The stupid undergrounds



Download 276.63 Kb.
Page1/12
Date03.05.2016
Size276.63 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

The stupid undergrounds


^by the man

About stupid political movements that are vacuous and terrible




***Notes


CP that explores some other heterotopia + ocean case turns
Pirate heterotopia fails/bad/impossible

Extra t – pirates not only in ocean

Pirates hired by Spanish govt etc
Generic stuff

Heg good


Neolib good

cap links

enemy friend distinction is good Schmitt

ask what they critique

link to hydro relationahilty

agency argument that says pirates have an influence on the world and are effective actors, not just a force manipulated by the imperial realm


david Harvey critical geographer


Biopower Link


Biermann and Mansfield ’14 Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield Department of Geography, Ohio State University, “Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics” published online 14 February 2014 Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2014, volume 32, pages 257 – 273 doi:10.1068/d13047p
Conservation biology: the biopolitical science¶ The emergence of conservation biology as a crisis-oriented discipline in the late 20th century marks a significant shift in the American relationship with ‘nature’. Today’s conservationists by and large aim to foster and protect the diversity of nonhuman life, taking as their object not individuals (eg, trees, charismatic animals, or geological formations) but populations, communities, and species. In colonial and early America, by contrast, nature was commonly viewed as something to be seized, possessed, and exploited (Nash, 2001). Landscapes of the New World were perceived as vast, dangerous, or, at best, useless, and settlers moved to conquer, tame, and improve them by clearing forests, hunting predators to near extinction, and forcing native people westward—all acts of seizure and sovereignty both over nonhuman nature and over those humans understood to be outside of the American body politic. We see in the moment of westward expansion the culmination of sovereign power in “the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it” (Foucault, 1990, page 136).¶ By the late 19th century, as forests were cleared, prairies plowed, and Native American tribes defeated (in short, as there was less wilderness left to conquer), a new biopolitical desire to make nature live began to surface alongside sovereign control. In the emerging Romantic understanding, nature took on new salience, as a small but significant minority of Americans began to view it as sublime, sacred, and an essential part of American national identity (Nash, 2001; Runte, 1987). Acclaimed natural landscapes such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite Valley, and the geyser basins of Yellowstone served as proof of American exceptionalism, and although their preservation paved the way for the modern environmental movement, the early logic of this movement was one of “monumentalism, not environmentalism” (Runte, 1987, page 29). At the same time, conservationists such as Gifford Pinchot advocated a utilitarian and consumption-based approach to managing and stewarding natural resources for national development (Knight and Bates, 1995). In these ways, the initial steps toward biopolitical environmentalism were not a departure from sovereign power but rather an expansion of it, exemplifying Bruce Braun’s claim that “the government of ‘life’ has revealed itself to be intimately related to the exercise and extension of sovereign power” (2007, page 8).¶ By the mid-20th century, the overt justification for the protection of nature had shifted away from American exceptionalism and toward ecological health and integrity (eg, Leopold, 1949). Ecology as a science developed to focus on interactions between organisms and their environments; with concepts such as ecosystems and the balance of nature, it became the central science associated with environmentalism (Worster, 1994). Conservation biology grew out of this intertwining of ecology, as a science, and the American environmental movement. The ‘official’ formation of conservation biology as a discipline is cited as early evening on May 8, 1985, at the end of the Second Conference on Conservation Biology in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An informal motion established the Society for Conservation Biology along with a new academic journal Conservation Biology (Sarkar, 2009). Those instrumental in establishing the discipline sought to separate themselves from scientists who perceived the environment as a set of natural resources to be protected for human consumption (Sarkar, 2009; Soulé, 1985). Whereas scientists in the natural resources and forestry worlds generally sought to manage a small number of highly valuable species (such as high-yield timber¶ species and wild fisheries), conservation biologists aimed to protect all species based on two somewhat conflicting ideas: the idea that nature has intrinsic value extending beyond its utility to human society, and the idea that nature’s diversity might someday be valuable to human society [eg, to adapt agricultural crops to climate change (Soulé, 1985) ], even if not yet. Thus, the organizing principle is that it is not enough to know nature; one must also use that knowledge to effectively manage and even foster the diversity of life. While scientific knowledge is always shaped by social processes and dominant social metaphors (Law, 2004; Sismondo, 2010; Worster, 1994), conservation biology is distinct from many other fields in that practitioners aim not merely to uncover facts but also to develop recommendations and take action (Soulé, 1985).¶ The “right of the sword” over nature has not been replaced per se but has been permeated by a new right to “make live and let die”, manifest as the right and duty to catalog life at the level of the species, organism, and genome, make nonhuman species live, and preserve certain visions of nature—all this while allowing abnormal or “debilitated” genes, individuals, and populations to die off (Soulé, 1985, page 731). Biopower has not come to replace sovereign power, and the biological materiality of nature remains firmly tied to its political and social dimensions (Braun, 2007). Indeed, intervention in biological processes has both complemented and complicated human—and particularly capitalist—exploitation of nature. Ultimately, however, the random element of life can never be fully brought into the realm of management, as the “complexities of matters [make] governance and rule frighteningly unpredictable” (Hinchliffe and Bingham, 2008, page 1534). In other words, life—both human and nonhuman—constantly escapes control, and to promote and protect life means to acknowledge the dynamism and inherent unpredictability of biological processes. Hinchliffe and Bingham (2008) explain that the challenge of securing life is a “paradox, where the need for control is also the need for an absence of control” (page 1547). This paradox lies at the root of conservation biology and associated fields.


