the theoretical underpinning of their K relies on a colorblind analysis

of language and power. This a metaphysical all lives matter within their
philosophical stance and only re-creates white hegemony.

Bailey and Zita 2007 (Alison and Jacquelyn, “The reproduction of whiteness: Race and
the regulation of the gendered body.” Hypatia 22 (2): vii-xv.)

Philosophical methods are well suited for unpacking the

conditions that hold whiteness in place, so why has the
discipline remained relatively untouched by these
conversations? One answer lies in the whiteness of
philosophy itself. The absence of color talk in philosophy is a
marker of the discipline's whiteness. As George Yancy notes: "A key feature of
the social ontology of whiteness is that whites attempt to avoid discussing their own social, political, economic,
and cultural investments in whiteness" (2004, 4). Academic philosophy in the United States has been largely
driven by the legacy of Classic Greek and [End Page vii] European thinkers. Philosophy departments are white
social spaces and the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers in the United States are white men.
It's likely that white philosophers have simply avoided racial
topics because many believe that philosophical thought
transcends those basic cultural, racial, and ethnic
differences, and that these issues are more appropriately
addressed by other humanities scholars or by social
scientists. Conventional philosophical inquiry and method is thought to be color-blind and universally
humanistic. White ways of knowing, seeing, ontologizing,

evaluating, being, nation building, and judging have been

presented to us as ways of doing philosophy pure and
simple. As Arnold Farr observes, philosophy holds that "there is no
white perspective but only the universal, impartial,
disinterested view from nowhere. . . . Whiteness becomes
visible in the very absence of a serious consideration of the
problem of race in philosophy" (2004, 1540). The fact that white folks can only see
whiteness and its attendant privileges with some difficulty may partially explain why we tend to position our
white racialized experience as human experience.

2. This means that they literally cannot explain unique

systems of violence like the affirmative. Even if all violence
comes from collectivities [it doesn’t] their philosophical
system cannot name slavery as a unique form of geography
and subject formation. This means that our McKittrick and
Rusert evidence are disadvantages to the alternative.
3. Neoliberalism invokes the ideal of the rational, calculative self in order to
smother ethical values and increase inequality - this makes neoliberalism
inevitable and means that you cannot solve institutional and structural racism.
Hamann 9 - Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s Univeristy (Trent, Neoliberalism,
Governmentality, and Ethics, Foucault Studies, No 6, pp. 37-59, February 2009)

In his 1978-1979 course lectures at the College de France, The Birth of Biopolitics,1 Mi-chel Foucault offered
what is today recognizable as a remarkably prescient analysis of neoliberalism. In the thirty years since he gave
these lectures their pertinence and value for a critical understanding of contemporary forms of political
governance in the United States have grown. As I illustrate below, everyday experiences reflect a neoliberal
ethos2 operative within almost every aspect of our individual and social lives with consequences that are dire
for many and dangerous for most if not all of us. Indeed the central aim of neoliberal governmentality3 is the
strategic production of social conditions conducive to the constitution of Homo economicus, a specific form of
whereas liberalism posits
subjectivity with historical roots in traditional liberalism. However,
"economic man" as a "man of exchange", neoliberalism strives to ensure
that individuals are compelled to assume market-based values in all of their
judgments and practices in order to amass sufficient quantities of "human
capital" and thereby become "entrepreneurs of themselves". Neoliberal Homo
economicus is a free and autonomous "atom" of self-interest who is fully responsible for navigating the social
realm using rational choice and cost-benefit calculation to the express exclusion of all other values and
interests. Those
who fail to thrive under such social conditions have no one
and nothing to blame but themselves. It is here that we can recognize the vital importance of
the links between Foucault's analyses of governmentality begun in the late 1970's and his interest in
technologies of the self and ethical self-fashioning, which he pursued until the time of his death in 1984. His
analyses of "government" or "the conduct of conduct" bring together the government of others (subjectification)
and the government of one's self (subjectivation); on the one hand, the biopolitical governance of populations
and, on the other, the work that individuals perform upon themselves in order to become certain kinds of
subjects. While the more traditional forms of domination and exploitation characteristic of sovereign and
disciplinary forms of power remain evident in our "globalized" world, the effects of subjectification produced at
the level of everyday life through the specifically neoliberal "conduct of conduct" recommend that we recognize
and invent commensurate forms of critique, "counter-conduct" and ethical subjectivation that constitute
resistance to its dangers.4

