What is a "Performative Contradiction?"

[stannard67]

As I work on my forthcoming article on performative contradictions, I am curious as to what some typical community definitions might be. Answer these questions in any manner you desire; debate them out with one another. Your feedback is appreciated:

1. What might be your definition of a "performative contradiction?"

2. Have you debated in, or judged, rounds where this term was used, or should have been introduced as such?

3. Are performative contradictions bad? Bad enough to be punitive voting issues?

Please think, respond, and discuss at your convenience.

stannard

[USC MissingLink]

1. What might be your definition of a "performative contradiction?"

A performative contratiction exists where the rhetoric of a speaker is contradicted by some physical action that the speaker undertakes. Generally, in the context of a debate, the performative contradiction should be restricted to rhetoric and actions within the debate. This is because debaters must often debate positions that they don't necessarily agree with or opposite sides of the issues.

In otherwords, if a heavy pot-smoker has to debate in favor of a stricter drug war thier extra-debate activities should not be conidered in the round unless they toke up during the PMC.

2. Have you debated in, or judged, rounds where this term was used, or should have been introduced as such?

Yes. Often times, kritik debates are inundated by performative contradictions because of nature of kritiks as ideals held so far from the real world. For example, an athropocentric kritik begs for a performative contradiction, as does a paternalistic kritik of debate. Unfortunately, judges seem hesitant to vote on these issues, claiming that they are considering the ideas presented. I think that in this case the performative contradiction proivdes a pragmatic criticism of a kritik position: if the debater can't uphold the ideal his his/her speech, how can they expect society at large to do so.

3. Are performative contradictions bad? Bad enough to be punitive voting issues?

This, like every "voting issue" depends entirely upon the way it is addressed in the round. I don't think that a judge should intervene if a performative contradiction isn't addressed. Similarly, if a team makes the p.c. a voter, the judge shouldn't discard it unless it is opposed effectively.

In cases of kritiks, I think that a p.c. should be weighed extemely heavily; the kritik is about real-world implications and therefore real-world performative contradictions are very serious.

jEd

[stannard67]

An interesting and valid definition, Jed. People who advocate veganism while wearing leather shoes, etc. Sort of gets to the meaning of "performative" in that vein.

I was more interested in notions like, for example, running a critique of statism, and then a counterplan that uses government action. So not so much that some "physical" aspect or action contradicts with my arguments, but more that the two arguments I perform seeminly contradict.

For example, as Pierre Schlag write in "Law as the Continuation of God by Other Means" (1997):

"Consider first the cogito. ... the "I think therefore I am." The
force of [the] argument--as in the cogito itself--lies in entangling those who disagree in an untenable performative contradiction. To deny the existence of the "I" is, in virtue of the very performance of the denial, to reassert the
existence of the "I." The thinker performing the cogito is thus forced--on pain of an untenable performative contradiction --to accede to the existence of the "I.""

Most of the literary/philosophical/legal references to "performative contradiction" define it as such: making contradictory arguments, often making the conclusion of one particular argument contingent upon a seemingly contradictory premise.

But both types of performative contradictions are interesting, and hopefully both will be pursued further on this thread. Perhaps there are even other types we have not yet considered.

stannard

[Western Amy]

If a team runs a critique with a voter of education, and then does something that harms education, would that be considered a performative contradiction or merely something one might turn?
I think this question is very interesting, and I'll give a more thorough response later.

[stannard67]

I would only add that the seemingly dramatic designation of "performative" means that such violative contradictions apply uniquely to the kind of advocacy that characterizes critical argument: moral, ethical, ideological imperatives.

So (I presume), taking a critical stand in favor of education and then saying something anti-educational would invite the charge...but arguing that the plan isn't inherent and then running a disad (rendered non-unique by your inherency argument) would not.

stannard

[pattybar]

How about a situaiton in which the debater's rhetoric contradicts their own position?

For example, someone runs a case concerning religious tolerance and then makes a side comment in the course of a supporting argument degrading a religious tradition?

