What is the “Critique” or “Kritik”? A strategy used primarily by negative debaters designed to question the assumptions which underlie the other team’s advocacy.
Where did the term “Kritik” come from? The term “critical theory” or “the critique” (German = “kritik”) was coined by the philosophers associated with the “Frankfurt School”
When was the Kritik first used in policy debate? The use of Kritik arguments became common in college debate in the early 1990s; the Kritik crept into high school debate in the mid-to-late 1990s and has since become common in “national circuit” high school debating.
What would be an example of a Kritik on the alternative energy topic? Consider an affirmative case calling for a cap-and-trade system of emission credits designed to reduce global warming. A negative team might use an “environmental racism” critique, arguing that this system will disproportionately impact poor people as it increases the price of energy.
Critiques are often incomprehensible Following is a paragraph from the first page of Foucault’s classic 1969 book, The Archaeology of Knowledge: “The manifest discourse, therefore, is really no more than the repressive presence of what it does not say; and this 'not-said' is a hollow that undermines from within all that is said. The first theme sees the historical analysis of discourse as the quest for and the repetition of an origin that eludes all historical determination; the second sees it as the interpretation of 'hearing' of an 'already-said' that is at the same time a 'not-said'. We must renounce all those themes whose function is to ensure the infinite continuity of discourse and its secret presence to itself in the interplay of a constantly recurring absence. We must be ready to receive every moment of discourse in its sudden irruption; in that punctuality in which it appears, and in that temporal dispersion that enables it to be repeated, known, forgotten, transformed, utterly erased, and hidden, far from all view, in the dust of books.”
Critiques are often incomprehensible Jacques Derrida’s famous 1974 book, Of Grammatology, lays out the essence of his postmodern view. Following is the opening paragraph from his work: “The devaluation of the word “language” itself, and how, in the very hold it has upon us, it betrays a loose vocabulary; the temptation of a cheap seduction, the passive yielding to fashion, the consciousness of the avant- garde, in other words—ignorance—are evidences of this effect. This inflation of the sign “language” is the inflation of the sign itself, absolute inflation, inflation itself. Yet, by one of its aspects or shadows, it is itself still a sign: this crisis is also a symptom. It indicates, as if in spite of itself, that a historico-metaphysical epoch must finally determine as language the totality of its problematic horizon. It must do so not only because all that desire had wished to wrest from the play of language finds itself recaptured within that play but also because, for the same reason, language itself is menaced in its very life, helpless, adrift in the threat of limitlessness, brought back to its own finitude at the very moment when its limits seem to disappear, when it ceases to be self-assured, contained, and guaranteed by the infinite signified which seemed to exceed it.”
The Sokol Hoax Perhaps the most remarkable demonstration of the difficulty of understanding postmodern thought is the publication in the Spring/Summer 1996 edition of Social Text an article by Alan Sokal, professor of physics at New York University. Professor Sokal became convinced that postmodern theorists were engaged in an academic fraud: using incomprehensible language designed to confuse others into thinking that it is profound. Sokal tested this theory by constructing a jibberish-filled article for submission to a leading peer-reviewed postmodern journal, Social Text. His article was entitled “Transcending the Boundaries: Towards a Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Consider the following sentence from his article: “I suggest that pi (π) isn’t constant and universal, but relative to the position of an observer, and is, therefore, subject to ineluctable historicity.” The language of the article was intentionally incomprehensible, yet it was selected for publication. Immediately after publication, Sokal revealed the hoax. He tried to convince the editors of Social Text to publish his reaction to their decision to publish his article, but they declined to further embarrass themselves.
Noam Chomsky MIT), NOAM CHOMSKY ON POSTMODERNISM, Online. Internet. Accessed June 12, postmodernism.html. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. ―- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest ―- write things that I also don't understand... no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures.... what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish.... I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of “theory” and “philosophy” to justify their claims ―- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.
What are the main types of critiques? Kritiks of the State: Agamben/Otherness, Foucault/Biopower, Statism, Empire, Borders, International Relations (IR), and Spanos. Economic Kritiks: Kritiks such as Zizek, Baudrillard, Lyotard and other Marxist Kritiks focus on the Marxist Grand Narrative: The view that world capitalism is the root of all evil and should that we should work to speed its demise. Environmental racism is an example of an economic critique. Language Critiques: The opposing team has used offensive language or made racist/sexist assumptions.
What are the parts of a Kritik argument? Framework for Analysis: How should one view the role of Kritik arguments in policy debate? Link: What does the particular Kritik have to do with the opposing team’s advocacy? Implications: Why does the Kritik justify voting against the opposing team?
