0er express or constr&ctive. So: <0at i3 so"eone co"es along <0o concl&des t0at 0e 0as s&33icient po<er t0at 0e does not need t0e cooperation o3 ot0ers: t0at 0e 0as no need o3 a social contract to pro"ote or protect 0is

o<n interests: or even t0at 0e <o&ld act&ally %e in a %etter position to ac0ieve 0is c0osen goals %y opposing ot0er and s&%@ecting t0e" to 0is o<n <illB C0at: <it0in t0e 3ra"e<or= o3 t0e social contract: can yo& say in o%@ection to t0at personB >o& 0ave de3ined "orality in ter"s o3 sel3-interest. >o& 0ave ac=no<ledged t0e rig0ts o3 ot0ers only in order to serve yo&r o<n interests. /ere is a "an <0o 0as &sed yo&r o<n principle: sel3-interest: and 0as co"e to t0e opposite concl&sion . T0e capitalist corners t0e "ar=et in so"e
co""odity: oil 3or exa"ple: and &ses 0is po<er to go&ge t0e cons&"er to t0e great detri"ent o3 t0e vast "a@ority o3 people. )3 t0e only principle yo& can appeal to is sel3-interest: 0e <ill "eet all yo&r o%@ections to 0is

go&ging %y saying t0at go&ging serves 0is interests. T0e political leader decides t0at <ar is a via%le option: t0at 0e 0as t0e po<er to <in t0e <ar or t0at t0e existence o3 <ar <ill serve 0is political goals. >o& cannot o%@ect t0at <ar is <rong: %eca&se 0e 0as co"e to 0is concl&sions %ased on yo&r g&iding principle: sel3-interest. >o& cannot o%@ect t0at <ar is &n@&st: %eca&se: in a syste" gro&nded in sel3-interest: @&stice is never "ore t0an a political device: a tool <0ose &tility can only %e "eas&red in ter"s o3 e33icacy. 4n yo&r o<n principles: yo& can only o%@ect to t0e "onopolist or t0e tyrant t0at 0is plan <ill &lti"ately <or= to 0is detri"ent: 3or instance: t0at t0e people need to t0in= t0at 0e is @&st so t0at t0ey <ill not rise &p against 0i". 5s in t0e Jep&%lic: @&stice %eco"es a "atter o3 "ere appearance. 1airness is at %est generosity: and generosity: i3 it is
not anot0er 3or" o3 en@oy"ent: is at %est a 0edge on a %et. 5nalytically: all o3 t0is says no "ore t0an t0at: i3 t0ere is to %e an arg&"ent 3or <0at <e t0in= o3 as @&stice: %y <0ic0 ) ro&g0ly "ean a rig0t or o%ligation <0ic0 is intrinsic to t0e one clai"ing t0e rig0t: t0en t0ere "&st %e a so&rce o3 val&e or "eaning t0at transcends t0e s&%@ect. T0ere "&st %e a "eaning: a re3erent: <0ic0 is a%sol&te: t0at is to say: a "eaning <0ic0 is a%solved on any dependence on t0e constit&ting s&%@ect. )t "&st %e prior to t0at s&%@ectAs constit&ting po<ers: prior in a concrete sense: prior in a real: te"poral sense: co"ing 3ro" a past <0ose pastness is not recovera%le in t0e 0ori;ons constit&ted in t0e s&%@ect: not s&%s&"a%le in t0e constant presence <0ic0 is intentional conscio&sness. Ce can say t0is anot0er <ay. Ter"s li=e rig0t and o%ligation and

@&stice and "orality are all ter"s o3 relation: o3 re3erence. )3 everyt0ing is red&ced to a "onolit0ic totality: <0et0er it %e t0e s&%@ect or t0e State or a 9od.Feing: t0e possi%ility o3 real relation is destroyed. Totalities destroy t0e very idea o3 relation %eca&se: in a totality: t0ere can %e not0ing li=e t0e 3&nda"ental pl&rality reN&ired 3or a real relation . )n t0e end: t0e participants in a dialectical "o"ent are no "ore real: 0ave no "ore intrinsic val&e : t0an t0e e"anations o3 t0e (lotinian or (ar"enidean
4ne. )n t0e end: i3 9od is literally all: t0en ) a" literally de3ect: negation: not0ing.

Last printed

32

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

33

Solven y 5 4xt
Getting aught up in our responsi/ility to the Ather /lin.s us to the on erns o- other Athers an. the state o- the 6orl. aroun. us "eister0 pro- pltx university o- (ali-ornia0 1:
Meister A+5 7Jo%ert: (ro3essor o3 (olitics at t0e 2niversity o3 !ali3ornia , Santa !r&;: ANever 5gainA6 T0e et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or and t0e logic o3 genocide: (ost"odern !&lt&re: 0ttp6.."&se.@0&.ed&.@o&rnals.post"odernUc&lt&re.v+15.15.2"eister-L8r& L]vinas is not 0ere re3erring pri"arily to t0e gro<ing "edicali;ation o3 0&"anitarian invention: alt0o&g0 0e does regard analgesia as a paradig"atically et0ical response to p0ysical pain 7see Eennedy and Jie338. /is point is t0at "y et0ical responsi%ility: <0ic0 "erely %egins <it0 3irst aid: does not arise 3ro" any previo&s relations0ip %et<een s&33erer and provider: or 3ro" a political 0istory consisting o3 prior vo<s or cri"es: %&t 3ro" Pa past irred&ci%le to a 0ypot0etical present t0at it once <as . . . . GandH <it0o&t t0e re"e"%ered present o3 any past co""it"entP7P?iac0rony and JepresentationP 1#+8. 4&r responsi%ility to alleviate s&33ering co"es %e3ore t0e past in t0e sense in <0ic0 et0ics can %e

said to co"e %e3ore politics. T0e priority o3 et0ics arises P3ro" t0e 3ear o3 occ&pying so"eoneSs place
in t0e ?a o3 "y ?aseinP6 PMy . . . Splace in t0e s&n:SP 0e says: P"y 0o"e--0ave t0ey not %een a &s&rpation o3 places <0ic0 %elong to t0e ot0ers already oppressed or . . . expelled %y "e into a t0ird <orldP 7P1ro" t0e 4ne to t0e 4t0erP 144-58.

L]vinasSs point is t0at in et0ics: &nli=e politics: <e do not as= <0o ca"e 3irst and <0at <e 0ave already done to 7or 3or8 eac0 ot0er. T0e distinctively et0ical N&estion is rat0er one o3 proxi"ity --<e are already 0ere and so is t0e ot0er: c0ee=-%y-@o<l <it0 &s in t0e sa"e place. T0e neig0%or is t0e 3ig&re o3 t0e ot0er to<ard <0o" o&r only relations0ip is t0at o3 proxi"ity . 1or L]vinas: t0e glo%al "ove"ent to give et0ics pri"acy over politics "&st %e acco"panied: <it0in et0ics: %y t0e e33ort to give pri"acy to t0e et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or--t0e local over t0e glo%al. )n t0is <ay: t0e glo%al pri"acy o3 et0ics crystalli;es aro&nd o&r 0orror o3 t0e in0&"an act 7t0e PgrossP violation o3 0&"an rig0ts8 rat0er t0an: 3or exa"ple: aro&nd t0e international distri%&tion o3 <ealt0 or t0e e33ects o3 glo%al cli"ate c0ange. (roxi"ity is: t0&s: t0e "ar=er t0at disting&is0es an et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or as a %asis 3or 0&"an rig0ts 3ro" glo%al concerns a%o&t in@&stice t0at "ig0t also %e considered et0ical . (roxi"ity is not itsel3 a "erely spatial concept--%ot0 space
and ti"e can %e proxi"ate or distant--%&t it is &se3&l to t0in= o3 t0e et0ics o3 t0e neig0%or as a spatiali;ing disco&rse <it0in et0ics: as distinct 3ro" a Pte"porali;ingP disco&rse t0at s&%ordinates et0ics to political r0etorics associated <it0 "e"ory and identity 7Foyarin: PSpaceP 2+8. T0e latter is 0eld acco&nta%le 3or t0e atrocities o3 t0e t<entiet0 cent&ry %eca&se it s&ggests t0at t0e s&33ering o3 oneSs i""ediate neig0%or can %e @&sti3ied t0ro&g0 an 0istorical narrative t0at lin=s it to redee"ing t0e s&33ering o3 so"eone else: per0aps an ancestor or a co"rade: to <0o" one clai"s an 0istorical relations0ip t0at is PcloserP t0an relations a"ong neig0%ors. To regard proxi"ity o3 place as t0e et0ical 3o&ndation o3 politics is to resist t0is tendency 3ro" t0e %eginning: and t0ere%y to set t0e stage 3or t0e 3in-de-si^cle pro@ect o3 transitional @&stice: <0ic0 is %ot0 t0e alternative to 0&"an rig0ts interventions and t0eir pro3essed ai".

Last printed

33

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

3*

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

4rrors are inevita/le in our al ulations+ Ce must resist the attempt to master our ine--e tual .e ision5ma9ing a/ilities+ 3l o--0 1992
3l o--: Linda. T0e (ro%le" o3 Spea=ing 3or 4t0ers. !&lt&ral !ritiN&e: No. 2+. 7Cinter: 1**1-19928: pp. 5-32.
F&t s&rely it is %ot0 "orally and politically o%@ectiona%le to str&ct&re oneSs actions aro&nd t0e desire to avoid criticis": especially i3 t0is o&t<eig0s ot0er N&estions o3 e33ectivity. )n so"e cases per0aps t0e "otivation is not so "&c0 to avoid criticis" as to avoid errors: and t0e person %elieves t0at t0e only <ay to avoid errors is to avoid all spea=ing 3or ot0ers. /o<ever: errors are &navoida%le in t0eoretical inN&iry as <ell as political str&ggle: and

"oreover t0ey o3ten "a=e contri%&tions. T0e desire to 3ind an a%sol&te "eans to avoid "a=ing errors co"es per0aps not 3ro" a desire to advance collective goals %&t a desire 3or personal "astery: to esta%lis0 a privileged
disc&rsive position <0erein one cannot %e &nder"ined or c0allenged and t0&s is "aster o3 t0e sit&ation. 1ro" s&c0 a position oneSs o<n location and positionality <o&ld not reN&ire constant interrogation and critical re3lectionV one <o&ld not 0ave to constantly engage in t0is e"otionally tro&%leso"e endeavor and <o&ld %e i""&ne 3ro" t0e interrogation o3 ot0ers. S&c0 a desire 3or "astery and i""&nity "&st %e resisted.