Biermann and Mansfield ’14 Christine Biermann, Becky Mansfield Department of Geography, Ohio State University, “Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics” published online 14 February 2014 Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2014, volume 32, pages 257 – 273 doi:10.1068/d13047p
¶ Conclusions¶ The project of making life live is manifest far beyond the social world. It extends into relations between humans and other species and the production of conservation knowledge, practices, and policies. While the discourse of scientific progress insinuates that our knowledge of the biophysical world is objective, apolitical, and increasingly accurate over time, we have shown that conservation science is a form of power that generates particular truth claims in the name of fostering life. We see the rise of biopower, and downplaying of sovereign power, in American society’s relations with the natural landscape over the past century. Nature is no longer ruled by the sword, but by science; the wild natural landscape is no longer tamed but instead protected, improved, and even produced. With concepts such as biodiversity, evolution, and extinction at its core, modern conservation science aims to increase the integrity and adaptability of nonhuman populations; it aims to enhance genetic diversity, ensure that birth and death rates remain stable, and protect populations from dangerous environmental or demographic stochasticity. This requires that “security mechanisms ... be installed around the random element inherent in a population of living beings so as to optimize a state of life” (Foucault, 2003, page 246). The “security mechanisms” we have described include statistical tools such as population viability analysis and material practices of backcross breeding and deliberate introgression to improve a population’s chance of survival. Crucially, these efforts to increase the integrity of nonhuman life are bound up with notions of diversity-as-purity that share a genealogy with modern notions of race and racism. In the logics of conservation and race, life produces biological diversity, conceived as variety of biological kinds; within that diversity exist kinds that foster ongoing life, which therefore should be maximized, and kinds that are a threat, which are conceived as abnormalities that should be let die. The mixing of kinds is at once an enhancement of diversity and a threat to its very basis.¶ This racial logic points to a contradiction in contemporary conservation rhetoric. On the one hand, conservationists, including conservation biologists, explicitly value not only human life but all life; all life has intrinsic value and must therefore be protected (Youatt, 2008). This is seen as a brake on exploitation and transformation of nature. On the other hand, the racial logic of abnormality inherent in conservation science requires judgment about what parts of nature to make live and what to let die in the name of making live. Not all life has intrinsic value—only those parts of life that foster ongoing emergence of life. This biopolitical logic is often used to justify the immediate exploitation of nature, people or both. Indeed, the idea of an ongoing ecological crisis has been used to “ legitimate yet further technocratic interventions, to further extend the state and corporate management of biological life, including the continuing reduction of humanity to bare life and nature to mere resource, and to stifle ecological politics as such” (Smith, 2011, page xvi).¶ Intervention into ecosystems or nonhuman populations in the name of ecological ‘health’ is now commonplace, as seen, for example, in the former US President George W Bush’s Healthy Forests Initiative, which opened National Forest land to logging in the name of reducing the threat of high-severity wildfires. It is here, too, that we see the continued relevance of sovereign power in 21st-century nature–society relations. Rather than being fully replaced, sovereign power is now permeated with the logic of biopower, and together they underwrite exploitation of life in the name of fostering life today and for the future.¶ This is especially true as conservation intersects with the new sciences of genomics and biotechnology. Scientists are now producing new transgenic organisms, sequencing genes, and identifying genetic markers for unique desirable and undesirable traits. These sciences open up new ways of knowing organisms, criteria for ‘optimizing’ populations, and calculations of genetic diversity, all of which can lead to new forms of biopower. Such interventions come to be viewed as ‘common sense’ through the circulation of genetic discourses—for example, it is only common sense for a conservation organization that aims to restore a plant population to calculate the genetic distance between individuals in the population, so as to generate enough genetic diversity for the population to adapt to different environments without suffering inbreeding depression or genetic drift. Our intention is not to dismiss conservation approaches such as this, but to show that acts of truth-telling about nature become common sense because they occur within, and are necessarily shaped by, the context of liberal biopolitical rule. In other words, despite being considered politically neutral and scientifically objective, conservation science is biopolitical: it is the science of both make live and let die.