I don't think it is fair to vote on non-verbal contradictions, but all that comes from a debater's mouth in the course of the round seems to be fair game, especially if the other team calls them on it.

Patty

[NonEcdicus]

Matt makes a really interesting point with the distinction he posits in that last post. The comment I was going to make is that I see "performative contradiction" (whether using that particular terminology or not) as something I've commonly coached critique answerers to have high on their checklist of possible answers. (If you are challenged with a critique of certain assumptions, language, etc., an easy way out of it technically--and especially persuasively in front of a judge--will be to point out any examples in the crtiquer's own rhetoric/arguments/advocacy that embodies or advances the offending object of the critique.)

Matt's point makes me wonder whether there are non-critique or critique-parallel (like Amy's example which was critical of the debating itself as non-educational) situations where "performative contradiction" is relevant. One similar, but sufficiently different type of situation might be in the kind of argument in the sexist language critique example I posted over in the "Critiques" thread. There, the debater's performance in the round (sexist language in telling a story and describing the world, separate from specific arguments, was impacted to undermine their credibility to run certain arguments--necessarily turning on generalizations about people of all genders.) I know this example seems more like the vegan in leather shoes than the non-uniqued disad against an inherent case, so maybe not really helpful as a whole other category, but hmmm. I don't think that my example does necessarily turn on there being a moral imperative against sexist language for the performative contradiction impact to work--they seem as though they are independent voters.

I'm not sure what that means for what the encompassing definition of "performative" in my mind would be. I'll keep thinking. At this point, I'm not sure I'm even making much sense.

-Brian

[ML]

Matt writes

"So (I presume), taking a critical stand in favor of education and then saying something anti-educational would invite the charge...but arguing that the plan isn't inherent and then running a disad (rendered non-unique by your inherency argument) would not."

This is something I find interesting, because I've heard this impact used a lot at the critical level of debates without a lot of explanation; what characterizes (in a general sense of course) "anti-education" or "contrary to the spirit of education"? I can think of a lot of administrative issues that take place outside the round that can affect the educational nature of the debate, but what kind of specific discourse harms education? Are we talking the familiar demons of case avoidance, "canning", etc., and if so, would the very essence of running a critical position "off-case" to avoid the substantive issues be anti-educational?

Help me out, I got up too early and have been without cookies..... <img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/sleep.gif ALT=":sleep">

ML

[Western Amy]

The particular round I was speaking of, ML was when the MO ran a critique of the MG with a voter of education, but then spewed (sort of) new arguments and wouldn't take any pois. We sort of turned the voter of ed with his own behavior, which we said was anti-education. This critique gets brought up a lot by Jed, but I need to remind y'all that it didn't work.

Another example of a "performative contradiction" was in a round where we were the government, and ran that we should have civilian juries in military tribunals. The opp ran a counterplan that we should shunt the Camp X-ray detainees to the ICJ, where they should be classified as "unlawful combatants". Dan responded to the counterplan by saying "they'll get away" (without trial) and the MO critiqued us by saying we were assuming guilt. I replied in the PM that their own language ("unlawful" combatants) itself assumed guilt (breaking the law = unlawful) and therefore they bit their critique. I didn't use the words "performative contradiction" but I think that would be a good example of one.

Amy

ML, hope you've had a cookie by now. If you're looking for suggestions, fudge-dipped oreos are quite tasty.

[logospanton]

I'd define a performative contradiction as some action taken by an individual which would be indictable/wrong if that's speakers arguments were all true.

Whether it's a voting issue or not is entirely up to the individuals in the round, just like everything else.

logos panton

[USC MissingLink]

I am concerned with many of these threads that ask whether certain arguments should or should not be reasons to cast a ballot. My concern stems from the assumption that a decision can be made before any particular debate as to how something should be considered. The differing sides then cite examples and counter-examples to prove thier points.

