Agony for Pleasure

The key to understanding Deborah Tannen's “Agonism in the Academy: Surviving Higher Learning's Argument Culture” lays in one's ability to understand a single word. Yes, you guessed it - the first one. The Free Dictionary defines 'agonism' as the contention for a prize, or otherwise a contest. In the context of the article however, agonism is defined as “ceremonial combat.” Tannen goes on to assert that agonism is the destructive element to progress and constructive dialogue. In the contemporary culture of academia, constructive dialogue is precisely what is missing. Each faction or group is so eager to defend their own views that they become impervious to the views of others. So, as the article goes, instead of pooling the resources of the entire academic community, each group is undermining the other. In this chain of events, the whole community is being torn apart in structure and content. Tannen labels this phenomena of vicious infighting between scholars as 'agonism'. It is a pervasive occurrence which has already become entrenched in the culture of academe. Yet, she believes that academe can and must leave agonism behind. In her article, she mentions the need for a free market of ideas. A marketplace where people are free to advertise their opinions, without fear of being shot down. A gathering for the like-minded. A place where people are able to polish their own ideas and augment them with those of others. 

Written for HUMW-011

Problems/Utopia/etc. -- Making War Extinct

Historians often cite the Cold War as a pinnacle of diplomatic tension. Certainly, people thought that the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union was a scary memory. Now imagine a world in which nearly all of the nation-states are engaged in an arms race. Add a sprinkle of mass destruction to this mix of global military proliferation, and one will indubitably see the folly of what is cooking. Unfortunately, this hypothetical world is ours, we are its inhabitants, and the hypothetical is not so hypothetical.

World military spending has nearly doubled since 1996, reaching an astonishing $1.7 trillion dollars in 2011. As global military expenditures increase, so does the possibility of war. Although diplomacy necessitates an appearance of amicability, each country is scrambling to compile a deadlier arsenal than its neighbour. This situation is similar to a standoff, in which three people each hold a gun to another's head. For the sake of having a stake in the game, none of them would put down his guns. Similar reasoning is behind a country's choice to participate in the current proliferation of military activity. Yet ironically, if the parties involved in the standoff persist, the only foreseeable outcome is mutually assured destruction.

The existence of nuclear weapons makes this possibility a feasible reality. Such technology would allow a single country to destroy the world a few times over. Yet, even the achievement of such devastating power would not halt the military expansion of some nation-states. Indeed for some, military power is defined by how many times over it can destroy the world. When that definition becomes a standard, then the world is in real danger. We are human, and by condition prone to making mistakes and repeating them. The only exception here is that when we make a mistake, the result could be nuclear in scale. In this race to the top, the participants would be racing to the bottom.

In order to avoid an early apocalypse, we must eliminate war. The only way to make war extinct is to instill a greater sense of trust and respect into members of this global community. A set of universal laws should be made and enforced by a central tribunal. This set of laws is meant to foster an atmosphere of trust. Firstly, nation-states must replace standing armies with defensive forces in reserve. This is to show other countries that it poses no threat. Secondly, offensive weapons such as Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles and nuclear war-heads must be destroyed. Such an act shows other countries of one country's sincerity and commitment to peace. Moreover, a nation-state's annual defence spending must not exceed ten percent of its GDP. Lastly, the developed countries must put 8% of their country's GDP towards an International Development Fund. When put into practice, this plan would eliminate the capacity for war, ensuring that the folly of unhindered military spending be not repeated again.

Some assembly required.

In Passionate Response to "Shafia Case - could it have been prevented?"

It's very hard to evaluate the success of any preemptive measures. I'm sure that the sectors responsible for oversight, which include local law enforcement, school officials, and health professionals, did the best they could under the circumstances to prevent any tragedy of human life. However, like what Brianna said, the culture barrier between ethnic Afghans and Canadians caused this case to circumvent protective measures. Also, the plethora of cultures has made policy-making extremely difficult. Often, the best policy for politicians is no policy at all. Sitting on the fence is the only way to prevent collateral damage on their party's reputation or their own election hopes.