I. Neoliberalism as Everyday Experience

One of the significant developments in contemporary life that might fall under the heading of "neoliberalism" can
be recognized through the various ways that the tra-ditional distinctions between the public and the private on
the one hand, and the po-litical and the personal on the other have been gradually blurred, reversed, or re-
moved altogether. The exposure of formerly private and personal realms of life has occurred not only through
the more striking examples of growing government and corporate surveillance (think of the telecoms and the
warrantless monitoring of elec-tronic communications paid for with taxpayer dollars or the growing use of
human implantable radio-frequency identification [RFID] microchips), but, more subtly and significantly, the
extent to which activities of production and consumption typically practiced in public spaces are increasingly
taking place in the home, a space once exclusively reserved for leisure time and housework. It has become
more and more common to find such activities as telecommuting, telemarketing, and shopping via the Internet
or cable television taking place within the home. Nearly ubiquitous technologies such as the telephone, home
computers with worldwide web access, pagers, mobile phones, GPS and other wireless devices have rendered
private space and personal time accessible to the demands of business and, increasingly, the inter-ests of
government. To put it simply, it is no longer true, as Marx once claimed, that the worker "is at home when he is
not working, and when he is working he is not at home."5 Reality television, social networking sites, personal
webcams and confessional blogging have all contributed toward exposing the private realm in ways unforeseen
by the well-known feminist adage from the 1960's: "the personal is political". Within this formerly public realm
we now find that private interests or pub-lic/private amalgams have gained greater control and influence. In
major urban areas Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) have appropriated many traditionalgoverning
functions from financially strapped municipalities including taxation, sa-nitation, and policing. For years the U.S.
federal government has given away tradi-tional public goods such as parklands, water, and the airways to profit-
making businesses, often in exchange for shallow and unfulfilled promises to serve the public interest. Many
formerly public or government institutions such as hospitals, schools, and prisons are now managed privately as
for-profit corporations as increasing numbers of people go without healthcare, education levels drop, and prison
 An ongoing effort has been made to further privatize if not
populations increase.
eliminate traditional social goods such as healthcare, welfare, and social
security. In addition, problems once recognized as social ills have been
shifted to the personal realm: poverty, environmental degradation,
unemployment, homelessness, racism, sexism, and heterosexism: all have
been reinterpreted as primarily private matters to be dealt with through
voluntary charity, the invisible hand of the market, by culti-vating personal
"sensitivity" towards others or improving one's own self-esteem. Corporations,
churches, universities and other institutions have made it part of their mission to organize the mandatory
training of employees in these and other areas of personal development and self-management. Just as illness
and disease are more often addressed in the mainstream media as a problem of revenue loss for business than
as an effect of poor environmental or worker safety regulations, corporations have stepped up the practice of
promoting full worker responsibility for their own health and welfare, offering incentives to employees for their
participation in fitness training, lifestyle management and diet programs. We can also find a sustained
expansion of "self-help" and "personal power" technologies that range from the old " think and grow rich" school
to new techniques promising greater control in the self-management of everything from time to anger.6 These
and many other examples demonstrate the extent to which so much that was once understood as social and
political has been re-positioned within the domain of self-governance, often through techniques imposed by
private institutions such as schools and businesses. On a broader scale, there is clear evidence that
government policymaking has increasingly fallen under the influence of private corporate and industry interests,
for whom the next quarter's bottom line routinely trumps any concern for the long term common or public good.
Transnational organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade
Organization commonly use their global reach in order to dictate what are often austere social policies through
"Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAPs), practices that have been linked to the on-going expansion of slum
populations worldwide.7 While the various discourses of "ownership" and the like have promoted the populist
ideals of choice, freedom, au-tonomy and individualism, the reality is that individuals worldwide are more and
more subject to the frequently harsh, unpredictable, and unforgiving demands of market forces and the kinds of
impersonal judgments that evaluate them in terms of a cost-benefit calculus of economic risk, financial burden,
productivity, efficiency, and expedience. The recent collapse of the U.S. housing market, the rising costs of fuel
and food, and record-breaking increases in unemployment rates perhaps illustrate, not the failure of what
sometimes has been called the "ownership society", but rather its success in instituting a moralizing principle of
punishing those who haven't amassed sufficient "human capital". Examples such as these do suggest that, to at
least some extent, the neoliberal strategy of infusing market values into every aspect of social life and shifting
responsibility onto individuals has succeeded.

4. Which means that the judge can vote af for the perm - yall do yall we do
us.

5. Framing question - extend the role of the ballot on this K. They have to
ask themselves how they meet.

6. The call to focus on individuality and ignore histories of race literally makes
worse for black bodies.
McGowan and Kern 2016 [Shannon L., and Anne L. Kern. "Pre-Service Foreign Language Teachers'
Awareness of White Privilege." Journal of Education and Training Studies 4, no. 4 (2016): 45-57.]

