Brian Lain, Emory University & Pace Academy, Atlanta, GA

1996 - The Shock, The Shame, The Horror: Juvenile Crime

On Saturday morning if you are tuned into ABC, and if the timing is just right, you can see "Schoolhouse Rock's" African American superhero describe the concept of a verb. As our hero flies through the sky he exclaims, "I get my thing in action, to be, to see, to feel, to live." Unlike the noun, a person, place, or thing, Verb! is constantly doing things, moving around, and performing actions (to nm, to go, to get, to give). Kritiks have formerly been described in a monolithic noun form (The Kritik, The Critique, etc.). However, viewing these arguments as a verb (kritiking) may be more useful. Kritiking is used to describe the process of questioning which is advocated by the debaters.

Often, the static vision of "the Kritik" is employed to view are actually many different kinds of kritiks. Several different categorization schemes of krticks have been used. Nevertheless, we constantly come into contact with articles describing "the Kritik," as if they all made the same argument. William Bennett's recent article in The Rostrum, for example, constantly presents us with "the Kritik," even though he maintains there are several different kinds. Why is it we find this only with regard to kritiks? Have you ever heard someone say, "I will not vote on 'The Case Turn? "' Have you ever seen a coach say to a team before their next round, "O.K. team, run 'The Disadvantage?"' Kritiks may be controversial, but the erection of a monolith is silly. Additionally, the denial of the dynamic nature of kritik/kritiking closes off the possibility of discovering new approaches. Shanahan was the first to describe a three fold division of kritiks (language, value, and thinking) (Shanahan 1993). However, he readily admits there are other types which we have not introduced yet into debate. Finally, the noun form implies that what is suggested by "the Kritik" is a stable non-changing solution. A more accurate descriptor for some kritiks is the advocacy of a process. 1

Given that kritiks are not a static argument style, and that some are really suggesting a procedure, not a single thing, how do we describe them? Back to Schoolhouse Rock, when our dapper superhero Verb! (accompanied by some Motownesque backup singers) encounters the monolithic noun, he states, "I can take a noun and bend it." He then continues to turn an object into a process (bat -> batting, boat -> boating, rake -> raking, plow ->plowing). Similarly, kritiking (kritik > kritiking (my hero might have a "K' on his/her chest), suggests a whole range of action done by an argument style. We endorse a system of thought; we advocate undergoing questioning, rethinking. "What do you think we should do about this?" We should start a process, not undertake a single act (pass a plan); we should rethink. The heart of the issue is what is considered fiatable action/thinking. When viewed as a verb, I suggest that kritiking may [is allowed to] be the alternative.

What if, rather than just accepting policy options as consideration for voting, the judge could consider endorsing a process of kritiking? As an example, negatives may suggest the advocation of a system of rethinking particular to a questioning of history, culture, legal, and social systems (etc.) that seeks to expose the usage of power in the juvenile justice system. They might use the following evidence to buttress their position:

Jonathon Simon, Miami Law School, 1995, Cardozo Law Review p. 1406. Yet, if these peculiar and often embarrassing parens patriae institutions are markers for the far broader and more subtle role institutions play in shaping the subjectivities of the subjects, the stakes for our experiment in self government are more serious. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the diminution of paternalistically deployed power is not a diminution of power per se. In the place of parens patriae, new regimes of regulation have come; often ones more effective at actually controlling choices and behaviorism while generally avoiding any claim to addressing the subjectivities of the subject. The Court In re Gault noted with concern that almost two percent of all youth in American had contact with the juvenile court in 1965 (although the majority of these youths were not confined). In 1987, more than two percent of all youth in America were actually confined in juvenile facilities.

Let's say the affirmative attempts a reform of the juvenile process. This attempt to locate and control power is counterproductive and will not produce the solvency the affirmative claims. Meanwhile, using the system of thinking of the affirmative encourages violence toward juveniles. We kritik that; you should rethink the idea of power in the criminal justice system. What are you voting for? You are voting for kritiking, rethinking, questioning. The judge is voting to place this dynamic process in motion.