State PIK


Encounter/explore link

Their goal to encounter the other and explore the unknown is rooted in the same logic they critique


D’SOUZA (Dinesh D’Souza , a John M. Olin Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is author of The End of Racism , published this fall by the Free Press.) 95 http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/11/002-the-crimes-of-christopher-columbus-21

Let us examine the consistent portrait that emerges in multicultural literature about the legacy of Columbus. The advocates of multiculturalism are unanimous that Columbus did not discover America. As Francis Jennings writes in The Invasion of America , “The Europeans did not settle a virgin land. They invaded and displaced a native population.” American Indian activist Mike Anderson says, “There was a culture here and there were people and there were governments here prior to the arrival of Columbus.” Kirkpatrick Sale contends, “We can say with assurance that no such event as a ‘discovery’ took place.” Novelist Homer Aridjis contends that Europeans and native Indians “mutually discovered each other.” Garry Wills, Gary Nash, Ronald Takaki, and other scholars typically speak not of a “discovery” but of an “encounter.” But all of this is wordplay. The real issue, as Leszek Kolakowski points out, is that “the impulse to explore has never been evenly distributed among the world’s civilizations.” It is no coincidence that it was Columbus who reached the Americas and not American Indians who arrived on the shores of Europe. The term “encounter” conceals this difference by implying civilizational contact on an equal plane between the Europeans and the Indians. The multiculturalists are equally unanimous that Columbus, as the prototypical Western white male, carried across the Atlantic racist prejudices against the native peoples. Gary Nash charges that Columbus embodied a peculiar “European quality of arrogance” rooted in irrational hostility to Indians. In a similar vein, Kirkpatrick Sale in The Conquest of Paradise argues that Columbus “presumed the inferiority of the natives,” thus embodying the basic ingredients of the Western racist imagination that was bred to “fear what it did not comprehend, and hate what it knew as fearful.” For Sale, Europeans are especially predisposed to violence, while the native cultures live in a “prelapsarian Eden.” Sale concludes, “It is not fanciful to see warring against species as Europe’s preoccupation as a culture.”





Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page