The main implication from this research is for participants to engage in conscious reflections on race. The initial
reflection should be on whiteness and white privilege. This reflection would help these pre-service principals to
develop a sociocultural consciousness to be culturally proficient school leaders. Villegas and Lucas (2007)
defined sociocultural consciousness as “the awareness that a person’s worldview is not universal but profoundly
influenced by life experiences, as mediated by a variety of factors including race, ethnicity, gender, and social
class” (p. 31). In this case, white, pre-service principals would begin to see that their views about race have
been socialized through the white norms of individualism, meritocracy, and innocence. They may then be able
 to interrogate these perceptions in ways that place their racial perspectives among other perspectives regarding
race. This suggestion is consistent with Villegas and Lucas’ (2007) beliefs in that without
a
sociocultural consciousness, educators rely on their own experiences “to
make sense of their students’ lives—an unreflective habit that often results
in misinterpretation of those students’ experiences and leads to
miscommunication” (p. 31). In the context of this study, the lack of sociocultural consciousness would
allow these white, pre-service principals to perpetuate narrow assumptions-based views and interpretations
about how race and white privilege works in society. The presence of this consciousness would increase the
With
pre-service principals’ likelihood of recognizing the flaws of their perspectives about white privilege.
regards to this study, the pre-service principals would see that white
privilege is reinforced—not minimized—by deracializing meritocracy,
individualism, or innocence. In addition, adding racelessnes to white
privilege upholds the recurring beliefs, principles, and systems of white supremacy. By
understanding this racial structure, the participants of this study may be more likely to see themselves and their
racial views as being a part of the racial order that superimposes white people over other racial groups.

Neoliberalism’s concept of colonialism ensures endless violence upon the colonized

Maldonado Torres 7 - Professor of Literature at Rutgers University (Nelson, ON THE COLONIALITY OF BEING, Cultural
Studies, 21:2, 240 - 270 http://www.decolonialtranslation.com/english/maldonado-on-the-coloniality-of-being.pdf)
Coloniality, I am suggesting here, can be understood as a radicalization and naturalization of the non-
ethics of war. This non-ethics included the practices of eliminating and slaving certain subjects -
e.g., indigenous and black - as part of the enterprise of colonization. The hyperbolic expression
of coloniality includes genocide, which is the paroxysm of the ego cogito - a world in which the
ego cogito exists alone. War, however, is not only about killing or enslaving. War includes a particular treatment of
sexuality and of feminity: rape. Coloniality is an order of things that put people of color under
the murderous and rapist sight of a vigilant ego. And the primary targets of rape are women.
But men of color are also seeing through these lenses. Men of color are feminized and become
for the ego conquiro fundamentally penetrable subjects.34 I will expand more on the several dimensions of murder and rape
when I elaborate the existential aspect of the analytics of the coloniality of Being. The point that I want to make here is that racialization works through gender and sex and that
the ego conquiro is constitutively a phallic ego as well.35 Enrique Dussel, who submits the thesis of the phallic character of the ego cogito, also makes links, albeit indirectly, with
the reality of war. And thus, in the beginning of modernity, before Descartes dis covered...a terrifying anthropological dualism in Europe, the Spanish conquistadors arrived in
America. The phallic conception of the European-medieval world is now added to the forms of submission of the vanquished Indians. ‘Males’, Bartolome´ de las Casas writes, are
reduced through ‘the hardest, most horrible, and harshest serfdom’; but this only occurs with those who have remained alive, because many of them have died; however, ‘in
war typically they only leave alive young men (mozos) and women. 36 Joshua Goldstein complements this account by depicting conquest as an extension of the rape and

exploitation of women in wartime.37 He argues thatto understand conquest one needs to examine: (1) male sexuality
as a cause of aggression; (2) the feminization of enemies as symbolic domination, and (3)
dependence on exploiting women’s labor. My argument is that these three things come
together in the idea of race that began to emerge in the conquest and colonization of the
Americas. Misanthropic skepticism posits its targets as racialized and sexualized subjects. Once
vanquished, they are said to be inherently servants and their bodies come to form part of an
economy of sexual abuse, exploitation, and control. The ethics of the ego conquiro ceased to be only a
special code of behavior for periods of war and becomes in the Americas - and gradually the modern world - by virtue of misanthropic

skepticism, the idea of race, and the coloniality of power, a standard of conduct that reflects
the way things are- a way of things whose naturalization reaches its climax with the use of natural science to validate racism in the nineteenth century. The way
things supposedly are emerge from the idea of how a world is conceived to be in conditions of war and the code of behavior that is part of it. What happens in modernity is that

Thus, the treatment of

such a view of the world and code of conduct is transformed - through the idea of race - and becomes naturalized.

vanquished peoples in conditions of war is perceived as legitimate long after war is over. Later on, it
won’t be their aggression or opposition, but their ‘race’ which justifies continued serfdom, slavery, and rape. This represents a break with the European medieval tradition and
its ethical codes. With the initial exploitation of Africa and the colonization of the Americas in the fifteenth century, the emerging modernity comes to be shaped by a paradigm
of war.38
Without challenging neoliberalism, anti-racist movements will fail. The
affirmative is a prerequisite to dismantling racial structures – the individual
self-interested agency of the K cannot overcome
Robbins 3 - Professor of Education at Eastern Michigan University (Christopher, Racism and the Authority of Neoliberalism: A
Review of Three New Books on

the Persistence of Racial Inequality in a Color-blind Era, www.jceps.com/print.php?articleID=35)

the role of markets under

Conclusion When racism and racial inequalities are seen in the progressive widening frames of reference of these books, history, power and

