Voting negative is the permutation—critiquing the aff for overlooking certain populations creates a mix of state exceptions and the existence of people—this solves your perm evidence better
Young and Keil 2009 (Douglas and Roger, Professors at York University, Cities 27.2 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275109001085)
Based on the recent spatial developments in Europe, German planner Tom Sieverts has proposed the term Zwischenstadt or “in-between city” (Sieverts, 2003). This concept is meant to grasp the novel urban form that has emerged beyond the traditional, more compact, uni-centred European city. Sieverts notes that this new urban form is now pervasive and home as well as workplace to a growing percentage of Europeans. Similarly, Dutch scholars Hajer and Reijndorp have pointed to the fact that we now all live in an urbanized field, which appears as an “archipelago of enclaves” (Hajer and Reijndorp, 2001; see also the notion of post-suburbia, Wu and Phelps, 2008). Much of the more recent attention to metropolitanism, regionalism and regionalization has had to do with the changing scales of post-Fordist, globalized and neoliberalizing economies. Regions to some degree re-defined the space of political economies and shattered the methodological nationalism of scholars and practitioners alike. These new regions led to largely two spatial effects: (1) the centrifugal sprawl away from city centres or new sprawl where there was no previous agglomeration and (2) the re-centralization of economies in downtowns as well as airports, edge cities, business parks, etc. We argue now that the current period seems at yet another crossroads: between the ‘glamour zones’ of the “creative” inner (global) city economies on one end and the sprawling new regional economies on the other, we now have a new set of socio-spatial arrangements which characterize the current period of urban expansion more than others. We are talking here about the in-between cities as the currently most dynamic and problematic forms of suburbanization. In North America, these in-between cities comprise the old post-WW2 suburbs in particular, but also the transitional zones between those suburbs and the exurban fringe that has leapfrogged some agricultural developments, utility corridors, conservation areas, and the like. These remnant spaces of Fordist urbanization include large urban landscape forms such as oil tank farms, military sites, municipal airports, industrial facilities, large scale housing estates, often public, marginal agricultural lands as well as ravines, woodlots and retention ponds, new strip malls, university or other educational institutions, infrastructures such as rail switching yards or freight terminals, landfills (sometimes expired), entertainment facilities such as theme parks and movieplexes; big box retail outlets, religiously-centred developments, etc. They also contain small pockets of hugely surprising and diversified urban uses such as ethnic mini-malls, mini-ghettos of students or poverty populations, rich enclaves, semi-legal uses such as strip clubs and saunas, as well as niche market entertainment locales such as climbing walls or go-cart tracks. While – and perhaps because – these in-between spaces assemble a wild and often unexplainable mix of uses untypical for either the inner city or the classical suburb, they present landscapes of extreme spatial and social segregation. In-betweenness is a metaphor that has strong resonance in a poststructural understanding of societies where no fixed boundaries may exist that separate collective and individual identities in “essential” or “natural” ways. This is expressed in Sieverts’ own admission that “cultural plurality is a positive characteristic of the Zwischenstadt” (2003, p. 52). Hybridity and creolization are important concepts through which to understand the postcolonial world in which many communities find themselves today ( [Bhabha, 1994] and [Goonewardena and Kipfer, 2004]). Bhabha, for example, takes “the cultural and historical hybridity of the postcolonial world … as the paradigmatic place of departure” for looking at our world today (1994, p. 21). While it is not possible here to take this thought too far given the different focus of this particular article, it may be useful to remind ourselves that it is in these less than determined spaces “in-between” where urbanizing societies also develop the social spaces in which hybridity is cultivated through a mix of (exclusionary) state practices and (liberating) popular activities. In fact, where Wacquant (2008), for example, sees a fundamental difference between the ghetto in the United States, which is a space vacated by the state, and the French banlieue, a space entirely occupied and produced by state action, we would point to the in-between city we study as a mixed product of both, state presence and state retreat (see Young and Keil (2009) for a further development of these ideas). On a global scale, hybridity is now written firmly into the spaces we call in-between cities. Gregory Guldin observes about urbanization trends in China which he says find themselves in a hermaphroditic state: As areas become more prosperous, townization and citization proceed apace. Villages become more like market and xiang towns, and country towns and small cities become more like large cities. This in turn dampens the ardor of people in villages and xiang towns to move to county towns, and so on up the line, even when people continue to recognize a higher “cultural level” in cities. The urbanization process unfolding is thus caused not only by a stream of rural-to-urban migrants but also by urbanization in place; that is, entire districts becoming more urbanized at all levels of the rural–urban continuum. At the lower, townization level, some Chinese have conceptualized this town-village blending as chengxiang yitihua (urban–rural integration [Zhang, 1989]) […] a form neither urban nor rural but a blending of the two wherein a dense web of transactions ties large urban cores to their surrounding regions (Guldin, 2001, p. 17). During the onset of the current economic crisis, millions of Chinese migrant workers were entangled in a web of work-housing relationships in this in-between world2 and became living witnesses to the dissolution of clear town-country relationships into a web of hybrid in-between spaces that can be holding tank for the reserve army of the global workbench, launching pad for personal life trajectories or site of socio-spatial conflict ( [Branigan, 2009a] and [Branigan, 2009b]). In a related argument, Yiftachel speaks of “gray cities”, places “positioned between the ‘whiteness’ of legality/approval/safety, and the ‘blackness’ of eviction/destruction/death” (Yiftachel, 2009, p. 89). While conditions in Toronto’s in-between city are not as drastic as in Palestine, which serves as Yiftachel’s area of study, the principle here is interesting and relates well to our theme of hybridity. What is remarkable is the notion that hybridity of this kind is potentially deadly, not a safe space, a space of vulnerability, invisibility and powerlessness. Yiftachel notes that “[g]ray spaces contain a multitude of groups, bodies, housing, lands, economies and discourses, lying literally ‘in the shadow’ of the formal, planned city, polity and economy” (2009, p. 89). We can also evoke here the complex of issues that Ananya Roy has recently summarized under the title “exurbanity and extraterritoriality” which point towards some form of hybridity between urban and national spaces where identities are formed in complex layered interactions (Roy, 2007, p. 9–10).
View from the state incommensurable with view from the street
Scott 1998 (Professor of Political Science at Yale, Seeing Like a State )
What is remarkable and telling about Jacobs's critique is its unique perspective. She begins at street level, with an ethnography of micro- order in neighborhoods, sidewalks, and intersections. Where Le Cor- busier "sees" his city initially from the air, Jacobs sees her city as a pedestrian on her daily rounds would. Jacobs was also a political acti- vist involved in many campaigns against proposals for zoning changes, road building, and housing development that she thought ill-advised.77 It was all but inconceivable that a radical critique, grounded in this fashion, could ever have originated from within the intellectual circle of urban planner~.~g Her novel brand of everyday urban sociology ap- plied to the design of cities was simply too far removed from the or- thodox educational routines of urban planning schools at the time.79 An examination of her critique from the margins serves to underline many of the failings of high modernism.