I believe that any argument, if made a certain way can be a voting issue. Therefore, any blanket statement of worth (i.e. a performative contradiction should be a voter) is preempting the context of the debate. Let's say that 99% of the time an RVI on T would not be a voting issue. 1% would then become a voter. You could not then make the claim that RVIs should not be voters without qualifications as to what would allow that argument to be considered. If a judge or debater enters the round and assumes that 99% is 100%, and the debate fits the formula of the 1% that should be legitimized, that round will be affected by an outside, preconseived notion about an argument. That, imho, hurts debate.

In this interest, a performative contradiction as Stannard wished to limit it may or may not be a reason to vote. In some cases, it may demonstrate a flaw in logic, which is one of the rhetorical appeals outlined by Aristotle. Many times I debated rounds which I pegged a "catch 22." Instead of labeling these arguments as "performative contradictions," I merely used the contradicting elements to diffuse each other. Think of the arguments as argument and anti-argument. To beat argument, use anti-argumnet. To beat anti-argument, use argument. Briefly point out that you are using the opponents' own logic (which wins you points with the judge). This strategy has been extremely successful for me.

jEd

[pattybar]

The root of the logic is that when an argument produces both p and ~P, you may conclude whatever you'd like... thus in this case you should conclude a ballot for the other side :) .

Patty

[stannard67]

The affirmative/government advocates that the United States militarily intervene in African country X to solve terrorism and human rights violations.

The negative/opposition has two strategies: First, a critique of militarism. Second, a counterplan to have South Africa do the military intervention instead of the United States.

The counterplan has several "independent" net benefits: US intervention in Africa is culturally imperialistic...the U.S. doesn't understand African affairs...South Africa will solve better on both of those levels. Additionally, South African leadership in regional conflicts creates regional peace, something the affirmative plan can't get.

Thus, CP>P...BUT both P and CP incur the critique.

The affirmative will certainly argue that running both the counterplan and the critique constitutes a "performative contradiction." The PC "forces the affirmative to defend two worlds...it contradicts fundamental critical advocacy...it makes the negative hypocritical, etc..."

The negative (among other things) will respond that the critique is a reason to reject both the plan and the counterplan, but the counterplan has an independent net benefit, and so the negative should win even though the critique applies to the counterplan.

Thoughts?

stannard

[USC MissingLink]

This PC makes the kritik go completely away, since it doesn't provide a method for determining a winner and a loser (both teams are equally guilty). In this case, then, Opp/Neg need not debate the kritik because even if it's true, the judge doesn't have a unique reason to vote for either side since both sides bite the K.

I do see your point though: should the opp/neg be penalized for running the K position and then blatently violating it -- especially since they introduced it into the round. If handled properly, I don't see why a gov/aff couldn't make this argument, although I think it would be easily defeated. The argument would have to focus on argumentative responsibility: that if you take a position, you are more accountable to live by that position than someone who's had the position imposed upon them. Therefore, the opp/neg would have a greater responsibility to avoid the kritik and thus a greater penalty (losing) for violating its intent. Simply, if you make the rules, you should be held more strictly to them.

In the case above, if I were gov/aff I would do the following.

Non-unique the kritik and explain that since both sides bite it its not a reason to favor one team over the other (30 seconds).

Address the CP on a net benefits criterian by taggin on DA's and undermining the supposed advantages. (4.5 minutes)

Rebuild my case (3 minutes).

jEd

[stannard67]

I have appreciated the discussion, and wish to submit this basic thesis for further discussion. It is one of the arguments of my article (there is another based on what Schlag--and Whearty--say about the modernist expectation of consistency).

Anyway, here goes:

The formula for a net beneficial plan is P>SQ and P>CP or (CP+P)>CP. Arguably, endorsing a net beneficial plan may not be philosophically or critically desirable, thus ~P>P even if P>SQ and P>CP or (CP+P)>CP.

If the philosophical criticism of plan also applies to the counterplan, but the counterplan is still net beneficial in relation to the plan, isn't there an "independent" net benefit, implying that given only two choices (P and CP), an audience should prefer the CP, since ~CP>CP and ~P>P, but CP>P and
CP>P+CP?