The affirmative suggests a plan to travel to the advantages, the negative suggests rethinking as a way to achieve the value (etc.) they suggest is paramount. The kritik functions as a counterplan. 2 Kritiking becomes a vehicle for the debate. In some cases, the kritiking may claim the affirmative advantage, just as a counterplan may claim to solve the advantage. We might view this as an ends/means distinction also. You can agree with the ends of the plan [the advantage], but not the mechanism [plan].' To fully examine our problem, we need to critique the system. If we were looking for evidence on kritiking as the alternative, a starting point might be:

Jonathon Simon, Miami Law School, 1995, Cardozo Law Review p. 1371-2. These critical discourses suggest that the problems of governing the young in a postmortem society cannot be resolved by simply repudiating the paternalistic impetus of the modem juvenile court. To do so ignores more than a century of efforts to create forms of government responsive to the fundamental problem faced by all liberal societies - how to produce citizens who can govern themselves. Young people committing violent crimes, who grab our attention from the front pages of newspapers, are the shock troops of postmodern culture. Many of their parents, often teenagers when they became parents, have disappeared into drugs, crime, or the criminal justice system. The larger institutional structure of education and employment, which should connect them to the normative order in society, has largely disintegrated. The irony is that the juvenile court, which was fairly criticized fora class biased paternalism that mistook working-class families for dysfunctional families, is increasingly confronted with a juvenile population that is suffering a crisis of parenting and government. The radical needs being expressed in both youth crime and the public demand for punitive responses to it in contemporary America, require us to revisit the genealogy of these forms and their continuing implications. [emphasis mine]

Is this a counterplan to remove the juvenile justice system hidden in a kritik? I don't think so. The solution is not determined; we must engage the process to even understand the problem much less the solution. Is this a non-unique disadvantage? I fail to see how it could be; the subject matter is examining a bind that we are currently in, the need to combat problems of a fatherless society along with the desire to not be paternalistic. Indeed, Simon advocates no policy (neither does he say abandon the juvenile court system

Jonathon Simon, Miami Law School, 1995, Cardozo Law Review, p. 1414-5.As in so many other areas of public life, to move forward we must rethink choices made in the 1960s and uncover trailheads of the alternative paths not chosen. Here, the feminist rereading of the dangers and opportunities created by the crisis of paternal power in society may provide a sense of direction, while taking us back to the institutional experiment of the juvenile court.

These cards are just used as an example of what tools debaters could use to endorse a process. In other places we have seen "kritiking provides no alternative" as an answer to arguments. Here is an answer: "TURN: kritiking opens alternative pathways!"

Kritiking began its debate incarnation questioning the assumption in debate called fiat. But it is not necessary to question fiat to win the round with kritiking. In fact, affirmatives who defend fiat in their speech are actually doing you a favor (assuming you are kritiking, if not why are they talking about fiat?). Here's why: "doing nothing" is a common criticism lodged at kritik advocates. This argument is usually seen in rebuttals and, although it comes into play in most kritiking debates, it is rarely considered a separate line-by-line argument. The answer can be characterized in this way:

Even if the negative (affirmative) is right, they aren't going to accomplish anything. The plan advantages are real. If you do not vote affirmative (negative) millions will die while you will be sitting around rethinking.

This characterization zooms in on the notion that kritiking is separate from action. Kritiking now has a reply to the "doing nothing" quip voiced by the Anti-Kritik forces: kritiking, views thinking as fiatable. There is a long line of philosophy that questions the ability to distinguish thought from action. Not only does thought influence action and action influence thought (questions of causality abound here), but also it is difficult to distinguish, especially in debate, where the thinking ends and where the action begins.

Here's where the 2AC "Fiat is good" answer helps you. Fiat is the best example of where thinking and action blur in debate. Using the tenets of the policy making paradigm to define fiat ask yourself the following: Does the plan actually happen? Does the Congress pass the plan? Are we just doing nothing? The ability to suspend disbelief over whether or not the plan would occur is essential to have a productive, educational, and fun activity; but the plan isn't really passed either. However, we aren't "doing nothing" in debate, either. The process of debating might be likened to the process of rethinking. There is some action involved, speaking, researching, lifting boxes, but primarily it is the thinking that we encourage and reward in debate. When asked what is endorsed by kritiking the negative (affirmative) should reply, "We are actively exploring, questioning, rethinking, kritiking the problem. We are not endorsing the status quo. We seek rejection of both the affirmative (negative) and the status quo. Vote to adopt the rethinking!"

Although the suggestion of kritiking as an alternative was intended as a compromise for the Anti-Kritik forces, it has yet to be accepted fully. What is needed is a conception of flat that includes policy-making as well as kritiking. Three different interpretations of the action of signing the ballot present themselves for consideration. 5 Under each of them, the option of fiating kritiking exists. Fiating kritiking is offered as an explanation of endorsing, through the ballot, the option of kritiking as a mechanism of fiat. Perhaps it can only be explained through example.