Cannot combine the plan and Metis
Scott 1998 (Professor of Political Science at Yale, Seeing Like a State )
One purpose of this illustration is to alert us to the social conditions necessary for the reproduction of comparable practical knowledge. These social conditions, at a minimum, would seem to require a com- munity of interest, accumulated information, and ongoing experimen- tation. Occasionally there are formal institutions that seem almost per- fectly tailored to the collection and exchange of practical information, such as the veillLes of nineteenth-century France. The veillee, as its name implies, was a traditional pattern of gathering practiced by farm families during winter evenings, often in barns to take advantage of the warmth generated by the livestock and thus save on fuel. With no agenda save sociability and economy, the gatherings amounted to lo- cal assemblies where opinions, stories, agricultural news, advice, gos- sip, and religious or folk tales were exchanged while the participants shelled nuts or embroidered. Given the fact that each member there possessed a lifetime of interested observation and practice in which every family paid for the consequences of its agricultural decisions, the veillee was an unheralded daily seminar on practical knowledge. This brings us squarely to two of the great ironies of metis. The first is that metis is not democratically distributed. Not only does it depend on a touch or a knack that may not be common, but access to the ex- perience and practice necessary for its acquisition may be restricted. Artisan guilds, gifted craftsmen, certain classes, religious fraternities, entire communities, and men in general often treat some forms of knowledge as a monopoly they are reluctant to share. Better stated, the availability of such knowledge to others depends greatly on the social structure of the society and the advantages that a monopoly in some forms of knowledge can ~onfer.~' In this respect metis is not unitary, and we should perhaps speak of metises, recognizing its nonhomo- geneity. The second irony is that, however plastic and receptive metis is, some forms of it seem to depend on key elements of preindustrial life for their elaboration and transmission. Communities that are mar- ginal to markets and to the state are likely to retain a high degree of metis; they have no choice, as they have to rely disproportionately on the knowledge and materials at hand. If, while shopping at the local store or visiting at the farmers' association, Mat Isa had found a cheap pesticide that would have finished off the red ants, I don't doubt that he would have used it. Some forms of metis are disappearing every day.72 As physical mo- bility, commodity markets, formal education, professional specializa- tion, and mass media spread to even the most remote communities, the social conditions for the elaboration of metis are undermined. One could; with great justice, welcome a great many of these extinctions of local knowledge. Once matches become widely available, why would anyone want to know, except as a matter of idle curiosity, how to make fire with flint and tinder? Knowing how to scrub clothes on a wash- board or on a stone in the river is undoubtedly an art, but one gladly abandoned by those who can afford a washing machine. Darning skills were similarly lost, without much nostalgia, when cheap, machine- made stockings came on the market. As the older Bugis seamen say, "These days, with charts and compasses, anyone can steer."73 And why not? The production of standardized knowledge has made certain skills more broadly-more democratically-available, as they are no longer the preserve of a guild that may refuse admission or insist on a long apprentices hi^.^^ Much of the world of metis that we have lost is the all but inevitable result of industrialization and the division of labor. And much of this loss was experienced as a liberation from toil and drudgery. But it would be a serious error to believe that the destruction of metis was merely the inadvertent and necessary by-product of eco- nomic progress. The destruction of metis and its replacement by stan- dardized formulas legible only from the center is virtually inscribed in the activities of both the state and large-scale bureaucratic capitalism. As a "project," it is the object of constant initiatives which are never en- tirely successful, for no forms of production or social life can be made to work by formulas alone-that is, without metis. The logic animating the project, however, is one of control and appropriation. Local knowl- edge, because it is dispersed and relatively autonomous, is all but un- appropriable. The reduction or, more utopian still, the elimination of metis and the local control it entails are preconditions, in the case of the state, of administrative order and fiscal appropriation and, in the case of the large capitalist firm, of worker discipline and profit. The subordination of metis is fairly obvious in the development of mass production in the factory. A comparable de-skilling process is, I be- lieve, more compelling and, given the intractable obstacles to complete standardization, ultimately less successful in agricultural production. As Stephen Marglin's early work has convincingly shown, capitalist profit requires not only efficiency but the combination of efficiency and control.75 The crucial innovations of the division of labor at the sub- product level and the concentration of production in the factory repre- sent the key steps in bringing the labor process under unitary control. Efficiency and control might coincide, as in the case of the mechanized spinning and weaving of cotton. At times, however, they might be un- related or even contradictory. "Efficiency at best creates a potential profit," notes Marglin. "Without control the capitalist cannot realize that profit. Thus organizational forms which enhance capitalist control may increase profits and find favor with capitalists even if they affect productivity and efficiency adversely. Conversely, more efficient ways of organizing production which reduce capitalist control may end up reducing profits and being rejected by capitalist^."^^ The typical struc- ture of artisanal production was often an impediment to efficiency. But it was nearly always an obstacle to capitalist profits. In the "putting- out" system in textiles that prevailed before factory organization, cot- tage workers had control over the raw material, could set the pace of the work, and could increase their return by various stratagems that were difficult to monitor. The crucial advantage of the factory, from the boss's point of view, was that he could more directly fix the hours and the intensity of the work and control the raw materials.77 To the degree that efficient production could still be organized on an artisanal basis (such as early woolen manufacturing and silk ribbon weaving, accord- ing to Marglin), to that degree was it difficult for the capitalist to ap- propriate the profits of a dispersed craft population.