What I would say is due to the enormous sensitivity, and rare occurance of such cases, these circumstances cannot be successfully prevented, nor should we take action to prevent these circumstances. I do not mean that human life is invaluable, but that liberty and fairness is more important to the preservation of any values which we hold as a society. If we did take action to prevent "honor-killings", what would result is ethnic discrimination beyond that of "random" security checks at airports. Because a few individuals of Arabic descent chose to attack the Western world through acts of terrorism, the whole Arabic world has been thrown into warfare and chaos. What's more, American, Canadian, and World citizens of Arabic descent are persecuted based on their superficial appearances. They are slotted into profiles of bad men even though they have done nothing to deserve it.

If we do decide to actively prevent these "honor-killings" beyond the measures that we are already taking, what will take place next is far worse than the loss of human life. It is life not worth living. The government and third-party institutions will be able to intrude on the lives of innocent people "on suspicion." It will lead to the loss of democratic rights as we know it, and the proliferation of ever-greater power for the government to monitor and control the lives which we hold to be private. Our sanctity of body and mind will be stolen, democracy will fester and rot, and eventually, the values which we so champion will no longer be our champions.

In Passionate Response to "Fake Phone Calls During the Last Federal Election"

It comes to me as no surprise that this scandal occurred. With every election, comes claims of fraud or unfair elections. Some of them are exposed, some of them are swept under the rug, and some are out in the open, but ignored by most. These harms inherently arise with the implementation of democratic elections. The former two are what people consider conspiracy theories because they can neither be proven nor adequately dealt with. In this case, one case of political tactic was exposed, but was not dealt with properly. A full inquiry is needed indeed, because it is plain to see that the "worker responsible" was nothing more than a scapegoat covering up for a larger agenda. Those unfair advantages political parties hold, but are ignored, are the interesting issues here.

Politicians often use "pork-barrel" legislation to win over their constituents, who are too much the masses to know better. Politicians also negotiate with big corporations for private funding that exceeds the maximum campaign fund limit. In return, successful negotiators are awarded sizeable government contracts and lucrative business opportunities. Such dealings occur on a regular basis, and in my opinion, are the worst sort of political fraud. But because they are not as easy to trace, and certainly not as easy to uncover, they go unnoticed by the general public. Really, democracy has been broken down because we are not electing from a popular vote. Not every man can throw his hat in the ring. Really, we are given 3 or 4 candidates who have already been chosen by the big businesses and Wall Street interests.

Ask yourself, is this the democracy we wanted? Are these people the ones we want making laws which will affect the common man?

In Passionate Response to "Elderly Stroke Patient Left In Hospital Corridor For 11 Days"

"MLA Raj Chouhan... says living in a hallway is not very healthy or dignified for an elderly stroke patient." No shit sherlock.

Often, failure hides behind the curtains of success. In my opinion, it is the relative success of the British Columbian health system and peoples' perception of it as being a wholly perfect institution, that causes such instances of neglect. People are content to turn a blind eye to a system which runs "well enough." This illusion is caused by the little things that devils under the guises of "humanitarians" do. For example, the installation of priority seating areas in buses, and handicapped spots for those developmentally disabled, create a general atmosphere of good feeling. We, as the people, feel that our government has done enough in the realm of policies to protect those who are fundamentally weaker. We feel that the rights of the disabled and the rights of the elderly are protected because of these palliative measures which do nothing to mitigate the real problems behind their diminished status.

Our legislation calls for equality of the people, and purports to extend civil rights to all persons, man and woman. But what it doesn't address fully is those groups who are not discriminated against based on race, colour, creed, or belief. The groups who transcend those man-made barriers, share a common characteristic. They are the ones who have been discarded by society: the weak, the elderly, the disabled. Until we come to realize that they deserve the same rights as we do, they will continue to suffer as the elderly stroke patient had. We must put their rights into law, and let legislation dictate with practical force and effect the full extent of their equality.

Ladies and Gentlemen, a right without a remedy is no right at all.

Regionals Debate Prompt - Proposition

-->

BIRT multinational corporations

should be held accountable to international human rights law.

How do MNC's avoid persecution? Set statutes for contract takers to abide by in production.