What is the “Frankfurt School?” Group of philosophers who coined the term “critical theory” These philosophers shared an association with the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany All advocates of Karl Marx’s theory of “historical determinism”
What is the “Frankfurt School?” “Historical materialism” holds that communism will inevitably replace capitalism as the economic system of choice. The transition to communism, though inevitable (they claimed), is delayed by “masking” “Masking” happens when a capitalist society takes actions designed to improve social conditions — this deludes the public into thinking that capitalism works
What theorists are associated with the “Frankfurt School?” Theodor Adorno Walter Benjamin Herbert Marcuse Max Horkheimer Jurgen Habermas
Historical examples of “Masking” Marxists believed that the Great Depression of the 1930s should have represented the death knell of capitalism Franklin Delano Roosevelt “masked” the evils of capitalism by providing temporary jobs through the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) — the masses were deluded The passage of the Social Security Act “masked” the evils of poverty, thus delaying the demise of capitalism
“Critical Theory” turns “doing good” on its head By “doing good,” capitalist societies are merely putting a friendly face on fascism If the capitalist society simply showed its true nature (being bad), the masses would throw off their shackles
“Critical Theory” is profoundly counter-intuitive Though its goals are hidden by shadowy terms such as “reification” and “commodification,” the objective is clearly to bring down world capitalism Thus, in capitalist societies, whatever is good, becomes bad and whatever is bad becomes good
Questions to ask of “critical theorists” Is it moral to allow social evils to exist just so that some larger end can be served? Isn’t this a clear case of expecting the ends to justify the means?
Questions to ask of “critical theorists” By ignoring social evils, “critical theorists” hope to bring down world capitalism. Can we justify the conscious seeking of worldwide depression which would inevitably be associated with the collapse of capitalism?
Questions to ask of “critical theorists” After all the economic chaos is over and millions have died, the way would then be cleared for communism. Given the failure of communism wherever it has been tried, is there any reason to believe that we should welcome this communist future?
Do all Kritiks advocate the communist “grand narrative?” No — Though “critical theory” got its name from the Frankfurt School, debaters use the term to refer to a much broader range of arguments. Many of the “Kritiks” used in debate rounds will have nothing to do with Marxism.
What is a “Framework Argument?” Framework for Analysis arguments explain why the Kritik (even if true) offers no reason to vote for your opponent Framework for Analysis arguments allow you to keep the Kritik debate on your terms
Framework Questions What are the implications of the Kritik for the stock issues in debate? What are the implications of the Kritik for the policy maker in debate? What are the implications of the Kritik for the notion of “fiat?” What are the standards (if any) for determining who wins a Kritik argument?
What about the “stock issues?” From a stock issues perspective, Kritiks are irrelevant to the decision in a debate Kritiks fail to address any of the stock issues Kritiks fail as disadvantages because they are not unique
What Is the Relevance of the Kritik for Policy Making? Most Kritiks actually preach the view that policy implications are irrelevant: Debaters should decide what they personally will affirm rather than to focus on what the United States Federal Government should do This view is a complete rejection of a policy model, demonstrating that the Kritik has no relevance for policy making. Most Kritiks are profoundly nihilistic in their implications: They insist that we understand certain things, while being exceptionally unclear about what should be done as a result.
Why is uniqueness important? Consider an affirmative case advocating a cap-and- trade system for addressing global warming. A negative team offers an “environmental racism” critique arguing that making electric utilities pay for carbon dioxide pollution will increase the price of energy, which will unduly impact poor people. Yet this is no more an indictment of the affirmative plan than it is of the present system. In the present system, energy prices are skyrocketing. The poor are heavily impacted already. Furthermore, global warming’s impact disproportionately hurts poor people.
Why is uniqueness important? The negative team will claim that Kritiks do not need to be “unique” — often acting as if there is some debate authority who has declared this is the case. Yet the admission that Kritiks are not unique is actually an admission that the Kritik has no bearing on the affirmative case. In the global warming case example, the “environmental racism” critique applies equally to the present system as it does to the affirmative plan. It is, therefore, irrelevant to the question of whether a cap-and-trade system should be instituted.
What about a policy maker model? From a policy maker model perspective, Kritiks are irrelevant to the decision in a debate. A policy maker weighs the advantages of making a change against the disadvantages. A Kritik cannot serve as a disadvantage because it is not unique — it applies equally to the present system and to the plan.