This doesn't even get into the question of whether the criticism applies "less" to the CP than it applies to the P. Sometimes, a counterplan will avoid some aspect of the philosophical problems of the plan, and should thus
be seen by a pragmatic public as a compromise in an imperfect world.

Example: P is to regulate gaming in Native American casinos. CP is to do P with the exception of casinos in the nations of the Haudenasaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. The critique of federal colonialism (see Porter, Deloria, etc.) would apply to both the P and the CP, but not equally, say assigning a
link value of 1.0 to a plan that regulates all of "Indian Country" and a link value of .7 to a counterplan that regulates all of Indian Country except the 6-Nation Confederacy.

Audiences should find it palatable that a counter-proposal, while imperfect, is still better than a proposal. We live in an imperfect world. The plan is a good idea, but it risks violating important ethical principles, risks locking us into a dangerous ideology concerning our treatment of Native Americans. If we absolutely must enact this plan, let us rather enact a version that avoids violating the sovereignty of a group especially
sensitive and vulnerable to attacks on sovereignty (see
www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6nations; Schneider and Furmanski, www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8366/indian.html; Porter, Buffalo Law Review, Fall 1998 805).

There are, of course, arguments about consistency and inconsistency that matter both to the "game" of debate and the public forum. The point is whether those arguments are to be answered by the participants in the debate, or forced upon the forum by an umpire who intervenes against a
perceived "performative contradiction."

stannard

[stannard67]

For this second thesis, I will merely quote Schlag for now:

"As an example, consider the role of the performative contradiction. Until very recently, the worst thing one could do in academic thought was to get caught in a performative contradiction. Not surprisingly, after decades of striving to avoid performative contradictions, we have a sedimented academic structure and sedimented "knowledges" all nicely arranged in discursive formations constituted to avoid performative contradictions. But after decades of avoiding performative contradictions, there is now a new concern: where don't you go, what do you miss, if you keep trying to avoid performative contradictions? And, of course, there is a political angle to all this. After all, fear of performative contradiction discourages and marginalizes reflexive inquiry into the status of our own statements and our own knowledges. Fear of performative contradiction thus has a conservative effect. And what is conserved, of course, is the jurisdictional and structural integrity of our knowledges. But, of course, because this integrity depends upon such a truncated definition and establishment of the knowledges and the disciplines, it is almost a joke: integrity as joke."


(Pierre Schlag, "Normativity and the Politics of Form," University of Pennsylvania Law Review April, 1991, 925)

Thoughts?

stannard

[USC MissingLink]

ah, post-modernism... :) gotta love this stuff!

jEd

[stannard67]

The Schlag quote is pretty simple stuff, Jed. I am not even sure it's "post-modern," although it certainly seems to be placing traditional logic and structuralism under examination.

I hope people will actually READ it--I mean hey, there aren't any real big words or anything--instead of running away from it because of its tone.

He's basically saying: Our obsession with consistency in logic and analysis leads to "conservatization" in thought and deed. Sometimes it's okay to play with inconsistency, because this offers new perspectives that, while they may initially seem inconsistent, may offer new ways out of old problems.

stannard

[USC MissingLink]

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I understood the quote, and I think it fits post-modern thought very well. Instead of a single position, it seems to be advocating a value in plurality for the sake of examining something completely, even if those many ideas conflict.

By calling it post-modern, I didn't mean to pass it off as overly complex. Truth be told, I love post-modern study. It's fascinating. I think there is value in considering as many alternatives as possible to come to the best solution.