The first option for flat is that the judge plays the role of "debate dude," simply a person who operates within the debate activity. The judge is seen as a coach or concerned educator who sees the activity for the edutainment purposes it serves. To fiat kritiking is easy in this case. Just as voting affirmative is an endorsement of the plan as a good idea or the affirmative won or did the better job of debating based on the line-by-line arguments or whatever, voting negative can be viewed as endorsement of kritiking, rejection of the plan as a bad idea, or saying the negative did a better job of debating. The endorsement in this case may be intellectual or punishment oriented, as in cases of rejecting sexist or racist language. The thing that the judge votes for is kritiking.

A second analogy views the judge as an actual policy maker. The judge has the ability to force Congress to do the plan. Whether this ability is metaphorical or something actually believed is irrelevant. All arguments are assessed in this vein. The advantage to the plan is not as great as the disadvantages. I would like to stop the battle, but it might cause an overpopulation explosion. There is a great difference between these reasons for voting and "they did a better job."

A third model of flat places the judge not as an overseer of policy but as a participant. For some reason the judge is the policy maker (again metaphor or dementia is irrelevant) who has the deciding vote on the question of the plan/counterplan. The scene of the debate is the floor of Congress and the judge has to give a speech for or against the plan, counterplan, or status quo. That speech will determine the outcome. We might envision some of the constraints suggested as impositions of this model, "this is the wrong forum; Congress wouldn't discuss these philosophy issues" or "we are constrained to do policy here!"

Under the latter two views the judge has several options to fiat (it clearly is a verb in this place). The plan may be done, a counterplan, or staying the course may be suggested. All of these fiated actions (if staying the course is fiat there seems to be no difference between thought/action) are executed by the governing body. Why not then have the judge endorse the kritiking option on the governing body? Have the judge force Congress to rethink. Fiat that the U.S. Government question the way power is exercised in the juvenile system. The deciding speech given on the question of juvenile justice reform is a well constructed problematization of power relationships in the juvenile system, concluded by endorsing not the present system nor the policy on the floor, but rather a third option of beginning a quest of rethinking how the ideas of power are flawed and what the real problem is. Fiat the kritiking by the government on the problem outlined by the debate team. Fiat the kritiking!

A response to this view may be that the option is already present in counterplanning. A three-fold rejoinder is offered. First, the criticism that a counterplan is needed begs the question that there is some distinction between fiating kritiking and counterplanning. Another way of stating this alternative maybe"counter-thinking."6 The thought/action dichotomy is disputed in this form of fiat. Is there a difference between saying, "plank one, we suggest the Congress rethink" and saying, "the Congress should rethink?" If there is we must be members of a "cult of planks", since that is the only discernible difference. The other side has fair warning when the debaters endorse kriticking as fiatable.

Second, several modes of kritiking call policy making into question. It doesn't seem like a good counterplan to say, "pass a policy to question all policies." The idea that a plan should be done, that you can ever find a solution, that a "course of action" ought to be taken might be the basis of the kritik. For example, several strands of feminism hold the view that the problem solution format is a tool of the patriarchy. Announcing that you have a solution not only forecloses future discussion, it also chills the discussion of problems for which there are no available solutions. Assuming the kritiker argues, "Exploring the system of patriarchy found in the way the government, as well as experts, study the juvenile crime crisis as if all delinquents were male, generalizing their data to include females, presenting an ungendered picture of the juvenile crime crisis, employing these false assumptions leads to little or no examination of the problems associated with females in the juvenile justice system, ignoring and therefore legitimating the gender problems." The response is a quick question, "Have you got a solution for that? No? OK then lets move on."

Third, the location of critique is much larger than traditional counterplans have afforded. The reason the above does not compare to a "study counterplan" is that there is a questioning of much more than just an advantage area. In the past, we have encountered sparse information in the literature, along with people suggesting a study approach, and advocated that as a counterplan. The problem area is the advantage, the solution is that we should study to find the proper course of action. Kritiking indicts a much larger metaphysical space as its subject. Instead of studying what the correct data on juvenile crime rates are, we are asked to rethink our entire conception of how power works (this may include such topics as persuasion, coercion, tyranny, revolution, democracy, victory, and perhaps violence). Rethinking has a benefit in and of itself, it is not suggested only to help inform us of better ways to do the plan. Also, kritiking can open up alternate pathways that are more than just policies, like the way we treat each other as well as our own outlook on the world.

Fiating Kritiking is not suggested as a solution, but rather a wholesale questioning. An exploration of the problem that may produce not a solution, but a better understanding of the problem. Policy making may be racist, classist sexist, etc. but forcing the institution to rethink these problems is not an endorsement of policy making nor of the institution.