Honourable judges, timekeeper, and respected members of the opposition. For too long, have multinational corporations been allowed to desecrate international human rights law. For too long, have they discarded their humanity for profits. For too long, have they exploited the fact that they provide something, that people either want, or that they need. It's time for us to tell them, that we are no longer going to tolerate that exploitation, and that's why, we on side proposition, are here today, to propose that multinational companies should, be held accountable to international human rights law.

So what are we talking about? First of all, Multinational Corporations have facilities and other assets in at least one country other than its home country. To hold Accountable is to have the moral and legal authority to bring into question the behaviour or attitude of the corporation. International Human Rights Law is as pursuant to the International Bill of Human Rights, which comprises the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We believe, that it is in the spirit of this debate to set the parameters as being an international body, comprised of the United Nations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and other individuals concerned with the violations of international human rights law.

We believe, that in order to win this debate, we have to prove to you three things. We first have to prove, that multinational corporations, are violating international human rights law, and that if we fail to act, they will continue to desecrate those values which we hold dear. We also have to show you, that multinational corporations can indeed, be held accountable. Lastly, we will show you that our model, will indeed enforce, in principle and in practical grounds, both legal accountability and moral accountability.

Contention 1: Abuses of Human Rights & Why We Need to Act

• Time magazine article: Sweatshops in East Asia
  • In 2004, Nike systematically set up sweatshops in East Asia
    • 1. Absence of a living wage,
    • 2. Poor health/safety hazards
    • 3. Arbitrary discipline (verbal and physical)
    • 4. Fear and intimidation used when workers speak out or attempt to form a union
• Violates Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • Article 23, Section 1, guarantees right to just and favourable working conditions
  • Article 23, Section 4, guarantees right to form and join labour unions
  • Article 3, guarantees right to life
    • Absence of living wage doesn't provide this, more than 50% still below poverty line
• Some say better alternative;
  • We say not acceptable, we need to work to fulfill the standards set by IHR law
• According to Canadian Magazine, Dimensions, mining companies in Latin America ruined hundreds of acres of viable farm land through pollution
  • poor safety conditions have led to 10000s of cases of tuberculosis
  • consensus of local population, PEOPLE WANT CHANGE

• Won't change unless we do something about it
  • companies driven by profit
    • legally obligated to garner most profit for its shareholders
    • will set profits above adherence to human rights law
  • we want to lower their profit threshold
    • point where they still have positive gains
    • adherence to international human rights law = small decrease in profits
      • our model of accountability = larger fines for violations
    
    

Contention 2: Corporations Viewed as Singular Actors

To fully conceptualize accountability it must be made clear who is accountable, and to what degree, where that accountability arises from, towards who such accountability exists, and how such accountability is asserted.

• Corporations are accountable on two levels
  • Accountability is divided into
    • primary responsibility
      • actively involved in violating human rights
    • passive responsibility
      • it does not take action for the protection of its workers

• Accountability arises from a corporation's status of as an individual
  • legally
    • Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, effectively made private corporations natural persons under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.
    • If they are afforded the same rights and protections as individuals, they should also hold the same accountability as people
      • accountability for criminal actions
      • accountability for negligence towards the occurrence of criminal actions
  • logically
    • individuals make collective decisions for corporation
      • punishing that action punishes all who made the decision
    • corporate accountability is a check and balance
      • punishing individuals = personal punishment, corporations won't remember
    
    

Contention 3: How We'll Hold Them Accountable

Legal Accountability

IHRL is a law like any other. If you violate it, you must be punished.

• Enforced by Corporate Tribunal
  • parallel to International Criminal Court, Permanent Court of Arbitration of the Criminal Tribunal in the Hague
• Corporate Tribunal will fine more than what it takes to implement HR standards
  • minimal fines
    • makes process more efficient b/c most infringements are small

• progressive fines
  • more adequate for dealing with atrocious infringements

Moral Accountability

• Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, human rights activists
  • normative enforcement
    • condemnation, investigative journalism, raising awareness
  • practical enforcement
    • boycotts, sanctions, moratoriums

We need to be able to trust multinational companies to respect the human condition

Provide funding to NGO's such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International

My partner will extend on the specifics of Moral Accountability.