neoliberalism take on greater prominence in the diagnosis and thus the prognosis of contesting racism and transforming racial
inequality in this historical juncture. More centrally, the evisceration of the social under neoliberalism becomes clearer
in terms of how certain groups of people, namely whites of most classes, are rewarded for exercising what Gallagher calls a “happy and guilt-
free revisionism” (White Out, P.154) of the history of racism and racial inequality in the U.S. Since the lack of
social space in which individuals can be held publicly accountable for their racialized claims reinforces the promotion of color-blind ideology,
the social needs to be entered into analyses of racism and strategies for anti-racist political
action. Thus, White Out and Whitewashing Race could benefit from a more sustained recognition of neoliberalism’s assault on history and the
public realm necessary for the emergence of the social, and how its cultural politics of survival of
the fittest frames the most of social action in everyday life and social policy formulation and cuts
across racial categories. In White Out, there was a uniform understanding that racist ideology is being redefined with the
changing economy and the demands of growing minority groups in the U.S. There was also a strict recognition, as was the driving force of the project, of the role of structures in rewarding
whites and underpinning color-blind ideology. However, the state and its changing functions under the authority of neoliberalism were largely missing as factors basic to the shifting nature of, or

the demands put on, the structures of whiteness. What’s more, liberal individualism, a primary characteristic

of color-blind ideology, is so powerful not simply because it is racially productive, but because
neoliberalism so forcefully and convincingly reinforces liberal individualism in every other facet of
citizens’ social, cultural, and economic life in and outside of racial relationships. Indeed, the denial of the social is critical to

the denial of racism and racial inequality, because it eliminates the possibility for race to be
raised and contested as a social myth that nonetheless produces harrowing political and economic
consequences. In Whitewashing Race, Brown et al made central to their analysis the state, markets, history and ideology. In widening the analytical framework for racial inequality, they were able
to unravel the myth of color blindness by exposing its historical and material foundation through the state’s active involvement in the processes of accumulation and disaccumulation of racial power. This strategy
unequivocally blew up the myth that we are all color-blind individuals operating ahistorically, asocially, and apolitically, the function of which is to secure consensus for the on-going assault on public institutions,
history, and democratic sensibilities. But there seems to be a significant contradiction in this otherwise penetrating critique. However reasoned and desperately needed their policy suggestions are, the authors are

The cultural politics promoted by neoliberalism have been the

roundly unconcerned with the cultural politics of neoliberalism.

motor force in blinding or making citizens inured to what happens at the policy level and
encouraging them to be concerned with their individual choices, initiative, bootstraps, and
pathology. Neoliberalism’s disdain for history vis-a-vis its assault on public life and celebration of rabid consumerism destroy the social sphere in which citizens can participate not only in an active
sense of history, but also in actively investing in a politics that would secure consent for a broad redistributive program. In short, how can the power of neoliberalism’s fiercely individualistic cultural politics be
absented from contesting racism or gaining consent for transformative democratic policies? Building on the accumulation/disaccumulation thesis of Whitewashing Race and taking seriously the color-blind

the virulence of structured racism vis-a-vis the “middle-class society” is integrally

ideology articulated so well in White Out, Barlow understands that

conditioned by and formative in neoliberal policies. He also recognizes that the U.S.’s responses to a
destructured economy, the migrations of people as a result of an unfettered global capitalism,
and innumerable wars are crucial to the forms racism takes and the mechanisms by which it is
reproduced. Barlow also provides a needed intervention, one lacking in White Out and Whitewashing Race: the prerequisite formation of a substantive politics in light of the social, economic,
political, and cultural conditions altered by neoliberalism. While Barlow makes a passionate call for relevancy in the professorate, recognizes the crucial role the articulation of history plays in understanding racism
and racial inequality, and understands the culture of fear spawned by the war of terror, the process of re-imaging the public sphere was absent, unless it would just spontaneously evolve from the work of the new
civil rights movement, which is a possibility. By recontextualizing these books in light of the role of the social in democratic politics, it appears that I am making one of two claims on the primacy of the social in

Dialogue about racism would occur automatically if the social were

contesting racism and transforming racial inequality: 1)

reconstituted and this dialogue alone would encourage social and economic transformation; 2) and
discussions of racism and racial inequality cannot occur without the space of the social. I am arguing that
both claims have elements pertinent to addressing the current political climate on race. 1) Empirical studies in White Out demonstrate that both white and black Americans do, in fact, discuss race. For example,
Myers found that whites speak quite candidly in racist terms and participate frequently in racist practices, while they use color-blind discourse in outwardly public expressions (Pp.129-144). In a study of corporate
culture and the use of color-blindness to explain affirmative action issues, Pierce found that black Americans were willing to speak openly about racial issues, while whites became hostile when pushed on their
explanations of racial matters (Pp.199- 214). Unfortunately, black Americans are denied legitimate public spaces in which they can make those
claims, while whites are shielded from these discussions and rewarded by the avoidance and/or absence of the social under neoliberalism. However, this is not to suggest that sincere and