A2: Collapses Structures
Practical knowledge that results fills in best
Scott 1998 (Professor of Political Science at Yale, Seeing Like a State )
Those who do not have access to scientific methods and laboratory verification have often relied on metis to develop rich knowledge sys- tems that are remarkably accurate. Traditional navigation skills before the eras of sextants, magnetic compasses, charts, and sonar are a case in point. I refer again to the Bugis in this context, because their skills have been so brilliantly documented by Gene Ammarell.61 In the ab- sence of formal tide tables, the Bugis have elaborated a thoroughly re- liable scheme for forecasting rising and falling tides, the direction of currents, and the relative strength of tides-all of which are vitally important to their sailing plans and safety.62 Calculating on the basis of time of day, the number of days into the lunar cycle, and the mon- soon season, the Bugis captain holds in his head a system that provides all the accurate information he needs about tides. From an astrono- mer's perspective, it seems odd that the scheme makes no reference to the angle of declination of the moon. But since the monsoon is directly related to the declination of the moon, it serves effectively as a proxy. The cognitive map of the Bugis captain can be reconstructed in writ- ten form, as Ammarell has done, for illustrative purposes, but it was learned orally and by informal apprenticeship among the Bugis. Given the complexity of the phenomena it is meant to address, the sys- tem for evaluating and predicting tides is elegantly simple and emi- nently effective
A2: Not Authoritarian Nation
Neoliberalism is the new authoritarianism
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. xxiv
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
Neoliberal ideology, on the one hand, pushes for the privatization of all noncommodified public spheres and the upward distribution of wealth. On the other hand, it supports policies that increasingly militarize facets of public space in order to secure tile privileges and benefits of the corporate elite and ultra-rich. Neoliberalism does not merely produce economic inequality, iniquitous rower relations, and a corrupt political system; it also promotes rigid exclusions from national citizenship and civic participation. As Lisa Duggan points omit, “Neoliberalisin cannot be abstracted from race and gender relations, or other cultural aspects of the body politic. Its legitimating discourse, social relations, and ideology are saturated with race, with gender, with sex, with religion, with ethnicity, and nationaliIy.”2 Neoliberalism comfortably aligns itself with various strands of neoconservative and religious fundamentalisms, waging imperial wars abroad as well as at home against those groups and movements that threaten its authoritarian misreading of the meaning of freedom, security, and productiveness.
Neoliberalism will usher in a new authoritarianism
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. xxv-xxvi
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
The main argument of this book is that neoliberalism has to be understood and challenged as both an economic theory and a powerful public pedagogy and cultural politics. That is, it has to be named and critically understood before it can be critiqued. The common-sense assumptions that legitimate neoliberalismn ‘5 alleged historical inevitability have to be unsettled and then engaged for tile social damage they cause at all levels of human existence., I attempt to identify and critically examine the most salient and powerful ideologies that inform and frame neoliberalism. I am also arguing for making cultural politics and time notion of public pedagogy’ central to the struggle against neoliberalism, particularly since education anti culture now play such a prominent political and economic role in both securing consent and producing capital. In fact, my position is similar to Susan Buek-Monss’s argument that “the recognition of cultural domination as just as important as, and perhaps even as the condition of possibility of, political anti economic domination is a true advance in our thinking. 2 Of course, this position is meant not to disavow economic and institutional struggles but to supplement them with a cultural politics that connects symbolic power and its pedagogical practices with material relations of power. What I am calling for in this case is a new language for addressing “social and cultural learning and reproduction in time context of globalization and the way in which globalization itself constitutes a problem of and for pedagogy. In addition, I analyze how neoliberal policies work at the level of everyday life through the language of privatization and the lived cultural forms of class, race, gender, youth, and ethnicity. Finally, I attempt in every chapter to employ a language of critique and possibility, engagement and hope, as part of a broader project of viewing democracy as a site of intense struggle over matters of representation, participation, and shared power.. Central to this is the belief, as Alain Touraine argues, that neoliberal globalization has not “dissolved our capacity for political action. “° Such action depends on the ability of