Public Pressure can create change. Questioning Nike's factories, girl started movement in US. Nike Oh Shit paid 600 hours of overdue wages. We believe that corporations should be held accountable because basic humans needs should be respected.

Therefore what we've clearly shown you, is that both on principal, and practical grounds, this motion must stand. A right without a remedy is no right at all.

SPEECH 2:

Contention 1: Extension - Morally Accountable

Contention 2: Root of the Problem

Contention 3: Race-to-the-bottom

only through applying this universally can we eliminate RTTB

Contention 4: Neo-Colonialism

corporations are here to stay

International human rights law as espoused by the United Nations Charter. Specifically the subsections regarding International Labor Laws,

ACTOR RESPONSIBLE?

Transnational corporations must be held accountable for violations against international human rights laws. They are powerful, often beyond that of the governments in which they work. Their power to manipulate and control important members of government disable government attempts to regulate the corporation or to otherwise impose any permissible laws.

ENFORCEMENT?

The measures of International Human Rights be enforced by the International Criminal Court in accordance with laws set forth by the Tribunal with the support of governments in which the corporations choose to reside.

Written for 2012 Vancouver West Regionals Debate Championships

Communitarians: Evolving Social Constructs

-->

You never change things by

fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build

a new model that makes the

existing model obsolete.

~ Buckminster Fuller

Purpose and Definition of Intentional Communities:

Have you ever wanted to live in a society where crime is non-existent, inequality is unheard of, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed? Communitarians are social pioneers who seek to create communities where such conditions are fulfilled. Often, members of intentional communities will hold common social, political, economic, and spiritual views, thus sharing in the responsibilities and resources of the community. The Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC) states the purpose of communal living as “sustainable living, personal and community transformation, and peaceful social evolution” (The Fellowship, 6).

History of Intentional Communities:

Intentional communities had their roots in the founding of North America. During the 1820's and 1830's, “utopian communities” were established in protest of what individuals saw as the rise of moral corruptibility and religious putrefaction (Utopian, 1). The Oneida Community, Brook Farm, and Fruitlands were such communities experimenting with the belief that a total reorganization of society would lead to its perfection, and ultimately, utopia (26b, 1).

Communitarians in Our World Today:

Theoretical utopia first captured the imagination of these communitarians, but it was the growing disenchantment with mainstream society that led this perception to reality. America had become extremely powerful during the latter half of the 20^th Century. However, the country's pleasure in global hegemony was not shared by all. Many citizens saw the military-industrial complex as an evil institution which contradicted everything America stood for. They believed that legislation designed to protect citizens actually took away more rights than it did provide security of person. Moreover, the laissez-faire policy towards large businesses created an undeniable disparity in wealth between the very rich and the very poor. The inability even of today's society to provide solutions to these problems, has given birth to reactionary solution – modern-day intentional communities. (Pedersen, 10)

The intentional communities of the present have come a long way since their puritanical founding in 19^th Century New England. They have also experienced many changes since their “free-loving” childhood during the counter-culture movement of the 1960's (The 1960's, 3). Yet, the communitarians of today live by values which coalesce the old, and the new. There is no single way to categorize these communities, for they are as diverse as they are numerous. However, they do share in the belief that their way of living presents a viable alternative to mainstream society.

Amish communities in Ohio, for example, adhere to a strict code of religious conduct, which was in response to what they saw as religious indolence during the late 17^th Century. For centuries, they have been able to maintain a self-sustaining model of rural simplicity. While they have been mostly successful in preserving their spiritual roots, the current information-technology era presents them with a whole new set of challenges that only adaptation and remodelling would solve. (The Amish, 3)

These challenges are shared by residents of Twin Oaks, arguably the most successful and longest-running intentional community of the modern era. Founded in 1967 on 450 acres of land in Virginia, the Twin Oaks community now boasts a following of 100 people (Twin Oaks Community, 1).