equitable discussions of race would automatically occur, and social transformation of racial and class inequalities would magically happen, if the social were reconstituted but that, without a

vibrant social sphere, the discussions of racial issues already occurring will fail to get the public
translations and accountability necessary to addressing them. And this condition informs the second claim. 2) Racism and racial inequalities
are political problems. As Arendt explained, the social is the political space standing between private individuals in public life; it is the place in which private interests are translated into collective needs.
Democratic public life demands that private individuals be held publicly responsible for their choices, claims, and uses of power. Thus, the political challenge of eradicating racism cannot be challenged systemically
without a solution that is fundamentally political in nature, one that encourages citizens to enter equally into a common space that permits and promotes a fair contest over scarce social, political, cultural, and
economic resources. Otherwise, separate individuals, finding unequally separate ways of remaining separated, will continue to redefine political issues according to their private interests and benefit, while others
suffer the consequences of those antidemocratic translations, one of which being the translation of racism into a mythically and individually produced and experienced act, instead of a social, political, and

economic system of racialized power. In closing,racism and racial inequalities are the products of history and the on-going
“racist practices [that exist] in a relationship that pits human beings against each other in the struggle for and
against privileged access to scarce social resources” (Barlow, P.12). And this struggle is clear in all the books reviewed here. In its color-blind guise,
contemporary racism is at once a struggle over historical memory and the product of
neoliberalism’s broader effort to eradicate history through the elimination of democratic public
life and commodification of the spaces and vocabularies central to it. Racism and racial inequalities are insidious practices and
relations, and they must be eliminated and transformed if we are to have history, justice, and democratic public life. Neoliberalism in its various instantiations is a wicked set of policies, ideology,

and practices, and it must also be contested if we are to have history, justice and democratic public life, instead of a
religious fixation on consumerism, individual initiative (as only a theoretical construct), and pathology. But unless the table around which we were once seated--that is, the social--can be reintegrated into our ways

To battle racism and escalating

of thinking, being, feeling, seeing and relating, history can never achieve the public translation and hearing it requires.

inequalities today means to intervene collectively in neoliberalism’s process of social, cultural,

and historical evisceration. This suggests socio-cultural, political, and economic interventions. Possibly, a new civil rights movement (Between Fear
and Hope), a broad redistributive program (Whitewashing Race), and active efforts to unravel and contest color-blind racism

and its privileges in everyday life (White Out) are the tools essential to begin rebuilding the destroyed social sphere that

we need to translate racial inequalities and contemporary myths of rugged individualism and
false color blindness into public matters requiring social thus political, not free market,
solutions.