What is “fiat” and why is it important in policy debate? Every policy resolution includes an “agent of action” and the term “should.” The “agent of action” is usually “the United States federal government.” The resolution, therefore, sets out a role- playing task. It requires both teams to assess what would be a good thing for the “United States federal government” to do.
What is “fiat” and why is it important in policy debate? Fiat creates an imaginary world where the affirmative team has the power to do whatever falls within the realm of the resolution. Fiat, therefore, creates a policy framework where the debate participants are brought into the world of the “agent of action”
Users of the Kritik reject the whole notion of fiat Their argument is that “fiat” is a silly concept which should be discarded Debaters should, according to this view, be concerned with the “personal” rather than the “political” — they should focus on what they believe and affirm rather than on what the government should do.
The Kritik’s focus on “the personal” demonstrates its inapplicability to policy debate Policy debate participants should focus on whether the resolution is true First, the very name “policy debate” indicates we are focused on policy. Second, all participants agreed to debate the resolution when they accepted the invitation to attend the tournament. The resolution asks what the “United States federal government” should do, not what individual debaters should do.
What are the standards (if any) for a Kritik argument? The problem is there are no standards. There really is no way to know who wins. This problem is complicated by the fact that Kritik advocates use vague terminology making it nearly impossible to determine the true objectives of the particular Kritik
A Final Problem With the Kritik: Vague Use of Language When you venture into the world of the Kritik, you are entering a totally different linguistic world. You will quickly notice the difficulty in following the language. In the Kritik Killer briefs, we have tried to include long paragraphs (much longer than you would actually read in a round of debate) so that you can see & evaluate the context for the evidence.
A Final Problem With the Kritik: Vague Use of Language The problem you will have is no different from the problem even prominent academicians have in understanding critical language. Consider the case of Alan Sokol, professor of physics at New York University.
A Final Problem With the Kritik: Vague Use of Language Sokol became personally convinced that postmodern scholars had created such an unreal world that even they didn’t know what they were talking about. He concocted a deliberate hoax, writing an article containing pure gibberish (rather senselessly pasting together language he saw associated with postmodern thought). He submitted the article to the leading journal of critical thought: Social Text
A Final Problem With the Kritik: Vague Use of Language He titled the article: “Transcending the Boundaries: Towards a Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Consider the following section of his article: “I suggest that pi isn’t constant and universal, but relative to the position of an observer, and is, therefore, subject to ineluctable historicity.” After appropriate peer review, Social Text published his article in its Spring/Summer 1996 issue. After publication, professor Sokol revealed that the article was a hoax designed to illustrate the hollowness of thought in critical theory. Assignment: Explore a Google search for “Alan Sokol” and “Social Text” to learn more about this hoax.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 1. Insist that opposing debaters explain (in simple terms) their Kritik during cross-examination — often explanation is simply impossible. Don’t allow yourself (or the other team) to assume that just because the language of the Kritik sounds “deep” that it IS deep. It is more likely pure gibberish.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 2. Ask the other team to explain in cross-examination why the Kritik gives any reason to vote against your case. Often the Kritik has so little to do with your case that if the judge so chooses, he/she could affirm the Kritik and vote for your case as well. This would be the Both/And permutation strategy explained in the briefs.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 3. Focus on defeating the Kritik through your Framework arguments. If it is a Spanos Kritik, don’t allow the debate to focus on the details of the views of William V. Spanos; this is their ground. If they are running this Kritik, they probably do it every round and probably will know more about Spanos than you will. You can make Spanos answers, but expect to win the debate on the Framework, not on your substantive answers to Spanos.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 4. Pay attention to negative contradictions. Kritik arguments so often contradict other positions used by the negative. Most postmodern Kritiks, for example, follow a “good is bad” formula. They claim that any effort to reform the present system perpetuates capitalism and masks evil. Advocates of such a Kritik will contradict themselves if they make any other answers to your case.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 5. Understand that many judges are on your side — they are uncomfortable with what the Kritik is doing to high school debate. They would like an opportunity to vote against it, but they have to have substantive answers allowing them to justify their vote. Many users of Kritiks in high school debates win purely from the shock value of their arguments; they win because the affirmative team is confused and unsure how to answer a Kritik based in nearly incomprehensible language.
Strategic Summary for Defeating Kritiks 6. Show the inapplicability of the negative critique to the alternative energy topic. Many teams who use critique arguments use the same briefs year after year, not even making them applicable to the particular resolution being debated that year.
Finally —Do Your Part to Return Some Sanity to High School Debate Debaters will stop using the Kritik if they stop winning with it; do your part to help bring about such a desirable outcome!