I'd be interested in how this sort of thing applies to debaters in thier own personal viewpoints. After 8 years of debate, I've found that I am able to take any position and defend it which leaves me in sort of a bind when it comes to actually determining how I stand on issues. A peformative contradiction is a great example of this. How can I have a singular opinion if I firmly believe to opposing ideals? If I can't have a singular opinion, how can I act? It's an interesting dichotomy between theory and reality.

jEd

[vonfic]

Schlag looks at the preformative contradiction in a legal/university setting, but I think that a far more interesting examination of preformative Contradiction can be made in the political world. As Schlag points out to academia a preformative contradiction is something to be avoided at all possible cost, but I would ask what is the effect of a preformative contradiction in the more mundane "Real World". When a politician says one thing and then acts in another way, how will that affect his/her ability to perform in their roles, will it negatively affect their popularity, and what strategies will they employ to avoid negative consequences? The way that I see the world, a preformative contradiction can be something that if not handled correctly costs a politician their career. I guess My question to the forum is what are the affects of preformative contradiction outside of the legal/university world, do they matter and to what extent? Peace,

paul

[stannard67]

First, what you have described is not entirely a "performative" contradiction, since the contradiction is a dichotomy of advocacy and action. A performative contradiction, as we have contextualized it in this discussion, concerns advocacies which are inconsistent...

However, what you have said is not entirely unprecedented. When researching the term in literature, I came across this commentary concerning a Supreme Court decision (Te-Hit-Ton v U.S.) holding that the United States did not have to compensate a certain native american nation for their land:

“Notwithstanding the "march to enlightenment" modernist character of emerging judicial doctrines of Brown, the Court is caught in a performative contradiction even as it announces its new redemptive tenets of law. Tee-Hit-Ton amply demonstrates how the Warren Court was willing and able to maintain and transform the legal workings of white supremacy post-Brown.”
(Sumi Cho, Boston College Law Review December, 1998 40 B.C. L. Rev 73)

In other words, the Court's earlier "performance" of racial justice was contradicted by later "performances" of white supremacy. This is clearly a different kind of PC than the kind Schlag defends or Habermas and others condemn, but I think it has certain implications for my basic argument that what some see as contradiction, others (mostly pragmatists) see as political compromise. It may even help explain why the neg/opp team should be able to run both a foundational/ideological critique AND a counterplan that links to the critique, but does so less than the aff/gov plan.

Thanks for the comments.

stannard

[NonEcdicus]

So it came to me in a dream last night. OK, really it was a nightmare this morning. The ultimate example of a PC in the real world proves that they are not all bad or worthy of losing a ballot. I mean, hello, on the game show Survivor ("reality" TV, of course), the person who does the best job of acting contradictory to what s/he says without anyone noticing until the end, gets paid $1,000,000! What could better justify PC's than that. Kind of inspirational, frankly. ;)

-Brian

[ML]

Brian, I think you need some fresh air. It's a lovely day, and only gomers like moi who have to work should be sitting at a computer. I get slightly alarmed when Survivor starts permeating people's consciousness like this....

Unless, of course, you've developed an intolerance for sunlight....

ML

"I got my highest marks in Stealth"
Chris Farley, Beverly Hills Ninja

[NonEcdicus]

Tribe: The Ninja Mafia
Comments:

Oh, wait, that's right, not all e-mail messages have to start that way. You're absolutely right, ML. It's totally beautiful outside, and but for the oppression of law school papers that would not end, I would not have an advantage in this silly game that rewards the most un-well-rounded of the un-well-rounded. By the way, your name just came up on page 34 or so of the Ninja Flag thread . . . Hmmm.

Hugs,
Brian

[ML]

Hmmm indeed.

I'm *quite* interested in knowing how these supposed linkages occurred in your mind, since as all who know me can attest, I am a veritable pillar of virtue in this community. (well, compared to some of my colleagues) Now I know you need to take a break from the computer, if only for me to mount my humble defense against such slander...

You're a mean ucky person, and I'm telling my mom. <img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/tomato.gif ALT=":splat">

ML

[NonEcdicus]

Your mom is a wonderful, wonderful person from what I've heard. Telling her, though, may open a whole can of ice fishing worms for you, ya shore ya betcha. I'd be careful. By the way, one of James's greatest epiphanies was the link between you and your recently former roommate.