Neoliberalism is the root cause of each scenario for extinction - disease, warming, and nuclear
war
Deutsch 9 - President of the Science for Peace, Member of Canadian psychoanalytic society (Judith, Pestilence, Famine, War,
Neoliberalism, and Premature Deaths, Jul-Sep 2009, http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v25n3p18.htm)
The outlook for this century is dim. Climate change and nuclear weapons pose ever-worsening
threats, and the living conditions on our "planet of slums" continue to deteriorate. Although a great deal is known
about preventing premature deaths, there is a profound paralysis in applying this knowledge in an effective way. Worse still, many
commentators suggest that there is a powerful worldwide elite who accrue wealth by increasing
greenhouse gas emissions, by investing in nuclear weapons and militarism, and who are systematically
depriving the majority world and nature of the right to life. There is a narrow time scale for reversing these trends in that
scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now predict a possible 90% extinction rate by the end of this century
unless our way of life changes drastically. A significant fact about the Nazi Holocaust was the belief that "it can't happen here."
People were in a state of denial about the readily apparent ominous danger. A number of fine films convey this delusion of safety in
various societies. The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Vittorio De Sica), and Burnt by the Sun (Nikita Mikhalkov) paint pictures of the
exquisite, subtle beauty of life, while the characters are oblivious to their destiny in concentration camps and the Soviet gulag. There
are exact parallels now: the perils to existence are barely mentioned in the media. Also, distortions and outright lies minimize the
magnitude of the problems. FOUR THREATS TO HUMAN EXISTENCE At present, threats to human existence come
from at least four directions: climate change with its consequences of catastrophic climate events and of drastic
water and food shortages; from nuclear war; from pandemics; from the severe impoverishment and
destruction of society that is a result of neo-liberal restructuring. All are due to human error. All are
preventable. But the time factor is most crucial around climate change. The lack of attention to the time scale is tantamount to
believing that "it can't happen here." Currently, most attempts to counter these dangers address the issues in
isolation even though the main perpetrators implement a unified, relatively coherent programme that
unites these threats. Neo-liberal plutocrats are the controlling shareholders of the large agri-business, weapons,
water privatization, pharmaceutical (anti national health care), mining, non-renewable energy companies. It is
their economic practices that decimate water resources, deplete soil, pollute air, and increase greenhouse gas
emissions. The culpable individuals, their think tanks, the supportive government bureaucracies, and the
specific methods of control are well-documented in a number of recent works.1 From recent history it is readily apparent that
mass extinction "can happen here." A similar confluence of climate events and exploitive socio-economic re-structuring
occurred in the late-Victorian period. Retrospective statistical studies established that worldwide droughts between 1876 and 1902
were caused by El Nino weather events. Based on the British Empire's laissez-faire approach to famine that enjoined against state
"interference" in the for-profit trade in wheat, between 13 million and 29 million people died in India alone. True to the precepts of
liberalism, the British converted small subsistence farms in India into large scale monocrop farming for export on a world market.
The new globally integrated grain trade meant that disturbances in distant parts of the world affected Indian farmers. Advances in
technology actually made things worse, for steam-driven trains were used to transport grains to England while locals starved, and
telegraph communication was used to process international monetary transactions that destroyed local communities. Gone were
the traditional social institutions for managing food shortages and hardship. The Victorian world view also bequeathed us the myth
of the inferior Third World and denial of British responsibility for the de-development of tropical countries. Mike Davis points out the
compelling evidence that South Indian laborers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives
of greater financial security, including better diets and lower unemployment. "If the history of British rule in India were to be
condensed into a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India's per capita income from 1757 to 1947. Indeed, in the last half
of the nineteenth century [due to colonial structural adjustment], income probably declined by more than 50% There was no
economic development at all in the usual sense of the term."( Davis, p. 311). In today's world, neo-liberalism
continues to
increase global misery and poverty and the dehumanization and invisibility of millions of "warehoused" people.
Whatever conditions increase poverty also increase premature deaths. In the US, a 1% rise in unemployment
increases the mortality rate by 2%, homicides and imprisonments by 6%, and infant mortality by 5%. The 225 richest individuals
worldwide have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion, equal to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world's population, or
2.5 billion people. By comparison, it is estimated that the additional cost of achieving and maintaining universal access to basic
education for all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food for all and safe water and sanitation for all is roughly $40
billion a year. This is less than 4% of the combined wealth of these 225 richest people.2 NEO-LIBERALISM Neo-liberal
policies
have mandated the destruction of the social safety net that would be the lifesaver in climate disaster,
epidemics, and war. The International Monetary Fund has required countless countries to dismantle public
education, health, water, and sanitation infrastructure. Neo-liberalism strenuously opposes
government intervention on behalf of the common good while hypocritically and deceptively protecting
narrow class interests and investments in the military, non-renewable energy, privatized health care. The powerful and
wealthy few control the military-industrial complex, surveillance, and the media. The connections with
climate change are manifold. Already there is military preparedness for the potential impacts on peace and security posed by
climate change -- not to help victims but to keep refugees out. Ominously, there are now overt racist overtones to the discussion of
"environmental refugees" and the closing of borders. The model of response to disasters is most likely Hurricane Katrina, namely,
protection of the wealthy and outright cruelty to the poor. Wars are tremendously costly to the public but highly profitable to
powerful elites. "The arms trade has expanded by more than 20% worldwide in the past five years" (The Guardian Weekly 01.05.09,
p. 11). The military itself emits enormous amounts of greenhouse gases and brutally protects the extractive industries of the
wealthy. There are innumerable unreported incidents: In May 2009, alone, the Nigerian army razed villages in the oil-rich Niger delta
to protect oil companies, killing many civilians; in Papua New Guinea, 200 heavily armed soldiers and police were sent to the Barrick
Gold Porgera area to destroy indigenous villages. In the 20th century, it is estimated that as many as 360 million people died
prematurely due to state terrorism--"terrorism from above." BESIDES PROLIFERATION The use of nuclear weapons in wars
would appear to be increasingly acceptable. "We have created a situation in the world where we have a very small number of
people in control of nuclear arsenals - people whose competence is not necessarily proven, whose rationality is not necessarily at a
high level, and whose ethical standards may or may not be acceptable. These people are in charge of making decisions about the use
of weapons that could destroy civilization and most life on earth" (p. 245). In their recent collection of papers on nuclear weapons,
Falk and Krieger further suggest that the grand military strategy is "largely to project power in order to reap the benefits of
profitability for the few. To take control of resources, and to place our military bases strategically around the world in order to have
greater degrees of control, sounds like a strategy to benefit corporate interests." They state that the power elite has
cleverly manipulated the public by focusing almost exclusive attention on the issue of proliferation, "with corresponding inattention
to possession, continuing weapons development, and thinly disguised reliance on threatened use." For real change to
occur, it will be necessary to penetrate the "deepest bowels of the governmental bureaucracy,"
the silent and unknown people who support the nuclear weapon option. We must be realistic about the forces obstructing reduction of
greenhouse gases, all forms of militarism, and economic inequity. Conventions and international law all too often provide a
smokescreen that delays real change. For example, the United States simply changed the description of its captured
detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid meeting the requirements of statutes on terror. Similarly, Israel invented a new term for
Gaza, a "statal entity," to avoid the term "occupation" with its specific legal obligations.

