ECLacan
Interpretation: The kritik is a litmus test. The affirmative must justify fundamental assumptions they enact in the 1NC. In order for the negative to win, they must prove the 1AC’s assumptions were so damning as to make the 1AC worthless or harmful compared to a mutually exclusive alternative.
The affirmative only perpetuates false radicalism by attempting to solve securitization through the proposition of an advocacy to correct the problems of law. Their discourse is the perfect example of the discourse of the University, a discourse that cloaks its desire for mastery and power underneath a veil of hot-headed rambling about our current state of affairs. In the end, their feeble attempts to critique the system create a more totalitarian state controlled by experts. Reject the 1AC as a masked manipulation of the split subject produced by their discourse.
Schroeder – Prof. Law @ Cardozo Law, Yeshiva Univ. – 2K (Jeanne L. Schroeder, BS, JD, “The Four Discourses of Law: A Lacanian Analysis of Legal Practice and Scholarship,” 79. Tex. L. Rev. 15, Nov. 2000, lexis)
Nevertheless, Seminar XVII was considered a reproof to the empty claims of precisely those students…. the epitome of the University discourse was the Soviet Union - government by experts. n159
Professor Schroeder continues in 02:
Schroeder – Prof. Law @ Cardozo Law, Yeshiva Univ. – 2 (Jeanne L. Schroeder, BS, JD, “The Stumbling Block: Freedom, Rationality, and Legal Scholarship,” 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 263, lexis)
Specifically, Lacan developed his discourse theory in the aftermath of the Paris student riots…students become alienated from the whole enterprise, parroting back what their teachers tell them rather than seeking to create their own knowledge.
And, your assumptions exist—Academic and policy discourse inherently refuses to accept its fundamental conjectures about the lack and the notion of the Big Other—this denial perpetuates mastery and manipulation
Glejzer – Professor of English at Albertson College – 1997 (Richard R. Glejzer, “Lacan with Scholasticism: Agencies of the Letter,” American Imago 54:2, p. 105-122, Muse)
In Seminar XVII, Lacan sets out a discourse that acknowledges this position of the one-who-knows …. Lacan then traces how the master signifier within all discourse structures functions to instrumentalize the subject, to split her off from the impossibility that is the real.
These differences culminate into a fantasy of a stable identity, necessitating closure. The impossibility of our own utopian fantasy leads to the extermination of entire populations to secure our own self
Stavrakakis 99 (Yannis, Visiting Fellow in Psychoanalysis and Political Science @ University of Essex, Lacan and the Political, pgs. 100-101)
What I will try to do in this chapter is, first of all…from the time of his unpublished seminar on The Formations of the Unconscious, Lacan identified the utopian dream of a perfectly functioning society as a highly problematic area (seminar of 18 June 1958).
Biopower is the root cause of all impacts
Bernauer, Boston College professor of philosophy, 1990 (James, “Michael Foucault’s Force of Flight: Toward an Ethics of Thought,” pp. 141-142)
This capacity of power to conceal itself cannot cloak the tragedy of the implications contained in Foucault's examination … the victims of a tyrant's vengeance has been stolen form us by the noose that has tightened around each of our own necks.
Text: “Assume the position of the hysteric that challenges the representations of the 1AC”
Instead of obsessively trying to master the Lack in the Symbolic Order, the hysteric analyzes the representations of the 1AC as created by the Lack and opens up space for true critique
Schroeder 02 (Jeanne L., Prof Law @ Cardozo, [44 William and Mary Law Review. 263, lexis])
All "normal" subjects are split. They are neurotic in one way or another. The characteristic neurosis of the masculine subject is obsession…. She is in this position because she has been hystericized through the analyst's discourse of legal counseling.