Last printed

3*

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

3:

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

8usti e is in-inite -ailure to help the other an. use al ulations lea.s to perverse al ulations an. totalitarianism 6hi h have Eusti-ie. the 6orst atro ities in human history (amp/ell0 Pro-essor o- %nternational Politi s at the 'niversity o- Ne6 astle0 1999
7?avid: T0e ?eterritoriali;ation o3 Jesponsi%ility: Moral Spaces: -ds. Mic0ael I. S0apiro Y ?avid !a"p%ell: p. 8 -L8r& _T0e t0e"e o3 &ndecida%ility gives &s t0e context o3 t0e decision: %&t in and o3 itsel3 &ndecida%ility does not provide an acco&nt o3 t0e decision t0at <o&ld satis3y t0e concern raised %y !ritc0ley. P?ecisions 0ave to %e ta=en. F&t 0o<B 5nd in virt&e o3 <0atB /o< does one "a=e a decision in an &ndecida%le terrainBP '5 T0ese N&estions point to t0e n&% o3 t0e pro%le": 3or s&re: %&t t0ey are iss&es t0at do not go &nnoticed in ?er-ridaSs <or=. T0ey are o3 partic&lar concern 3or ?errida in P1orce o3 La<.P )n t0at essay: s&%seN&ent to "a=ing t0e case 3or t0e intrinsic deconstr&cti%ility o3 t0e la< and noting 0o< t0is is good ne<s 3or politics and 0istorical progress: ?errida arg&es t0at t0e la<Ss deconstr&cti%ility is "ade

possi%le %y t0e &ndeconstr&cti%ility o3 @&stice. I&stice is o&tside and %eyond t0e la<. PI&stice is t0e experience o3 t0e i"possi%le.P' I&stice is not a principle: or a 3o&ndation: or a g&iding tradition. I&stice is in3inite: and [ in a 3avora%le co"parison to LevinasSs notion o3 @&stice [ Pt0e 0eterono"ic relation to ot0ers:
to t0e 3aces o3 ot0erness t0at govern "e: <0ose in3inity ) cannot t0e"ati;e and <0ose 0ostage ) re"ain.P '# )n t0ese ter"s:

@&stice is li=e t0e pre-original: an-arc0ic relation to t0e ot0er: and a=in to t0e &ndecida%le. )t represents t0e do"ain o3 t0e i"possi%le and t0e &nrepresenta%le t0at lies o&tside and %eyond t0e li"it o3 t0e possi%le and t0e representa%le. F&t it cannot %e &nderstood as P&topian:P at least inso3ar as t0at "eans t0e opposite o3 Prealistic.P )t is not indeter"inate. )t is &ndecida%le. )t is t0at <0ic0 "ar=s t0e li"it o3 t0e possi%leV indeed: it is t0at <0ic0 %rings t0e do"ain o3 t0e possi%le into %eing and gives it t0e ongoing c0ance 3or trans3or"ation and re-3ig&ration: t0at <0ic0 is one o3 t0e conditions o3 possi%ility 3or et0ics and politics. )n t0is context: @&stice ena%les t0e la<: %&t t0e la< is t0at <0ic0 Pis never exercised <it0o&t a decision t0at c&ts: t0at divides.P'' T0e la< <or=s 3ro" t0e &nrepresenta%le and see=s to representV it ta=es 3ro" t0e i"possi%le and conceives t0e possi%leV it is e"%edded in t0e &ndecida%le %&t nevert0eless decides. Nonet0eless: Pt0e &ndecida%le re"ains ca&g0t: lodged: at least as a g0ost [ %&t an essential g0ost [ in every decision: in every event o3 decision. )ts g0ostliness deconstr&cts 3ro" <it0in any ass&rance o3 presence: any certit&de or any s&pposed criteriology t0at <o&ld ass&re &s o3 t0e @&stice o3 t0e decision: in tr&t0 o3 t0e very event o3 a decision .P'* T0e &ndecida%le <it0in t0e decision does not: 0o<ever: prevent t0e decision or avoid its &rgency. 5s ?errida o%serves: Pa @&st decision is al<ays reN&ired i""ediately: Srig0t a<ayS P T0is necessary 0aste 0as &navoida%le conseN&ences %eca&se t0e p&rs&it o3 Pin3inite in3or"ation and t0e &nli"ited =no<ledge o3 conditions: r&les or 0ypot0etical i"peratives t0at co&ld @&sti3y itP are &navaila%le in t0e cr&s0 o3 ti"e . Nor can t0e cr&s0 o3 ti"e %e avoided: even %y &nli"ited ti"e: P%eca&se t0e "o"ent o3 decision, as such, al<ays re"ains a 3inite "o"ent o3 &rgency and precipitation.P T0e decision is al<ays Pstr&ct&rally 3inite:P it Pal<ays "ar=s t0e interr&ption o3 t0e @&ridico- or et0ico- or politico-cognitive deli%eration t0at precedes it: t0at "&st precede it.P T0is is <0y: invo=ing Eier=egaard:
?errida declares t0at Pt0e instant o3 decision is a "adness.P *+ T0e 3inite nat&re o3 t0e decision "ay %e a P"adnessP in t0e <ay it renders possi%le t0e i"possi%le: t0e in3inite c0aracter o3 @&stice: %&t ?errida arg&es 3or t0e necessity o3 t0is "adness. Most i"portantly: alt0o&g0 ?erridaSs arg&"ent concerning t0e decision 0as: to t0is point: %een concerned <it0 an acco&nt o3 t0e procedure %y <0ic0 a decision is possi%le: it is <it0 respect to t0e necessity o3 t0e decision t0at

?errida %egins to 3or"&late an acco&nt o3 t0e decision t0at %ears &pon t0e content o3 t0e decision. )n so doing: ?erridaSs arg&"ent addresses "ore directly [ "ore directly: ) <o&ld arg&e: t0an is ac=no<ledged %y !ritc0ley [ t0e concern t0at 3or politics 7at least 3or a progressive politics8 one "&st provide an acco&nt o3 t0e decision to co"%at do"ination.

Last printed

3:

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

32

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

(al ulations Key to ethi s $ Levinas assumes every other is al6ays alrea.y !goo.0# reFuires not .i--erentiating /et6een starving hil.ren an. geno i.al .i tators =Ngglun.0 PhD an.i.ate in (omparative Literature at (ornell 'niversity0 2112
7Martin: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: (ro@ect M&se8 Levinas cannot t0in= t0ese inversions o3 0is o<n prescriptions since 0e re3&ses to reali;e t0at alterity cannot %e et0ical as s&c0. Jat0er: alterity "ar=s t0at not0ing can %e in itsel3. Levinas cannot assi"ilate t0is insig0t %eca&se

0is p0ilosop0y reN&ires t0at alterity &lti"ately ans<ers to t0e 9ood. -ven <0en Levinas descri%es t0e et0ical in apparently violent ter"s[as in !"herwise "han #eing, <0ere t0e ot0er Pacc&ses:P Ppersec&tes:P and Ptra&"ati;esP t0e s&%@ect[0e &nderstands violence as an instance o3 t0e 9ood: <0ic0 disr&pts t0e evil egois" o3 t0e s&%@ect %y s&%ordinating it to t0e de"ands o3 t0e ot0er. )t is t0&s N&ite cr&cial 3or Levinas t0at t0e s&%ordination to a tyrant[<0o also acc&ses one o3 sel3-love and de"ands t0at one 3ollo< 0is co""and[ can %e rigoro&sly disting&is0ed 3ro" t0e s&%ordination to an et0ical ot0er.2+ F&t it is precisely t0e possi%ility o3 s&c0 a distinction %et<een t0e PgoodP ot0er and t0e P%adP ot0er t0at t0e deconstr&ctive analysis calls into N&estion. To posit t0e ot0er as pri"ordially 9ood is to deny t0e constit&tive &ndecida%ility o3 alterity. T0e ot0er cannot %e predicted: and one cannot =no< in advance 0o< one s0o&ld act in relation to 0i": 0er: or it.
!onseN&ently: t0ere is not0ing intrinsically et0ical a%o&t s&%@ecting onesel3 to t0e ot0er: <0o "ay al<ays %e a %r&tal tyrant. T0ere can %e no enco&nter t0at precedes s&c0 ris=s: <0ic0 are i"plicated in every relation 3ro" t0e %eginning. O4n. Page :3P T0e relation to a 3inite ot0er is accordingly <0at "a=es et0ics possi$le, %&t at t0e sa"e ti"e <0at "a=es it impossi$le 3or any o3 its principles to 0ave a g&aranteed legiti"acy: since one "ay al<ays con3ront sit&ations <0ere t0ey t&rn o&t to %e inadeN&ate. C0en one spea=s o3 Pt0e ot0er:P one can never =no< in advance <0at or <0o" one invo=es.

)t is t0&s i"possi%le to decide <0et0er t0e enco&nter <it0 t0e ot0er <ill %ring a%o&t a c0ance or a t0reat: recognition or re@ection: contin&ed li3e or violent deat0.