It began as a non-structured social experiment attempting to put into practice the utopian ideals espoused by B. F. Skinner's Walden Two. Although several important theories generated by Skinner were implemented, the community outgrew its behaviourist principles. (Walden Two, 4)

New Social Constructs:

Communitarians of Twin Oaks gather in favour of “cooperation, sharing, nonviolence, equality, and ecology” (Welcome, 1). In the half-century since its inception, the community of Twin Oaks has revolutionized traditional views on conducting government, resource division, and societal advancement. Decentralized government is conducted through a collection of voluntary managers, planners, and committees. Even then, there is no class division or clash between hierarchies of power. The most distinctive component of the Twin Oaks community, however, may be its method of resource distribution. Individual contribution is given in the areas of business and domestic work. Instead of receiving monetary wages for work done, individuals receive credit-hours. Each individual needs only meet the 42 hours per week work requirement. (Twin Oaks Intentional, 2) Moreover, the community provides housing, food, and healthcare, as well as spending money. The cottage-industry products sold and services offered by Twin Oaks include hammocks, tofu, vegetarian sausages, and book indexing. The income earned from these businesses are then distributed equally among its members. What's more, these business are owned by the community. In 2006, the Twin Oaks Community earned a total of $600,000. (Twin Oaks Community: History, 4)

Although that amount of money may not seem like a lot to members of contemporary society, it is more than enough to sustain an altered perspective of societal progress. A clear distinction is made between personal needs and personal wants. Personal needs are taken care of through subsidiary farming in garden plots, natural water sources, and self-producing clothing and housing. Individuals are then free to pursue their individual wants with their spending money, and in many cases, to pool their income to better the community. Twin Oaks communitarians, for example, have added solar-heated water systems, music equipment, and volleyball courts which they all share. (Twin Oaks Intentional, 2)

Practical Implications:

In fact, intentional communities such as the community at Twin Oaks have aroused a new social perception among the inhabitants of planet Earth. Gradually, more and more people have come to realize the possibilities of living in harmony with nature (Foundation, 3). They have realized that nature and individual pursuits for happiness are not mutually exclusive. They have also realized the need to reach to others when they are in need. The intentional community of The Farm, in Tennessee, established a branch of its organization as one that focuses on reaching out to others. Called “Plenty,” it focuses on the ability of Earth to support all its people in harmony. Stephen Gaskin, founder of the Farm, said “there is plenty, to feed everyone in the world, if it were fairly, and accurately distributed.” (The Farm, 5). This author is hopeful that countless other movements will be inspired by the successful introduction of intentional communities.

There is no better example, of the possibility of total, equitable, resource distribution than that of the Twin Oaks Community. There is no better proof, that individuals of different creeds, races, and religions, can co-exist harmoniously while holding a common purpose. The communitarians of Twin Oaks may not be the strongest economically, or the most powerful militarily, but they seem to be genuinely happy with their lives. If happiness is what we strive for, then why can the social constructs explored by the community of Twin Oaks not be applied universally? Who can deny happiness? Is it not only a matter of spreading the social constructs we have learned to a more global scale?

Written for English 12

Works Cited

"The 1960's Counterculture - The Movement and Photos." Pennsylvania Arts And Music. Web. 02 Mar. 2012. .

"26b. Experiments with Utopia." Experiments with Utopia [ushistory.org]. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. .

"The Amish: History, Beliefs, Practices, Conflicts, Etc." THE AMISH: History, Beliefs, Practices, Etc. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .

"The Farm." Hippie Museum. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .

"The Fellowship for Intentional Community's Non-profit Purposes." Intentional Communities Website. The Fellowship for Intentional Community. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. .

"Foundation For Deep Ecology :: Deep Ecology Movement." Foundation For Deep Ecology. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. .

Pedersen, Erica. "San Francisco Counterculture: Beatnik 1950s and Psychedelic 1960s." San Francisco City Guide. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. .

"Twin Oaks Community :: Communities Directory." Intentional Communities Website. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .

"Twin Oaks Community: History of a Successful Commune - Culture Change Magazine #20." Culture Change. Sustainable Energy Institute. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .

"Twin Oaks Intentional Community." Twin Oaks Community. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. .

"Utopian Socialism." Digital History. 01 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012. .

"Walden Two Fan Site." Twin Oaks Intentional Community Homepage. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .

"Welcome to Twin Oaks Intentional Community." Home. Twin Oaks Intentional Community. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. .