You have an ethical obligation to resist the neoliberal destruction of individual autonomy -
only by embracing ethical critique can we break down neoliberal biopolitics.

Hamann 9 - Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s Univeristy (Trent, Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics, Foucault
Studies, No 6, pp. 37-59, February 2009)
VI. Ethics and Critical Resistance [T]here is no first or final point of resistance to political power other than in the relationship of self to self.33 Whether neoliberalism will ultimately be viewed as
having presented a radically new form of governmentality or just a set of variations on classical liberalism, we can certainly recognize that there are a number of characteristics in contemporary practices that are

imposition of market values

new in the history of governmentality, a number of which I've al-ready discussed. Another one of these outstanding features is the extent to which the

has pushed towards the evisceration of any autonomy that may previously have existed among economic, political, legal, and

moral dis-courses, institutions, and practices. Foucault notes, for example, that in the sixteenth century jurists were able to posit the law in a critical relation to the reason of state in order to
put a check on the sovereign power of the king. By contrast, neoliberalism, at least in its most utopian formulations, is the dream of a perfectly limitless

(as opposed perhaps to totalizing) and all-encompassing (as opposed to exclusionary and normalizing) form of governance that would effectively rule

out all challenge or op-position. This seems to be the kind of thing that Margaret Thatcher was dreaming about when she claimed that there is "no alternative".34 Such formulations of what
might be called "hyper-capitalism" seem to lend themselves to certain traditional forms of criticism. However, critical analyses that produce a totalizing conception of power and domination risk the same danger,
noted above, of overlooking the some-times subtle and complex formations of power and knowledge that can be revealed through genealogical analyses of local practices. Important for any genealogical analysis
is the recognition that, while there is no "outside" in relation to power, re-sistance and power are coterminous, fluid, and, except in instances of domination, reversible. There is an echo of this formulation in
Foucault's understanding of go- vernmentality as "the conduct of conduct". Governmentality is not a matter of a dominant force having direct control over the conduct of individuals; rather, it is a matter of trying
to determine the conditions within or out of which individuals are able to freely conduct themselves. And we can see how this is especially true in the case of neoliberalism insofar as it is society itself and not the
individual that is the direct object of power. Foucault provides examples of this in "The Subject and Power", in which he discussed a number of struggles of resistance that have developed over the past few years
such as "opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live".35 Despite their
diversity, these struggles were significant for Foucault because they share a set of common points that allow us to recognize them as forms of resistance to governmentality, that is, "critique". Through the
examples he uses Foucault notes the local and immediate nature of resistance. These oppositional struggles focus on the effects of power experienced by those individuals who are immediately subject to them.
Despite the fact that these are local, anarchistic forms of resistance, Foucault points out that they are not necessarily limited to one place but intersect with struggles going on elsewhere. Of greatest importance is
the fact that these struggles are critical responses to contemporary forms of governmentality, specifically the administrative techniques of subjectification used to shape individuals in terms of their free
conduct.36 These struggles question the status of the individual in relation to community life, in terms of the forms of knowledge and instruments of judgment used to determine the "truth" of individuals, and in
relation to the obfuscation of the real differences that make individuals irreducibly individual beings. Tying all of these modes of resistance together is the question "Who are we?" While some might be concerned
about exactly who this we is suggested by Foucault, both here and in his discussions of Kant and enlightenment, I think the question is in some ways its own answer. In other words, it is meant to remain an
ongoing critical question that can never be definitively answered, or, as John Rajchman has suggested, it is a question that can only be answered by those who ask it and through the process of asking it. In his
introduction to The Politics of Truth he writes: The 'we' always comes after, emerging only through the on-going light its activi-ties shed on the habits and practices through which people come to govern
themselves—and so see themselves and one another. Indeed in this lies precisely the originality of the critical attitude, its singular sort of universality, its distinctive relation to 'today'—to 'now', 'the present',
l'actuel.37 This "critical attitude" that Foucault repeatedly refers to in all of his discussions of Kant from the 1970's and 1980's is inseparable from both his analysis of governmen- tality and his discussions of ethics
and the history of the experience of the relationship between the subject and truth. What fascinated Foucault about the "care of the self" he discovered in Greek and Roman ethics was the "spiritual" relationship

individuals had to take care of

that existed between the subject and truth. In order to gain access to the truth, that is, in order to acquire the "right" to the truth,

themselves by engaging in certain self-transformative practices or ascetic exercises. Here we find critical and resistant
forms of subjectivation where, rather than objectifying themselves within a given discourse of power/knowledge, individuals

engaged in practices of freedom that allowed them to engage in ethical parrhesia or speak truth
to power. In modernity, however, following what Foucault identified as "the Cartesian moment" the principle "take care of yourself" has been replaced by the imperative to "know yourself" [THS, 1 -
24]. In contemporary life that which gives an individual access to the truth is knowledge and knowledge alone, including knowledge of one's self. In this context knowledge of the self is not something produced