Last printed

32

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

3B

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

4thi s reFuire al ulation $ Levinasian ethi s are in oherent in a 6orl. o- multiple others0 .is rimination 9ey =Ngglun.0 PhD an.i.ate in (omparative Literature at (ornell 'niversity0 2112
7Martin: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: (ro@ect M&se8 1or t0e sa"e reason: ?erridaSs notion o3 Pin3inite responsi%ilityP s0o&ld not %e con3lated <it0 LevinasSs. 1or ?errida: t0e in3init&de o3 responsi%ility ans<ers to t0e 3act t0at responsi%ility al<ays ta=es place in relation to a nega"i%e infini"y o3 ot0ers. T0e negative in3inity o3 responsi%ility is %ot0 spatial 7inn&"era%le 3inite ot0ers t0at exceed "y 0ori;on8 and te"poral 7inn&"era%le ti"es past and to co"e t0at exceed "y 0ori;on8. 1ar 3ro" con3ir"ing LevinasSs sense o3 responsi%ility: t0e negative in3inity o3 ot0ers is 3atal 3or 0is notion o3 an originary enco&nter t0at <o&ld give et0ics t0e stat&s o3 P3irst p0ilosop0yP and %e t0e g&iding principle 3or a "etap0ysical Pgoodness.P -ven i3 it <ere possi%le to

sacri3ice yo&rsel3 co"pletely to anot0er: to devote all yo&r 3orces to t0e one <0o is enco&ntered 3aceto-3ace: it <o&ld "ean t0at yo& 0ad disregarded or denied all t0e ot0ers <0o de"anded yo&r attention or needed yo&r 0elp. 1or t0ere are al<ays "ore t0an t<o , as Jic0ard Feards<ort0 0as aptly p&t it G13#H.
C0enever ) t&rn to<ard anot0er ) t&rn a<ay 3ro" yet anot0er: and t0&s exercise discri"ination. 5s ?errida points o&t in The Gif" of Dea"h, P) cannot respond to t0e call: t0e de"and: t0e o%ligation: or even t0e love o3 anot0er <it0o&t sacri3icing t0e ot0er ot0er: t0e ot0er ot0ers P G 'H. !onseN&ently: ?errida e"p0asi;es t0at t0e concept o3 responsi%ility lends itsel3 a priori to Pscandal and aporiaP G 'H. T0ere are potentially an endless n&"%er o3 ot0ers to consider: and one cannot ta=e any responsi%ility <it0o&t excl&ding so"e ot0ers in 3avor o3 certain ot0ers. C0at "a=es it

possi%le to %e responsi%le is t0&s at t0e sa"e ti"e <0at "a=es it i"possi%le 3or any responsi%ility to %e 3&lly responsi%le. Jesponsi%ility: t0en: is al<ays "ore or less discri"inating: and in3inite responsi%ility is %&t anot0er na"e 3or t0e necessity o3 discri"ination . T0e necessity o3 discri"ination is at t0e 0eart o3
?erridaSs t0in=ing: and anyone <0o <is0es to artic&late a deconstr&ctive &nderstanding o3 et0ico-political pro%le"s needs to ela%orate it. ) insist on t0is point since it calls 3or an approac0 t0at is opposed to t0e n&"ero&s atte"pts to 3orge an alliance %et<een ?errida and Levinas. 4ne o3 t0e 3irst to arg&e 3or s&c0 an alliance <as Jo%ert Fernasconi: <0o paved t0e <ay 3or later Levinasian readings o3 ?errida. 23 )n 0is essay PT0e Trace o3 Levinas in ?errida:P Fernasconi clai"s t0at P$iolence and Metap0ysicsP s0o&ld not %e &nderstood as ta=ing iss&e <it0 LevinasSs p0ilosop0y: %&t only as pointing o&t certain necessities t0at i"pose t0e"selves on p0ilosop0ical disco&rse. ?erridaSs critiN&e o3 Levinas <o&ld t0en %e li"ited to t0e <ay Levinas &ses "etap0ysical lang&age: and Fernasconi insists O4n. Page :2P t0at Pt0is s0o&ld not %e con3&sed <it0 passing @&dg"ent on <0at Levinas saysP G2 H. T0&s: Fernasconi disregards t0e central arg&"ents in ?erridaSs essay and does not even address t0e notion o3 violence t0at is ela%orated t0ere. Fernasconi asserts t0at P<e let t0e 3inite stand 3or t0e totali;ing t0o&g0t o3 t0e tradition o3 Cestern ontology: as t0e in3inite stands 3or t0e atte"pt to s&rpass itP G15H. T0is is

a "isleading "atrix 3or disc&ssing ?erridaSs essay: since ?errida de"onstrates t0e inco0erence o3 s&c0 a set-&p. ?errida arg&es t0at t0e 3inite cannot %e a totality and t0at t0e idea o3 totality is t0e idea o3 t0e 7positive8 in3inity t0at Levinas posits as a c0allenge to t0e idea o3 totality . /ence ?erridaSs insistence on
ta=ing P0istory: t0at is: 3init&de: serio&sly . . . in a sense <0ic0 tolerates nei"her fini"e "o"ali"y, nor posi"i%e infini"y P G&D 11#.1#2: "y e"p0asisH. Feca&se Fernasconi disregards t0e logic o3 t0is arg&"ent[<0ic0 pervades ?erridaSs entire essay [0e "isconstr&es t0e di33erence %et<een ?errida and Levinas. )n 0is later essay P?econstr&ction and t0e (ossi%ility o3 -t0icsP G12'H: Fernasconi clai"s t0at ?erridaSs arg&"ent concerning 0o< alterity already is in t0e Sa"e 0as %een adeN&ately responded to %y Levinas: t0ro&g0 t0e latterSs recognition t0at t0e idea o3 t0e 4t0er is re3lected <it0in 0istory and <it0in Cestern ontology: in (latoSs 9ood %eyond %eing and ?escartesSs idea o3 t0e )n3inite. F&t in 3act: none o3 ?erridaSs criticis"s are ans<ered %y t0is "ove. ?erridaSs arg&"ent is: on t0e contrary: t0at alterity cannot %e t0o&g0t in ter"s

o3 t0e positive in3inity t0at Levinas s&%scri%es to in (lato and ?escartes. Jat0er: alterity is indissocia%le 3ro" t0e violence o3 spacing: <0ic0 is al<ays already at <or= in t0e in3inite3init&de o3 di33]rance. )nstead o3 recogni;ing t0is arg&"ent: Fernasconi reiterates 0is clai" t0at ?errida is not at odds <it0 Levinas. 5ccording to Fernasconi: ?errida never really intended to s0o< t0at Pcertain o3 LevinasSs central ter"s <ere inco0erentP G12*H. Jat0er: Fernasconi 3or"&lates t0e et0ics o3

Last printed

3B

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

3> deconstr&ction in Levinasian ter"s: as originating in a 3ace-to-3ace relation.

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

(al ulation 9ey to Eusti e $ only a epting the in ompleteness o- the la6 allo6s -or ontinuation oeman ipator struggles an. positive re-orm =Ngglun.0 (0? candidate in !o"parative Literat&re at !ornell 2niversity: 2++
7Martin: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: (ro@ect M&se8 T0e second step in ?erridaSs arg&"ent is t0e one t0at is &s&ally "is&nderstood. ?errida descri%es t0e &ndecida%le 3&t&re as t0e very possi%ility o3 @&stice: or N&ite si"ply as a P@&sticeP %eyond la<. T0e point is t0at decisions concerning @&stice

cannot %e red&ced to t0e 3ollo<ing o3 a r&le 3or 0o< t0e la< s0o&ld %e applied. Jat0er: t0e de"and 3or @&stice is al<ays raised in relation to sing&lar events: <0ic0 t0ere is no g&arantee t0at t0e la< <ill 0ave
anticipated. T0e condition o3 @&stice is t0&s an essential contingency. T0e speci3ic applications o3 t0e la< cannot %e given in t0e la< itsel3: %&t reN&ire decisions in relation to events t0at exceed t0e generality o3 t0e la<. ?erridaSs arg&"ent is

t0at t0ere can %e no @&stice <it0o&t s&c0 "a=ing o3 decisions: <0ic0 are precipitated %y t0e &ndecida%le co"ing o3 ti"e. I&stice is t0&s essentially a "atter o3 te"poral 3init&de : since it is &lti"ately
%eca&se o3 te"poral 3init&de t0at one 0as to "a=e decisions. ?errida <rites6 The momen" of decision as s&c0: wha" mus" $e 'us", "&st always remain a fini"e momen" of urgency and precipi"a"ion( ( ( ( E%en if "ime and prudence, "he pa"ience of )nowledge and "he mas"ery of condi"ions were hypo"he"ically unlimi"ed, "he decision would $e s"ruc"urally fini"e, howe%er la"e i" came*a decision of urgency and precipi"a"ion, ac"ing in "he nigh" of non-)nowledge and non-rule( +o" of "he a$sence of rules and )nowledge $u" of a reins"i"u"ion of rules "ha" $y defini"ion is no" preceded $y any )nowledge or $y any guaran"ee as such( G255H )t is t0is necessity o3 "a=ing 3inite decisions[o3 calc&lating <it0 t0e incalc&la%le co"ing o3 ti"e[t0at ?errida calls P@&stice.P 5s 0e <rites: @&stice reN&ires an incalc&la%le te"porality in <0ic0 Pt0e decision %et<een @&st and &n@&st is never ins&red %y O4n. Page 22P a r&leP G244H.2# T0is "ay appear paradoxical: since it "eans t0at @&stice is not0ing %&t t0e predica"ent t0at decisions can only %e "ade 3ro" ti"e to ti"e: <it0o&t any ass&rance concerning <0at is @&st or &n@&st. F&t it is exactly t0is condition on <0ic0 ?errida