Lovingly,
Brian<img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/snicker.gif ALT=":snicker">

[ML]

That is by far the worst MN accent I've ever read. :P

Also, you clearly know nothing of my homeland, since no one uses worms to ice fish. One uses meatloaf sandwhiches and Hamm's, accompanied by the lull of the world's oldest transistor radio tuned to UM Hockey, the Vikings, or the European Curling Championships in Rekjavik Iceland. Whichever one is least intelligable.

Mom knows everything, save for my idolotry of the vodka gods. These ficticious ice-fishing-worms don't scare me...

And if you think the link between me and my former roommate was an eye-popper, I bet you'd kill to get the scoop on me and my current one. And no, I am not co-habitating with my significant other....

As they say in the tongue of my people: Uff-da!

ML

[pattybar]

ML,

You forget to mention grubs for ice fishing... nasty little white things (not nice, fat night crawlers which you couldn't both dig from the ground and use to ice fish... if the ground is thawed so is the ice :) ). Don'ca know that that nice Brian is from Oregon... ice fishing with worms, you betcha...

And, if your mom didn't want you to catch anything for her to take off the hook, you forgot the can of corn....

Also, the emphasis should be on the beer, as it is the point of ice fishing in the first place. You should have seen the looks my step-dad (Chicago native) got when he set up a series of hooks on springs we could see from the house -- the point of ice fishing isn't catching a Crappie, it is drinking enough beer on the lake to have fun in an icehouse.

I can't wait to get back.... 2 months to the move back, 6 months to send the guys out ice fishing and snowmobiling....

Patty

[ML]

So, so true. Why would one seek out and harvest a fish called a "crappie" unless there was alcohol involved? Good call on the grubs. You can also apparently use cultivated leeches.

Garrison Keillor (who I normally loathe as a sissified liar when it comes to all things rural and Minnesotan) has a somewhat amusing retelling of his ice-fishing experiences as a boy. A coming-of-age, "where men get together, to get away from women...." Ha. Ha. Schmuck.

It's a silly activity. Just build a freaking woodshed in the back yard and save yourself of risk of emminent ice collapse and death either by shock, hypothermia, or drunken flailing about.

Don't even get me started on snowmobiling....

ML

[NonEcdicus]

And if you think the link between me and my former roommate was an eye-popper, I bet you'd kill to get the scoop on me and my current one. And no, I am not co-habitating with my significant other.... ML, I'm leaving Minnesota alone because I knew it was a silly risk to take in the first place. (Although, I've seen the mysteriously anomolous ice worms of Alaska.) I know I'm more than outnumbered around here, though I am happy to have spurred further bonding amongst y'all.

Nonetheless, beware pushing further with the above quotation. You know I would hardly have to kill to get that scoop. I used to compete against your current roommate for goodness sakes, and I have co-habitated--and even occasionally slept with--that person with whom you're "not" co-habitating.

-Brian :p

[pattybar]

Garrison really gets to me because he does most of his shows from New York!!! It is really sad, he says he's from St. Paul but if you could repress the gad reflex long enough to listen to where he says he is, it is almost always NOT St. Paul.

My brother-in-law's brother should just go outside, climb a tree and jump out into a snowbank instead of actually snowmobiling.... he spends most of his time either flying into a snowbank or digging his sled out.

I think a good alternative to snowmobiling would be wait for a cold night (real cold, not below freezing... well below zero) and drive your car with bald tires down a snowy road while hanging your head out the window....

Actually, in some ways snowmobiling is like ice fishing... the only real reason to do it is to go from one bar to the next. There is a reason all the bar owners up at Mom's work on the trails, and it ain't a love of noise or pollution.

Patty

[ML]

Well, it's Alaska for crying out loud. Everything there is Icy.

Hasty Generalizations aside, Brian, in terms of roomie linkages, still waters run very deep....and it's intended to stay that way...Don't think you know so much. I will concede however, that you have probably slept with my boyfriend. But then, I always suspected we had similar tastes..... <img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/spinhappy.gif ALT=":spin">

Hugz,
ML