modern forms of
through the work individuals perform on themselves, rather it is something given through disciplines such as biology, medicine, and the social sciences. These

knowledge, of course, become crucial to the emerging biopolitical forms of govern- mentality. Whereas
individuals were once urged to take care of themselves by using self-reflexive ethical techniques
to give form to their freedom, modern biopolitics ensures that individuals are already taken care of in
terms of biological and economic forms of knowledge and practices. As Edward F. McGushin puts it in his book Foucault's Askesis:
An Introduction to the Philosophical Life, Power functions by investing, defining, and caring for the body understood as a bioeconomic entity. The operation of biopower is to define the freedom and truth of the
individual in economic and biological terms. Reason is given the task of comprehending the body in these terms and setting the conditions within which it can be free. ...The formation of the disciplines marks the
moment where askesis itself was absorbed within biopolitics.38 Foucault explicitly identified critique, not as a transcendental form of judgment that would subsume particulars under a general rule, but as a
specifically modern "atti-tude" that can be traced historically as the constant companion of pastoral power and governmentality. As Judith Butler points out in her article "What is Critique? An Essay on Foucault's

critique is an attitude, distinct from judgment, precisely because it expresses a skeptical or questioning approach to the rules and
Virtue",39

rationalities that serve as the basis for judgment within a particular form of governance. From its earliest formations, Foucault tells us, the art of
government has always relied upon certain relations to truth: truth as dogma, truth as an individualizing knowledge of individuals, and truth as a reflective technique comprising general rules, particular
knowledge, precepts, methods of examination, confessions, interviews, etc. And while critique has at times played a role within the art of government itself, as we've seen in the case of both liberalism and

Critique is neither a form of

neoliberalism, it has also made possible what Foucault calls "the art of not being governed, or better, the art of not being governed like that and at that cost" (WC, 45).

abstract theoretical judgment nor a matter of outright rejection or condemnation of specific forms of governance. Rather it is a practical and agonistic engagement,
reengagement, or disengagement with the rationalities and practices that have led one to become a certain kind of subject. In his essay "What is Enlightenment?" Foucault
suggests that this modern attitude is a voluntary choice made by certain people, a way of acting and behaving that at one and the

same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task.40 Its task amounts to a "historical investigation into the events that have led us to
constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, [and] saying" (WE, 125). But how can we distinguish the kinds of resistance Foucault was interested in from the endless
calls to "do your own thing" or "be all you can be" that stream forth in every direction from political campaigns to commercial advertising? How is it, to return to the last of the three concerns raised above, that

we can distinguish critical acts of resistance and

Foucault does not simply lend technical support to neoliberal forms of subjectivation? On the one hand,

ethical self-fashioning from what Foucault called "the Californian cult of the self" (OGE, 245), that is, the fascination with techniques designed to assist in discovering
one's "true" or "authentic" self, or the merely "cosmetic" forms of rebellion served up for daily consumption and enjoyment. On the other hand we might also be careful not
to dismiss forms of self-fashioning as "merely"aesthetic. As Timothy O'Leary points out in his book Foucault and the Art of Ethics, Foucault's notion of an aesthetics of existence countered the modern conception
of art as a singular realm that is necessarily autonomous from the social, political, and ethical realms, at least as it pertained to his question of why it is that a lamp or a house can be a work of art, but not a life.
O'Leary writes: Foucault is less interested in the critical power of art, than in the 'artistic' or 'plas-tic' power of critique. For Foucault, not only do no special advantages accrue from the autonomy of the aesthetic,
but this autonomy unnecessarily restricts our possibilities for self-constitution. Hence, not only is Foucault aware of the specific nature of aesthetics after Kant, he is obviously hostile to it.41 What O'Leary rightly
identifies here is Foucault's interest in an aesthetics of existence that specifically stands in a critical but immanent relation to the ways in which our individuality is given to us in advance through ordered practices

The issue is not a matter of how we might distinguish "authentic" forms of resistance (whatever that might mean) from "merely" aesthetic
and forms of knowledge that determine the truth about us.

ones. Rather it is a matter of investigating whether or not the practices we engage in either reinforce or resist the

manner in which our freedom— how we think, act, and speak—has been governed in ways that
are limiting and into-lerable. In short, critical resistance offers possibilities for an experience of de-
subjectification. Specifically in relation to neoliberal forms of governmentality, this would involve resisting,
avoiding, countering or opposing not only the ways in which we've been encouraged to be little more
than self-interested subjects of rational choice (to the exclusion of other ways of being and often at the expense of those "irresponsible" others who have
"chosen" not to amass adequate amounts of human capital), but also the ways in which our social environments, institutions,

communities, work places, and forms of political engagement have been reshaped in order to
foster the production of Homo economicus. Endless examples of this kind of work can be found in many locations, from the international anti-globalization
movement to local community organizing.

7. Our argument is that it’s about the method that we use to rupture the
resolution and provide an alternative model of debate that is able to
account for black geographies that are made expendable because they’re
black. This means that the alternative cannot solve for the affirmative.