insists. )3 la<s and rig0ts cannot enco"pass everyone and everyt0ing: i3 t0ey cannot %e gro&nded in a totali;ing instance: t0en it is inevita%ly necessary to negotiate <0at exceeds t0e". T0is exigency o3 P@&sticeP is not so"et0ing positive in itsel3: %&t designates t0at every decision is 0a&nted %y t0e &ndecida%le co"ing o3 ti"e: <0ic0 opens t0e ris= t0at one 0as "ade or <ill 0ave "ade &n@&st decisions. Cit0o&t s&c0
ris=: t0ere <o&ld %e no N&estion o3 @&stice in t0e 3irst place: since t0e exec&tion o3 la< <o&ld %e not0ing %&t a 3a&ltless application o3 r&les. )3 la< is essentially deconstr&cti%le: t0e &ndecida%le co"ing o3 ti"e is t0&s t0e &ndeconstr&cti%le condition o3 @&stice. 1ar 3ro" pro"oting an idea o3 a%sol&te @&stice: t0is &ndeconstr&cti%le condition o3 @&stice opens it to in@&stice 3ro" t0e 3irst instance. 2' 1or @&stice to %e a%sol&te: it <o&ld 0ave to precl&de t0e co"ing o3 ti"e: <0ic0 "ay al<ays @eopardi;e or N&estion t0e given @&stice. 1or ?errida: on t0e contrary: t0e co"ing o3 ti"e is inscri%ed in t0e concept o3 @&stice as s&c0 . T0e possi%ility o3 @&stice is t0&s t0e i"possi%ility o3 a%sol&te @&stice. I&stice is and mus" %e "ore or less &n@&st: since it "&st de"arcate itsel3 3ro" a 3&t&re t0at exceeds it and "ay call it into N&estion.2* T0e i"possi%ility o3 @&stice can t0&s not %e &nderstood in ter"s o3 a reg&lative idea o3 a%sol&te @&stice. 5 reg&lative idea is i"possi%le to attain 3or &s as 3inite %eings %&t is nevert0eless possi%le to t0in= as an ideal to<ard <0ic0 <e s0o&ld aspire. S&c0 an idea o3 a%sol&te @&stice is necessarily t0e idea o3 a posi"i%e infini"y t0at <o&ld %e sealed against corr&ption: alteration: and error. )n contrast: t0e deconstr&ctive idea o3 @&stice is t0e idea o3 t0e nega"i%e infini"y o3 ti"e: <0ic0 <ill al<ays dis@oin t0e present 3ro" itsel3 and expose it to t0e &npredicta%le co"ing o3 ot0er circ&"stances.3+ T0e co"ing o3 ti"e is t0e possi%ility o3 @&stice: since it opens t0e c0ance to c0allenge la<s: trans3or" rig0ts: and N&estion decisions. T0e conco"itant i"possi%ility o3 a%sol&te @&stice O4n. Page 23P is not a lac= o3 @&stice: since it does not testi3y to t0e a%sence o3 an ideal @&stice. ?errida descri%es t0e negative in3inity o3 @&stice as an

in3inite per3ecti%ility: <0ic0 is t0e sa"e as an in3inite corr&pti%ility and &nderc&ts t0e reg&lative idea o3 3inal per3ection. T0e i"possi%ility o3 s&c0 an a%sol&te state is not a privation: %&t t0e possi%ility o3 c0ange at any

Last printed

3>

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

39 deconstr&cti%ility o3 la< is at t0e 0eart o3 e"ancipatory pro@ects. T0e 3orce o3 any call 3or @&stice resides in its a%ility to de"onstrate t0at t0e legal syste" o3 la<s and rig0ts : <0ile laying clai" to a solid 3o&ndation in t0e co""&nity: in 3act is &ngro&nded and violently excl&sive. T0e deconstr&cti%ility o3 la< is t0&s <0at ena%les t0e de"ands 3or a @&stice %eyond t0e prevalent str&ct&res o3 po<er. F&t: 3or t0e sa"e reason: t0e de"ands 3or @&stice cannot %e oriented to<ard a society t0at <o&ld 3inally %e li%erated 3ro" violence and antagonistic interests. T0ose <0o s&cceed <it0 t0eir re3or"s or revol&tions "&st in t&rn en3orce a legal syste" t0at is "ore or less discri"inating and open to ne< attac=s or con3licting de"ands. T0is do&%le arg&"ent allo<s ?errida to con3ir" t0e need 3or
@&nct&re: 3or %etter and 3or <orse. 31 /ence: ?errida arg&es t0at t0e e"ancipatory narratives at t0e sa"e ti"e as 0e &nder"ines t0eir traditional ideal. )nstead o3 relying on a "elos o3 a%sol&te li%eration: e"ancipatory politics is reconceived as a strategy 3or negotiating an irred&ci%le discri"ination . )n t0is violent

econo"y neit0er la< nor @&stice: neit0er t0e general nor t0e sing&lar: can %e ascri%ed a positive val&e in itsel3. )ndeed: t0ese poles do not 0ave any "eaning at all i3 t0ey are not played o&t against eac0 ot0er: in a process <0ere it cannot %e =no<n <0ic0 instance <ill %e "ore violent t0an t0e ot0er.32

Last printed

39

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*1

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

4thi s are al6ays alrea.y 6ithin politi s $ Levinas7s re-usal o- al ulations is ultimately the most violent .e ision /e ause it man.ates a .isavo6al o- the existen e o- other others that reFuire al ulations =Ngglun.: (0? candidate in !o"parative Literat&re at !ornell 2niversity: 2++2
7Martin: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: (ro@ect M&se8 T0ird: t0ere is no s&pport in ?erridaSs t0in=ing 3or t0e Levinasian distinction %et<een et0ics and politics . !ritc0leySs clai" t0at ?errida 3ails to acco&nt 3or t0e political as Pcon3lict: and dissension on a 3actical or e"pirical terrainP is si"ply 3alse: since ?errida "aintains t0at violence is irred&ci%le[t0at <e are al<ays already involved in t0e process o3 "a=ing decisions t0at are "ore or less violen t. !ritc0leySs critiN&e is all t0e "ore "isleading since it is act&ally 0e and Levinas <0o de3end t0e t0o&g0t o3 a pri"ary Pet0ical experience:P <0ic0 <o&ld precede t0e con3licts t0ey ascri%e to t0e political. T0ey are t0&s con3ronted <it0 t0e N&estion o3 0o< to 3ind a PpassageP 3ro" a s&pposedly pri"ary Pet0icsP to a s&pposedly secondary Ppolitics .P )t is in LevinasSs ans<er to t0is N&estion t0at !ritc0ley t0in=s 0e 0as 3o&nd a P<ay o&tP o3 <0at 0e perceives as t0e ?erridean i"passe. F&t in 3act one can trac= 0o< t0e Levinasian arg&"ent t0at !ritc0ley adopts is a clear exa"ple o3 t0e "etap0ysical logic ?errida deconstr&cts. 5s <e 0ave seen: Levinas <ants to pro"ote et0ics as P3irst p0ilosop0yP <it0 re3erence to an Pi""ediateP enco&nter: in <0ic0 t0e s&%@ect is s&%"itted to t0e 4t0er as t0e inco"para%ly /ig0. T0is <o&ld %e t0e de 'ure o3 et0ics6 its categorical i"perative. /o<ever: on LevinasSs o<n acco&nt it t&rns o&t t0at s&c0 an approac0 de 3acto is &ntena%le: since t0e enco&nter %et<een t<o is called into N&estion %y Pt0e t0irdP 7le "iers8: <0o interr&pts t0e et0ical relation

and de"ands t0at <e consider ot0ers t0an t0e 4t0er. Ce are t0&s ca&g0t &p in <0at Levinas designates as t0e do"ain o3 t0e political: <0ere it is necessary to interrogate and calc&late inters&%@ective relations in order to
ac0ieve social @&stice. LevinasSs o%servation does not: 0o<ever: entail t0at 0e reno&nces 0is notion o3 a sing&lar: et0ical enco&nter <it0 t0e 4t0er: <0ic0 <o&ld precede t0e political. )nstead: 0e 0olds t0at t0e political co""&nity s0o&ld %e g&ided %y t0e respect 3or t0e 4t0er: <0o 0ere t&rns o&t to %e no one less t0an 9od t0e 1at0er : recalling &s to Pt0e 0&"an 3raternity.P -ven i3 one disregards t0e t0eologico-patriarc0al 0&"anis" in LevinasSs line o3 reasoning: one s0o&ld note 0o< 0e atte"pts to explain a<ay t0e inco0erence o3 0is concept&al sc0e"a. Fot0 Levinas

and !ritc0ley ad"it t0at Pt0e t0irdP 0a&nts t0e 3ace-to-3ace enco&nter: at t0e sa"e ti"e as t0ey descri%e t0e arrival o3 t0e t0ird as a passage 3ro" one order to anot0er : 3ro" t0e i""ediate to t0e "ediate: t0e originary
to t0e O4n. Page :>P O;egin Page 21P derivative: t0e et0ical to t0e political. T0e sa"e arg&"entative str&ct&re rec&rs in FernasconiSs essay PI&stice <it0o&t -t0icsBP Fernasconi points o&t t0at t0ere are al<ays already ot0ers: <0ic0 contradict t0e et0ics o3 s&%"ission %e3ore an a%sol&tely sing&lar 4t0er : %&t 0e does not dra< t0e deconstr&ctive conseN&ences o3 t0is contradiction. T0at t0e t0ird party de fac"o is t0ere 3ro" t0e %eginning does not: 3or Fernasconi: call into N&estion t0e de 'ure de3inition o3 et0ics as Pa 3ace to 3ace relation <it0 t0e 4t0er <it0o&t t0e t0ird partyP G 5H. )ndeed: Fernasconi categorically excl&des t0at LevinasSs et0ical ideal can %e contested %y t0e pro%le" o3 t0e t0ird6 Pone cannot arg&e t0at: %eca&se t0ere can never %e a 3ace to 3ace <it0 t0e 4t0er <it0o&t t0e ot0ers: t0e notion o3 et0ics "a=es no senseP G 5H. T0&s: Fernasconi precl&des t0e deconstr&ctive t0in=ing o3 originary discri"ination: and retains t0e Levinasian distinctions %et<een t0e 4t0er and t0e ot0ers: t0e et0ical and t0e political. F&t i3 t0ere are

al<ays already "ore t0an t<o: t0en t0ere is no @&sti3ication <0atsoever 3or t0e Levinasian de"arcation o3 et0ics 3ro" politics. T0e very idea o3 a pri"ary Pet0ical experienceP in t0e 3ace-to-3ace enco&nter is &ntena%le: since any enco&nter al<ays
excl&des ot0ers and t0&s exercises discri"ination. ?errida "a=es precisely t0is point in 5die& to -""an&el Levinas. /ere: ?errida insists t0at Pt0e t0ird does not <aitP and &nder"ines t0e pri"acy o3 et0ics.24 C0ere Levinas 0olds t0at t0ere is a Ppri"ordial <ord o3 0onorP in t0e P&prig0tnessP o3 t0e et0ical enco&nter: ?errida arg&es t0at s&c0 a pledge o3 &nconditional 3idelity necessarily co""its per@&ry: eit0er %y %etraying its relation to ot0er ot0ers in 3avor