various groups—the peace movement, the anti—corporate globalization movement, the human rights movement, the environmental justice movement—within and across national boundaries to form alliances in which matters of global justice, community, and solidarity provide a common symbolic space and multiple public spheres where norms are created, debated, and engaged as part of an attempt to develop a new political language, culture, amid set of relations. Such efforts must be understood as part of a broader attempt not only to collectively struggle against domination but also to defend all those social advances that strengthen democratic public spheres and services, demand new rights, establish modes of power sharing, andl create notions of social justice adequate to imagining and sustaining democracy on a global level. Consider, for example, the anti-corporate globalization movement’s slogan “Another World Is Possible!” which demands, as Alex Callinicos insightfully points out, a different kind of social logic, a powerful sense of unity and solidarity. Another world—that is, a world based on a different social logic, run according to different priorities from those that prevail today. It is easy enough to specify what the desiderata of such an alternative social logic would he—social justice, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and democracy—but much harder to specify how a reproducible social system embodying these requirements could be built. And then there is the question of how to achieve it. Both these questions—Vhat is the alternative to capitalism? What strategy can get us there?—can be answered in different ways. One thing the anti-capitalist movement is going to have to learn is how to argue through the differences that exist and will probably develop around such issues without undermining the very powerful sense of unit that has been one of the movement’s most attractive qualities.’ Callinicos’s insight suggests that any viable struggle against neoliberal capitalism will have to rethink “the entire project of politics within the changed conditions of a global public sphere, and to this democratically, as people who speak different political languages, but whose goals are nonetheless the same: global peace, economic justice, legal equality, democratic participation, individual freedom, mutual respect.”° One of the central tasks facing intellectuals, activists, educators, and others who believe in au inclusive and substantive democracy is the need to use theory to rethink the language and possibilities of politics as a way to imagine a future outside time powerful grip of neoliberalisin and the impending authoritarianism that has a different story to tell about the future, one that reinvents the past in the image of the crude exercise of power and the unleashing of unimaginable human suffering. Critical reflection and social action in this discourse must acknowledge how time category of the global public sphere extends the space of politics beyond the boundaries of local resistance. Global problems need global institutions, global modes of dissent, global intellectual work, and global social movements.
A2: Strategic Essentialism/Coalitions Turn
Lefebvrian everyday methodology solves
Kipfer 2002 (Associate prof of polisci and French at York University, Urbanization, Everyday Life and the Survival of Capitalism: Lefebvre, Gramsci and the Problematic of Hegemony, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 13:2)
Meta-theoretical (and political) difficulties do emerge, however, when it comes to actualizing a "Gramscian" Lefebvre for the purpose of analyzing urban hegemony. After all, the marxist problematic of hegemony has been dismissed as a "master-narrative" for neglecting considerations of difference.143 Yet the open and integral marxism that follows from Gramsci and Lefebvre accepts the everyday and difference as central, not derivative problems without following the poststructuralist move to disconnect hegemony from the problematic of the survival of c a p i t a 1 i ~ m . l ~ ~ In particular Lefebvre's dialectical humanism, which differs from Derrida's approach to differance, 145 places the interplay between minimal and maximal difference at the center of capitalist hegemony and the search for a future beyond alienation. Critics are correct that Lefebvre theorized the role of ecology, racism, patriarchy and imperialism in the production of space and differentialist practice neither sufficiently nor adequately. 146 But the fact that Lefebvre insisted that the production of abstract spacellinear time extends to modernist linguistic reifications, "phallocentric" masculinity, Euro-centrism and neo-colonialism~47 and the "destruction of nature"148 allowed others t o use Lefebvre for feminist,149 ecological,150 or anti-racist15' intellectual projects. It is thus possible to link Lefebvre's urban marxism to theorists who share a similar dialectical humanist sensibility to difference (as alienation, possibility, and iiberation) but focus their analyses more squarely on racism, empire, patriarchy, and s e ~ u a 1 i t y . l ~ ~ Establishing such links is essential not only to develop an urban analysis of hegemony but also to understand more fully the role difference in counter-hegemonic projects.