)n 5die&: t0e nonet0ical opening o3 et0ics is descri%ed as an arc0e-per@&ry or arc0e%etrayal t0at "a=es &s do&%ly exposed to violence6 Pexposed to &ndergo it %&t also to exercise it P G33. H. Moreover: t0ere 0ave al<ays %een inn&"era%le ot0ers: <0o" one cannot sort into categories s&c0 as Pt0e ot0erP and Pt0e t0ird.P !onseN&ently: ?errida "aintains t0at one can only c0oose P%et<een %etrayal and %etrayal: al<ays "ore t0an one %etrayalP G34. 'H.
o3 a certain ot0er or inversely.

Last printed

*1

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*1

3t: al ulations /a. 5 4xt

Jeasone. al ulation o- poli y onseFuen es is Eust+
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211* 5side 3ro" t0e "oral i"agination: and given t0at t0e idea o3 ga"%ling <it0 0&"anityAs 3&t&re or 3ailing to "ini"i;e its possi%le so&rces o3 s&33ering is logically &ns&staina%le: t0e appeal to reason represents anot0er "ain trigger o3 intergenerational solidarity . Since act&al deli%eration %et<een c&rrent
and 3&t&re generations is o%vio&sly i"possi%le: a Ja<lsian contract&alist t0o&g0texperi"ent allo<s &s to de"onstrate t0e so&ndness o3 a 3arsig0ted cos"opolitanis". )3: in t0e original position: persons <ere to operate %e0ind a c0ronological veil o3 ignorance t0at <o&ld precl&de t0e" 3ro" =no<ing t0e generation to <0ic0
t0ey %elong: it is reasona%le to expect t0e" to devise a social order c0aracteri;ed %y a 3air distri%&tion o3 ris=s and perils over ti"e. !onversely: it is &nreasona%le to expect t0e" to agree to a sit&ation <0ere t0ese %&rdens <o&ld expand over ti"e and t0ere%y %e trans3erred 3ro" one generation to t0e next. T0e li3e o3 a people: Ja<ls <rites: is conceived as a sc0e"e o3 cooperation spread o&t in 0istorical ti"e. )t is to %e governed %y t0e sa"e conception o3 @&stice t0at reg&lates t0e cooperation o3 conte"poraries. No generation 0as stronger clai"s t0an any ot0er.35 $ia t0e practice o3 preventive 3oresig0t: t0is nor" o3 crossgenerational 3airness "ay acN&ire s&33icient <eig0t.

Last printed

*1

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*2

3t: Antology
The 3-- an not split ontology -rom the onti stru tures0 trying to .o so only puts ontology /e-ore politi s 6hi h prevents a hange -rom the sFuo Thomassen0 Dept+ Pltx 'niversity o- Lon.on0 11
T0o"assen: Lasse ?r. T0e (olitics o3 Lac=. Jevie< o3 T0e Tic=lis0 S&%@ect %y Slavo@ Ki;e=. $erso 1***. ?epart"ent o3 (olitics , 2niversity o3 London. (ost"odern !&lt&re - $ol&"e 11: N&"%er 3: May 2++1-L8r& 5s an alternative to t0e !artesian s&%@ect and to t0e t0ree critiN&es o3 t0e !artesian s&%@ect: Ki;e= proposes a Lacanian notion o3 s&%@ectivity. To explain <0at t0is involves: <e can start %y loo=ing at t0e notion o3 t0e decision and at t0e distinctions Ki;e= "a=es %et<een t0e PontologicalP and t0e Pontic.P C0ereas t0e ontic re3ers to <0at is--t0at is: to a positive %eing--t0e ontological re3ers to t0e conditions o3 possi%ility and li"its o3 <0at is. Cit0 t0e ontic <e as= <0at isV <it0 t0e ontological <e as= 0o< it is possi%le t0at it can %e. Ki;e= %elieves t0at no ontic content or %eing can %e derived 3ro" an ontological 3or". )n ot0er <ords: t0ere is no concrete ontic content t0at can %e t0e positive expression o3 %eing as s&c0--t0at is: o3 t0e ontological order. )n t0is sense: t0e ontological relates to t0e ontic in t0e sa"e <ay as 3or" relates to content. C0at Ki;e= <ants to stress 0ere is t0at it is not possi%le to 3ind a concrete co""&nity t0at expresses t0e str&ct&re o3 co""&nity as s&c0. So: 3or instance: 0e critici;es /eideggerSs assertion t0at t0e National Socialist State is t0e concrete expression o3 t0e str&ct&re o3 co""&nity and social %eing as s&c0. /eideggerSs 3a&lt

lies in t0e 3act t0at 0e tries to esta%lis0 a necessary connection %et<een t0e ontological 7t0e str&ct&re o3 social %eing as s&c08 and a partic&lar ontic %eing 7t0e National Socialist State8. Ce "ay %e a%le to deconstr&ct co""&nity to s0o< t0e conditions o3 possi%ility o3 co""&nity: %&t <e cannot 3ind t0e partic&lar co""&nity t0at %est expresses t0ese conditions o3 possi%ility. Ki;e= develops t0is arg&"ent as a critiN&e
o3 /eidegger. T0e pro%le" <it0 /eidegger is t0at on one 0and 0e insists on t0e distinction %et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic: %&t on t0e ot0er 0and 0e ends &p loo=ing 3or t0e partic&lar ontic co""&nity t0at <o&ld reali;e t0e PessenceP o3 t0e ontological str&ct&re o3 society as s&c0: t0at is: 3or t0e ontic o3 t0e ontological. Ki;e= insists t0at t0ere is an ins&r"o&nta%le gap

%et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic: and t0at <e are not a%le to "ove directly 3ro" one to t0e ot0er. )n ot0er <ords: it is not possi%le to proceed directly 3ro" a 3or"al arg&"ent to a partic&lar s&%stantial arg&"ent: 3ro" 3or" to content. T0e N&estion t0en %eco"es 0o< t0e gap %et<een t0e" is 3illed or %ridged. /ere <e enco&nter
Ki;e=Ss notion o3 t0e decision: <0ic0 3ills t0e gap %et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic. T0e decision cannot %e gro&nded in any ontological str&ct&re: %&t t0is does not "ean t0at yo& cannot give gro&nds 3or t0e decisions yo& "a=e. C0at it "eans is t0at t0e decision can only %e gro&nded in ontic str&ct&res: <0ic0 are never &niversal. T0e decision can %e

gro&nded in a syste" o3 t0o&g0t--a c&lt&re: an ideology: a logic: and so on--%&t no syste" can %e &niversal and 3&lly co0erent. T0&s: &lti"ately t0ere is no 3inal and Psec&reP gro&nd 3or t0e decision. )t is 3or t0is reason t0at
Ki;e= can assert t0at t0e decision 3illing t0e gap %et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic is P"adP in Eier=egaardSs sense o3 %eing &lti"ately &ngro&nded. T0e decision is a leap o3 3ait0: so to spea=. Ce can no< &nderstand Ki;e=Ss Lacanian notion o3 t0e s&%@ect. )n Lacanian t0eory: t0e s&%@ect is sit&ated in t0e lac= t0at <e 3ind in any sy"%olic str&ct&re and in t0e decision or act atte"pting to 3ill t0is lac=. /ere <e can &nderstand t0e lac= analogo&sly to t0e gap %et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic. 5ny sy"%olic str&ct&re--3ro" "at0e"atics to ideology--is constit&ted %y a lac=: so"et0ing t0at escapes t0e sy"%olic str&ct&re and t0at it cannot explain. T0&s: t0e lac= denotes an inco"pleteness o3 t0e sy"%olic str&ct&re. T0e sy"%olic str&ct&res s&rro&nding &s and on <0ic0 <e rely 3or o&r social interaction are lac=ing so"et0ing: and t0is lac= is constit&tive o3 social li3e and o3 any co""&nity. T0is "a=es social li3e a 3ragile enterprise %eca&se it does not

T0e s&%@ect can t0en try to P3ill inP t0is gap or to 0ide it. T0is is: 3or instance: t0e case <0en a constit&tive insec&rity is presented as contingent: <0en <e are told t0at <e "erely 0ave to get rid o3 a partic&lar gro&p o3 people: a partic&lar environ"ental ris= and so on in order to 7re-8esta%lis0 a per3ect 0ar"ony. T0is is one aspect o3 <0at Ki;e= calls ideology. /o<ever: every atte"pt to get rid o3 t0e constit&tive lac= and 3ragility is &lti"ately 3&tile: precisely %eca&se it is never possi%le to close t0e gap %et<een t0e ontological and t0e ontic.
0ave a sec&re 3o&ndation.

Last printed

*2

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*3

3t: util /a.

Dour pipe .ream o- a 6orl. 6ithout violen e reFuires the suppression an. .estru tion o- the ra.i al alterity you .esire to prote t $ a epting some level o- violen e is omparatively /etter

=Ngglun.: (0? candidate in !o"parative Literat&re at !ornell 2niversity: 2++2

7Martin: T0e Necessity o3 ?iscri"ination: (ro@ect M&se8

T0e &topian drea" o3 peace pervades !ornellSs %oo= and is sy"pto"atic o3 0er "isconception o3 t0e deconstr&ctive t0in=ing o3 alterity. 5s ) 0ave arg&ed: t0e notion o3 a nonviolent relation to t0e ot0er is %ased on a s&ppression o3 alterity: since it "&st pres&ppose t0at t0e ot0er is not violent in its t&rn and conseN&ently denies t0e radical &npredicta%ility o3 t0e ot0er. 4nly i3 one ass&"es t0at t0e ot0er is pri"arily peace3&l does it "a=e sense to
prescri%e a nonviolent relation: since t0e co""and to PrespectP t0e alterity o3 t0e ot0er does not "a=e any sense i3 t0e ot0er <ants to destroy "e. Moreover: t0e drea" o3 a co""&nity <it0o&t violence is t0e drea" o3 a co""&nity in

<0ic0 t0ere <o&ld %e not0ing ot0er t0an peace: excl&ding anyone or anyt0ing t0at does not <ant to engage in t0e Pet0icalP relation. /ence: t0e s&pposedly et0ical drea" is &net0ical on its o<n ter"s: since it drea"s o3 eli"inating t0e s&scepti%ility to radical alterity : <0ic0 cannot %e dissociated 3ro" t0e s&scepti%ility to violence and t0e conco"itant atte"pts to co"%at it. )t is only %y co"ing to ter"s <it0 t0e deconstr&ctive PlogicP o3 violence t0at one can assess t0e et0ico-political signi3icance o3 deconstr&ction . T0e
deconstr&ctive logic o3 violence does not prevent one 3ro" critici;ing social in@&stices or any ot0er 3or"s o3 violence: %&t it exposes t0e internal contradictions o3 t0e doctrines t0at 0old it to %e desira%le to eli"inate excl&sion once and 3or all. ?iscri"ination is a constit&tive condition. T0e negotiation o3 it cannot %e governed %y a reg&lative idea or

0ar%or any ass&rance o3 its o<n legiti"acy. 1or precisely t0is reason it <ill al<ays %e &rgent to re3lect on et0ico-political N&estions: to <or= o&t strategies 3or a Plesser violenceP t0at is essentially precario&s .
T0ose <0o: li=e Levinas: proceed 3ro" "etap0ysical pre"ises o3 0o< t0ings ough" to %e <ill in one <ay or anot0er atte"pt to deny t0is predica"ent 3or t0e %ene3it o3 one ideal or anot0er. F&t t0e arg&"ent 0ere is t0at one t0ere%y %linds onesel3 to t0e condition t0at "a=es responsi%ility possi$le, <0ile at t0e sa"e ti"e "a=ing it impossi$le to s&stain t0e "etap0ysical val&es and et0ico-t0eoretical decisions %y <0ic0 Levinas lets 0i"sel3 %e g&ided.

Last printed

*3

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

**

3t: Pre.i tions /a. 5 4xt

Tetlo 97s stu.y 6as -aulty $ he as9e. purpose-ully ontroversial Fuestions 6hi h .on7t .isprove the e--i a y o- expert pre.i tions (aplan0 3sso iate pro-essor o- e onomi s at George "ason 'niversity an. a.Eun t s holar at the (3TA institute0 211:
7Fryan: Tac=ling Tetloc=: ?ece"%er 2 : 0ttp6..econlog.econli%.org.arc0ives.2++5.12.tac=lingUtetlocU1.0t"l , L8r& )s "y con3idence in experts co"pletely "isplacedB ) t0in= not. Tetloc=Ss sa"ple s&33ers 3ro" %ias. /e deli%erately as=ed relatively di33ic&lt and controversial N&estions. 5s 0is

severe selection "et0odological appendix explains: N&estions 0ad to P(ass t0e SdonSt %ot0er "e too o3ten <it0 d&"% N&estionsS test.P ?&"% according to <0oB T0e i"plicit ans<er is P?&"% according to t0e typical expert in t0e 3ield .P C0at Tetloc= really s0o<s is t0at experts are overcon3ident i3 yo& excl&de t0e N&estions <0ere t0ey 0ave reac0ed a solid consens&s. T0is is still an i"portant 3inding. -xperts really do "a=e overcon3ident predictions
a%o&t controversial N&estions. Ce 0ave to stop doing t0atR /o<ever: t0is does not s0o< t0at experts are overcon3ident a%o&t t0eir core 3indings. )tSs partic&larly i"portant to "a=e t0is distinction %eca&se Tetloc=Ss <or= is so

good t0at a lot o3 crac=pots <ill <ant to 0ig0@ac= it6 P-xperts are scarcely %etter t0an c0i"ps: so <0y not give intelligent design and protectionis" eN&al ti"eBP F&t <0at Tetloc= really s0o<s is t0at experts can raise t0eir credi%ility i3 t0ey stop overreac0ing.

Last printed

**

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*:

3t: Pre.i tions 5 4xt

Tetlo 9 is 6rong $ pre.i tions shoul. /e use. -or gui.ing a tion

Davies0 S3"% onsulting0 211B

75drian: -xpert (olitical I&dg"ent: I&ly 15: 0ttp6..<<<.sa"icons&lting.co.&=.4%oo=rev2 .0t"l T0e %oo= dra<s to a concl&sion <it0 a c0allenge6 5re <e open-"inded eno&g0 to ac=no<ledge t0e li"its o3 open"indednessB T0is c0apter is a critiN&e o3 scenario planning <0ic0 t0e a&t0or sees as advising only t0at

anyt0ing is possi%le. Too o3ten t0ose involved are over a%sor%ed in in<ard loo=ing details to %&ild t0eir stories: <0ile an o&tside vie< is needed to provide a reality c0ec=. Tetloc= 3ails to realise t0at scenario planning s0o&ld %e &sed as a "eans o3 g&iding action not engendering endless de%ate. I&dg"ent see"s to involve a "etacognitive trade o33 %et<een t0eory driven and i"agination driven "odes o3 t0in=ing. T0eory o33ers certainty and i"agination 0elps to cope <it0 &ncertainty . T0e a&t0or
sees t0e %est long ter" predictor o3 good @&dg"ent to %e a Socratic co""it"ent %y protagonists to t0in=ing a%o&t 0o< t0ey t0in=. T0e %oo= ends <it0 an exa"ination o3 o%@ectivity and acco&nta%ility. )t see=s o%@ective standards 3or assessing @&dg"ent <0ilst recognising t0at s&%@ectivity colo&rs "ost @&dg"ents . )t o33ers a <0ole range o3 tools to 0elp

ac0ieve a sel3 correcting approac0 to @&dg"ent. )t ends on a note o3 resignation6 T0ere are ineradica%le poc=ets o3 s&%@ectivity in political @&dg"ent. F&t progress is not as 0opeless as opponents o3 social science never tire o3 insisting. Li=e so "any o3 t0e 0edge0ogs Tetloc= =eeps N&oting: 0e sees 0i"sel3 as al"ost correct: even t0o&g0 0is N&est 0as 3ailed.

Last printed

*:

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*2

3t: Pre.i tions 5 4xt

4m/ra ing a Q.ystopian imaginary7 that see9s to avoi. on-rontation 6ith possi/le .isaster is politi ally empo6ering0 s6iping the role o- .e ision5ma9ing /a 9 -rom o--i ial poli y5ma9ers an. trans-orming it into an ethi o5politi al philosophy -or the in.ivi.ual+
Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211*

Jat0er t0an %e"oaning t0e conte"porary pree"inence o3 a dystopian i"aginary: ) a" clai"ing t0at it can ena%le a novel 3or" o3 transnational socio-political action: a "ani3estation o3 glo%ali;ation 3ro" %elo< t0at can %e ter"ed preventive 3oresig0t. Ce s0o&ld not red&ce t0e latter to a 3or"al principle reg&lating international relations or an ense"%le o3 policy prescriptions 3or o33icial players on t0e <orld stage: since it is: @&st as signi3icantly: a "ode o3 et0ico-political practice enacted %y participants in t0e e"erging real" o3 glo%al civil society. )n ot0er <ords: <0at ) <ant to &nderscore is t0e <or= o3 3arsig0tedness: t0e
social processes t0ro&g0 <0ic0 civic associations are si"&ltaneo&sly constit&ting and p&tting into practice a sense o3 responsi%ility 3or t0e 3&t&re %y atte"pting to prevent glo%al catastrop0es. 5lt0o&g0 t0e la%or o3 preventive 3oresig0t ta=es place in varying political and socio-c&lt&ral settings , and <it0 di33erent degrees o3 instit&tional s&pport and access to sy"%olic and "aterial reso&rces , it is &nderpinned %y t0ree distinctive 3eat&res6 dialogis": p&%licity: and transnationalis". )n t0e 3irst instance: preventive 3oresig0t is an inters&%@ective or dialogical process o3 address: recognition: and response %et<een t<o parties in glo%al civil society6 t0e `<arners:A <0o anticipate and send o&t <ord o3 possi%le perils: and t0e a&diences %eing <arned: t0ose <0o 0eed t0eir interloc&torsA "essages %y de"anding t0at govern"ents and.or international organi;ations ta=e "eas&res to steer a<ay 3ro" disaster. Secondly: t0e <or= o3 3arsig0tedness derives its e33ectiveness and legiti"acy 3ro" p&%lic de%ate and deli%eration . T0is is not to say t0at a 3&lly 3ledged glo%al p&%lic sp0ere is already in existence: since transnational strong p&%lics <it0 decisional po<er in t0e 3or"al-instit&tional real" are c&rrently e"%ryonic at %est. Jat0er: in t0is context: p&%licity signi3ies t0at <ea= p&%lics <it0 distinct yet occasionally overlapping constit&encies are coalescing aro&nd str&ggles to avoid speci3ic glo%al catastrop0es.4 /ence: despite 0aving little direct decision-"a=ing capacity: t0e environ"ental and peace "ove"ents: 0&"anitarian N94s: and ot0er si"ilar glo%ally-oriented civic associations are %eco"ing signi3icant actors involved in p&%lic opinion 3or"ation. 9ro&ps li=e t0ese are active in disse"inating in3or"ation and alerting citi;ens a%o&t loo"ing catastrop0es: lo%%ying states and "&ltilateral organi;ations 3ro" t0e `insideA and press&ring t0e" 3ro" t0e `o&tside:A as <ell as 3ostering p&%lic participation in de%ates a%o&t t0e 3&t&re.

Last printed

*2

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*B

3t: Pre.i tions 5 4xt

Glo/al atastrophe serves to unite ivilian groups glo/ally reating spa e -or ontrolling politi s at all levels+
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211*
My contention is t0at civic associations are engaging in dialogical: p&%lic: and transnational 3or"s o3 et0ico-political action t0at contri%&te to t0e creation o3 a 3ledgling glo%al civil society existing `%elo<A t0e o33icial and instit&tionali;ed arc0itect&re o3 international relations. T0e <or= o3 preventive 3oresig0t consists o3 3orging ties %et<een

citi;ensV participating in t0e circ&lation o3 3lo<s o3 clai"s: i"ages: and in3or"ation across %ordersV pro"oting an et0os o3 3arsig0ted cos"opolitanis"V and 3or"ing and "o%ili;ing <ea= p&%lics t0at de%ate and str&ggle against possi%le catastrop0es. 4ver t0e past 3e< decades: states and international organi;ations 0ave 3reN&ently %een content to 3ollo< t0e lead o3 glo%ally- "inded civil society actors: <0o 0ave %een instr&"ental in placing on t0e p&%lic agenda a 0ost o3 pivotal iss&es 7s&c0 as n&clear <ar: ecological poll&tion: species extinction: genetic engineering: and "ass 0&"an rig0ts violations8 .
To "y "ind: t0is strongly indicates t0at i3 prevention o3 glo%al crises is to event&ally rival t0e assertion o3 s0ort-ter" and narro<ly de3ined rationales 7national interest: pro3it: %&rea&cratic sel3-preservation: etc.8: <ea= p&%lics "&st %egin %y convincing or co"pelling o33icial representatives and "&ltilateral organi;ations to act di33erentlyV only t0en <ill 3arsig0tedness %e in a position to `"ove &pA and %eco"e instit&tionali;ed via strong p&%lics.#

Last printed

*B

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*>

3t: Pre.i tions 5 4xt

The a/sen e o- per-e t 9no6le.ge ma9es pre.i tions all the more important+ %t in ites people to gather as mu h in-ormation as possi/le an. pre.i t 6ith as pre ise a ura y as possi/le the potential out omes o- poli y to avert .isaster+
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211* 4nce <e recogni;e t0at t0e 3&t&re is &ncertain and t0at any co&rse o3 action prod&ces %ot0 &nintended and &nexpected conseN&ences: t0e responsi%ility to 3ace &p to potential disasters and intervene %e3ore t0ey stri=e %eco"es co"pelling. 1ro" anot0er angle: dystopianis" lies at t0e core o3 politics in a glo%al civil society
<0ere gro&ps "o%ili;e t0eir o<n nig0t"are scenarios 7`1ran=en3oodsA and a li3eless planet 3or environ"entalists: totalitarian patriarc0y o3 t0e sort depicted in 5t<oodAs /and"aidAs Tale 3or Cestern 3e"inis": McCorld and a glo%al neoli%eral oligarc0y 3or t0e alternative glo%ali;ation "ove"ent: etc.8. S&c0 scenarios can act as catalysts 3or p&%lic de%ate and socio-political action: sp&rring citi;ensA involve"ent in t0e <or= o3 preventive 3oresig0t. Several %odies o3 literat&re 0ave to&c0ed &pon t0is sea-c0ange to<ard a c&lt&re o3 prevention in <orld a33airs: "ost nota%ly @&st-<ar t0eory:14 international p&%lic policy researc0:15 and <ritings 3ro" t0e ris= society paradig".1 Jegardless o3 0o< insig0t3&l t0ese t0ree approac0es "ay %e: t0ey tend to s=irt over "&c0 o3 <0at is revealing a%o&t t0e interplay o3 t0e et0ical: political: and sociological dyna"ics t0at drive glo%al civil society initiatives ai"ed at averting disaster. !onseN&ently: t0e t0eory o3 practice proposed 0ere reconstr&cts t0e dialogical: p&%lic: and transnational <or= o3 3arsig0tedness: in order to artic&late t0e sociopolitical processes &nderpinning it to t0e nor"ative ideals t0at s0o&ld steer and assist in s&%stantively t0ic=ening it. 5s s&c0: t0e esta%lis0"ent o3 a capacity 3or early <arning is t0e 3irst aspect o3 t0e N&estion t0at <e need to tac=le. )). T0e 5ptit&de 3or -arly Carning C0en engaging in t0e la%or o3 preventive 3oresig0t: t0e 3irst o%stacle t0at one is li=ely to enco&nter 3ro" so"e intellect&al circles is a deep-seated s=epticis" !a&tionary Tales6 1&y&=i E&rasa<a 45* a 2++4 Flac=<ell (&%lis0ing Ltd a%o&t t0e very val&e o3 t0e exercise. 5 radically post"odern line o3 t0in=ing: 3or instance: <o&ld lead &s to %elieve t0at it is pointless: per0aps even 0ar"3&l: to strive 3or 3arsig0tedness in lig0t o3 t0e a3ore"entioned crisis o3 conventional paradig"s o3 0istorical analysis. )3: contra teleological "odels: 0istory 0as no intrinsic "eaning: direction: or endpoint to %e discovered t0ro&g0 0&"an reason: and i3: contra scientistic 3&t&ris": prospective trends cannot %e predicted <it0o&t error: t0en t0e a%yss o3 c0ronological inscr&ta%ility s&pposedly opens &p at o&r 3eet. T0e 3&t&re appears to %e &n=no<a%le: an o&tco"e o3 c0ance. T0ere3ore: rat0er t0an e"%ar=ing &pon grandiose spec&lation a%o&t <0at "ay occ&r: <e s0o&ld adopt a prag"atis" t0at a%andons itsel3 to t0e t<ists and t&rns o3 0istoryV let &s %e content to 3or"&late ad 0oc responses to e"ergencies as t0ey arise. C0ile t0is arg&"ent 0as t0e "erit o3 &nderscoring t0e 3alli%ilistic nat&re o3 all predictive sc0e"es: it con3lates t0e necessary recognition o3 t0e contingency o3 0istory <it0 &n<arranted assertions a%o&t t0e latterAs total opacity and indeter"inacy. 5c=no<ledging t0e 3act t0at t0e 3&t&re cannot %e =no<n <it0

a%sol&te certainty does not i"ply a%andoning t0e tas= o3 trying to &nderstand <0at is %re<ing on t0e 0ori;on and to prepare 3or crises already co"ing into t0eir o<n. )n 3act: t0e incorporation o3 t0e principle o3 3alli%ility into t0e <or= o3 prevention "eans t0at <e "&st %e ever "ore vigilant 3or <arning signs o3 disaster and 3or responses t0at provo=e &nintended or &nexpected conseN&ences 7a
point to <0ic0 ) <ill ret&rn in t0e 3inal section o3 t0is paper8. )n addition: 3ro" a nor"ative point o3 vie<: t0e acceptance o3 0istorical contingency and o3 t0e sel3-li"iting c0aracter o3 3arsig0tedness places t0e d&ty o3 preventing catastrop0e sN&arely on t0e s0o&lders o3 present generations.

Last printed

*>

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

*9

3t: Pre.i tions 5 4xt

Pre.i tive ethi s -osters a ra.i al Fuestioning o- our present or.er /y pla ing us into the -uture generation7s position to evaluate our .e isions+
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211* ?ystopias are t0r&st into p&%lic spaces to @olt citi;ens o&t o3 t0eir co"placency and a<a=en t0eir concern 3or t0ose <0o <ill 3ollo< t0e". S&c0 tropes are intended to %e controversial: t0eir contested c0aracter
3ostering p&%lic deli%eration a%o&t t0e potential cataclys"s 3acing 0&"an=ind: t0e "eans o3 addressing t0e": and t0e &nintended and &nexpected conseN&ences 3lo<ing 3ro" present-day trends. )n 0elping &s to i"agine t0e strengt0s and <ea=nesses o3 di33erent positions to<ards t0e 3&t&re: t0en: t0e dystopian i"aginary crystalli;es "any o3 t0e great iss&es o3 t0e day. 5"pli3ying and extrapolating <0at co&ld %e t0e long-ter" conseN&ences o3 c&rrent tendencies: p&%lic disco&rse can t0ere%y clari3y t0e 3&t&reAs see"ing opaN&eness. Li=e<ise: 3ostering a

dystopian "oral i"agination 0as a speci3ically critical 3&nction: 3or t0e disN&iet it provo=es a%o&t t0e prospects o3 later generations is designed to "a=e &s radically N&estion t0e `sel3-evidentnessA o3 t0e existing social order.34 )3 <e i"agine o&rselves in t0e place o3 o&r descendants: t0e ta=en 3or- granted s0ortsig0tedness o3 o&r instit&tionali;ed <ays o3 t0in=ing and acting %eco"es pro%le"atic. )ndi33erence to<ard t0e 3&t&re is neit0er necessary nor inevita%le: %&t can %e , and indeed o&g0t to %e , c0anged.

Last printed

*9

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

:1

3t: Negs 4thi s

ethi s that em/ra es a responsi/ility to the -uture .estroys the state7s monopoly on po6er politi s /y rea hing /eyon. national or (apital interests 5 turn
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211*
5t anot0er level: instr&"ental-strategic 3or"s o3 t0o&g0t and action: so pervasive in "odern societies

%eca&se instit&tionally entrenc0ed in t0e state and t0e "ar=et: are rarely co"pati%le <it0 t0e de"ands o3 3arsig0tedness. T0e calc&lation o3 t0e "ost tec0nically e33icient "eans to attain a partic&lar %&rea&cratic or corporate o%@ective: and t0e s&%seN&ent relentless p&rs&it o3 it: intrinsically excl&de %roader N&estions o3 long-ter" prospects or negative side-e33ects. C0at "atters is t0e "axi"i;ation o3 pro3its or national sel3interest <it0 t0e least e33ort: and as rapidly as possi%le. 9ro<ing ris=s and perils are trans3erred to 3&t&re generations t0ro&g0 a series o3 trade-o33s6 econo"ic gro<t0 vers&s environ"ental protection: innovation vers&s sa3ety: instant grati3ication vers&s 3&t&re <ell-%eing. 7!4NT)N2-S8 /ans IonasAs i"perative o3 responsi%ility is val&a%le precisely %eca&se it prescri%es an

et0ico-political relations0ip to t0e 3&t&re consonant <it0 t0e <or= o3 3arsig0tedness.2#

1&lly appreciating IonasAs position reN&ires t0at <e grasp t0e r&pt&re it esta%lis0es <it0 t0e presentist ass&"ptions i"%edded in t0e intentionalist tradition o3 Cestern et0ics. )n %rie3: intentionalis" can %e explained %y re3erence to its %est-=no<n 3or"&lation: t0e Eantian categorical i"perative: according to <0ic0 t0e "oral <ort0 o3 a deed depends &pon <0et0er t0e a priori principle o3 t0e <ill or volition o3 t0e person per3or"ing it , t0at is: 0is or 0er intention , s0o&ld %eco"e a &niversal la<.2' -x post 3acto eval&ation o3 an actAs o&tco"es: and o3 <0et0er t0ey correspond to t0e initial intention: is perip0eral to "oral @&dg"ent. 5 variant o3 t0is logic is 3o&nd in Ce%erAs disc&ssion o3 t0e et0ic o3 a%sol&te ends: t0e passionate devotion to a ca&se elevating t0e reali;ation o3 a vision o3 t0e <orld a%ove all ot0er considerationsV conviction <it0o&t t0e restraint o3 ca&tion and pr&dence is intensely presentist.2* Fy contrast: IonasAs strong conseN&entialis" ta=es a c&e 3ro" Ce%erAs et0ic o3 responsi%ility: <0ic0 stip&lates t0at <e "&st care3&lly ponder t0e

potential i"pacts o3 o&r actions and ass&"e responsi%ility 3or t0e" , even 3or t0e incidence o3 &nexpected and &nintended res&lts. Neit0er t0e contingency o3 o&tco"es nor t0e retrospective nat&re o3 certain "oral @&dg"ents exe"pts an act 3ro" nor"ative eval&ation. 4n t0e contrary: conseN&entialis" reconnects <0at intentionalis" pre3ers to =eep distinct6 t0e "oral <ort0 o3 ends partly depends &pon t0e "eans selected to attain t0e" 7and vice versa8: <0ile t0e correspondence %et<een intentions and res&lts is cr&cial. 5t t0e sa"e ti"e: Ionas goes 3&rt0er t0an Ce%er in %rea=ing <it0 presentis" %y advocating an et0ic o3 long-range responsi%ility t0at re3&ses to accept t0e 3&t&reAs indeter"inacy: gest&ring instead to<ard a
practice o3 3arsig0ted preparation 3or crises t0at co&ld occ&r.3+ 1ro" a conseN&entialist perspective: t0en:

intergenerational solidarity <o&ld consist o3 striving to prevent o&r endeavors 3ro" ca&sing large-scale 0&"an s&33ering and da"age to t0e nat&ral <orld over ti"e.

Last printed

:1

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

:1

3t: Negs 4thi s

Aur ethi s .ire tly pre lu.es statist Q-ear5mongering7 /e ause it reFuires iti<en engagement 6ith the issues rather than ompla en y in the -a e o- statist goals+
Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211* )3 3ear-"ongering is a "isappropriation o3 preventive 3oresig0t: resignation a%o&t t0e 3&t&re represents a pro%le"atic o&tgro<t0 o3 t0e pop&lar ac=no<ledg"ent o3 glo%al perils. So"e %elieve t0at t0e <orld to co"e is so &ncertain and dangero&s t0at <e s0o&ld not atte"pt to "odi3y t0e co&rse o3 0istoryV t0e 3&t&re
<ill loo= a3ter itsel3 3or %etter or <orse: regardless o3 <0at <e do or <is0. 4ne version o3 t0is arg&"ent consists in a co"placent opti"is" perceiving t0e 3&t&re as 3ated to %e %etter t0an eit0er t0e past or t0e present. 1reN&ently acco"panying it is a sel3-del&ding denial o3 <0at is pla&si%le 7`t0e <orld <ill not %e so %ad a3ter allA8: or a naively (anglossian prag"atis" 7`t0ings <ill <or= t0e"selves o&t in spite o3 everyt0ing: %eca&se 0&"an=ind al<ays 3inds <ays to s&rviveA8.3# M&c0 "ore co""on: 0o<ever: is t0e opposite reaction: a 3atalistic pessi"is" reconciled to t0e idea t0at t0e 3&t&re <ill %e necessarily <orse t0an <0at preceded it. T0is is s&stained %y a tragic c0ronological 3ra"e<or= according to <0ic0 0&"anity is doo"ed to decay: or a cyclical one o3 t0e endless repetition o3 t0e "ista=es o3 t0e past. 4n top o3 t0eir d&%io&s assess"ents o3 <0at is to co"e: alar"is" and

resignation <o&ld: i3 <idely accepted: &nder"ine a via%le practice o3 3arsig0tedness. )ndeed: %ot0 o3 t0e" enco&rage p&%lic disengage"ent 3ro" deli%eration a%o&t scenarios 3or t0e 3&t&re: a process t0at appears to %e dangero&s: pointless: or &nnecessary. T0e res&lting `dep&%lici;ationA o3 de%ate leaves do"inant gro&ps and instit&tions 7t0e state: t0e "ar=et: tec0no-science 8 in c0arge o3 sorting o&t t0e 3&t&re 3or t0e rest o3 &s: t0&s e33ectively prod&cing a 0eterono"o&s social order. /o<: t0en: can <e s&pport a de"ocratic process o3
prevention 3ro" %elo<B T0e ans<er: ) t0in=: lies in c&ltivating t0e p&%lic capacity 3or critical @&dg"ent and deli%eration: so t0at participants in glo%al civil society s&%@ect all clai"s a%o&t potential catastrop0es to exa"ination: eval&ation: and contestation. T<o nor"ative concepts are partic&larly <ell s&ited to gro&nding t0ese tas=s6 t0e preca&tionary principle and glo%al @&stice.

Last printed

:1

Levinas Neg GT

Dartmouth 2K9

:2

3t: Neg "orality

Ce are morally o/ligate. to a.opt pru.ent poli y that 6ill 9eep us -rom pushing ivili<ation to6ar. .isaster+ Kurasa6a0 1*

Kurasa6a: 1&y&=i. !a&tionary Tales6 T0e 9lo%al !&lt&re o3 (revention and t0e Cor= o3 1oresig0t. ,ons"ella"ions, $ol. 11 No 4. 211*
Salient in disc&ssions o3 environ"ental and tec0no-scienti3ic ris=s: t0e preca&tionary principle posits pru.en e an. vigilance as deontological co&nter<eig0ts to t0e "&ltiplication and intensi3ication o3 so&rces o3 danger in t0e conte"porary <orld. 1ro" a preca&tionary standpoint: t0e lac= o3 a%sol&te

certainty a%o&t a serio&s danger s0o&ld not deter &s 3ro" erring on t0e side o3 ca&tion and ta=ing reasona%le "eas&res to address it.3' !onseN&ently: t0e instr&"ental-strategic orientation to action "&st %e
%alanced o&t %y a t<o-part "oral in@&nction6 act pr&dently 7in a "anner t0at ai"s to avoid "ass 0&"an s&33ering and ecological da"age8: and do no 0ar" 7in a "anner t0at <orsens t0e existing state o3 a33airs or "oves &s closer to catastrop0e8. EantAs %old cry o3 Sapere a&deR co"es 3ace-to-3ace <it0 IonasAs 0&"%le pleas o3 %e<areR and preserveR F&ilt into any preca&tionary stance is a participatory and re3lexive concept o3 "eas&red action: <0ic0 stip&lates t0at <e s0o&ld only decide on a partic&lar co&rse o3 action a3ter

extensive p&%lic inp&t: deli%eration: and in3or"ed consideration o3 t0e range o3 options and t0eir pro%a%le e33ects.3* T0is =ind o3 participatory re3lexivity 3ort0rig0tly ac=no<ledges t0e 3alli%ilis"
o3 decision-"a=ing processes a%o&t t0e 3&t&re: nota%ly %eca&se o3 t0e existence o3 &nexpected and &nintended conseN&ences. 5s s&c0: "eas&red action is an inters&%@ective practice t0at is al<ays s&%@ect to revision t0ro&g0 decisional 3eed%ac= loops incorporating 3actors t0at "ay e"erge o&t o3 a s&%seN&ent %roadening o3 collective 0ori;ons 7%etter arg&"ents: ne< evidence: &n3oreseen or inadvertent side-e33ects: s0i3ting p&%lic opinion: etc.8. 5dditionally0 t0e nor" o3 preca&tionAs sel3-li"iting c0aracter allo<s &s to advocate t&rning a<ay 3ro"

certain possi%ilities i3 t0ey are li=ely to introd&ce large-scale ris=s <it0o&t proper steering "ec0anis"s to control or alleviate t0e" , endangering 0&"an s&rvival: potentially creating greater pro%le"s t0an t0e ones
targeted %y t0e original action: or ris=ing "ass 0&"an s&33ering and ecological destr&ction +

Last printed

:2