Once we are viewing kritiking similar to, but not the same as, a counterplan, is there an option for the affirmative to make a permutation? Yes, in most cases a permutation is possible. The question is, "is it desirable?" Counterplan theory holds that a permutation is a combination of the planks of a plan with some or all of the planks of the counterplan. What form would a kritiking permutation take? When policymakers are searching around for an option to permute, they often make up policies that seem to be attached to kritiking, then attach them to the plan. Roger Solt has this to say about permutations:

[K]ritiks can often be effectively "permuted." This can be accomplished in at least two ways. First some kritiks will prove susceptible to fairly standard policy permutations. This is because a number of kritiks (such as statism) do, in effect suggest alternative policies, such as anarchy. If there is an implicit alternative lurking within the kritik, then you may well want to make that alternative explicit in order to permute. In the case of statism, the obvious permutation is to abolish all government except for the those portions needed to carry out the plan. (Solt xxi)

It seems logical that the policy maker when confronted with non-policy options reverts to making up a policy. However, who suggested anarchy? Is the criticism of statism really just an endorsement of anarchy? Is it impossible to conceive of something non-anarchical and non-statist at the same time? Why anarchy? Why not tribalism? Why not primitivism? Since you are questioning the existence of the state you might/ must be suggesting we go back to a tribal way of living. I imagine the negative (affirmative) saying, "Hey wait, we didn't say we knew the solution, we just said there was a problem in the assumptions, we never even said anarchy in the speech." There is no "standard policy" inherent in the kritiking. There may be an "implicit alternative." But as said above, it is kritiking. The part of the permutation above that is "do anarchy," is an addition to the plan that no one advocated, in short, an intrinsicness answer.

Before providing my alternative permutation, I want to cover Solt's other example:

Second, in the case of kritiks which do not contain implicit policy alternatives, it is still possible to employ a kind of conceptual permutation. For example, even if rationality is rejected, it might still be possible to justify an affirmative plan on emotive grounds. The argument is, in effect, that the judge can embrace the kritik and still have a reason to vote affirmative. (Solt xxi)

With this example I have little quarrel. However, there really isn't a permutation present here. This is really a severing of rationality from the affirmative. And if the negative is making a kritik of value, the affirmative may justify their plan through emotive means. If the negative were kritiking though, they could still win the round. Here's why: Solt present us with a thinking kritik, rationality is flawed. This kritik is certainly enough to win most debates. However, if we added, "assuming rationality leads us into false conclusions which blind us and make things worse, and questioning rationality helps us find our way again (kritiking as the alternative)," the dropping of that portion of the affirmative doesn't deny the benefit gained by kritiking rationality. If I use the counterplan jargon, the net benefit makes the kritiking desirable.

OK, what is a good permutation then? The negative is endorsing the external criticism of an idea (we should rethink power). This criticism should be germane ("linked") to the affirmative at hand (it may be that the idea of reform entrenches the current notion of power, it could be the plan itself, it might even be the implicit linkage between the plan and power). A permutation can focus in on this linkage by asking, can the affirmative be done while the external criticism is done? In other words, "Judge (pronounced JuHdge), vote to do the plan, and make the Congress rethink the expression of power." Notice that this is not suggested as a policy any more than the original rethinking was a policy, however, there is a combination of policy and non-policy: a permutation. The permutation is the plan as well as the process (rethink ageism).

How can the negative win in this debate? Well, the original "link" arguments were that the affirmative contains assumptions which are invalid, flawed, bad, etc.; these arguments prove why the permutation is not desirable. In this example, "No, we can't do the plan and rethink power, because the notion of piecemeal reform reifies the notion that power can be located an removed. If we do the plan part there will be a taint in the thinking. This permutation tokenizes the problematization that kritiking offers." This should focus the kritiking debate on the "links," which is the same purpose of the permutation in counterplan debates. After all, the purpose of permutation and competitiveness arguments in counterplan theory is to force the negative to propose relevant germane, clashful alternatives.

In the case of our example, although Simon thinks that thinking is desirable he would not allow juveniles to suffer while the rethinking takes place. He might vote for the permutation. Simon writes on the last two pages of his article:

In the short term, the juvenile courts must be defended as a check on the drive to mark youth offenders as subjects for punishment and criminalization.... In the medium term, we must strive to protect and expand the right to affirmative treatment which lies in many remaining juvenile justice statutes. ... In the longer term, we need to explore institutional strategies for exercising paternal power in settings that look like neither the traditional family nor the modem welfare state (pp. 1424-5,)

It seems that the negative needs to find evidenc ethat rethinking would in fact be tainted by concurrent reforms. Furthermore, the negative must explain why the Verb! -based power of fiat that is so powerful as to enable rethinking to overcome all of the existing institutional barriers cannot "solve the link" to the affirmative as well.

Hopefully, this suggestion of kritiking as an alternative and fiating kritiking opens up new space for discussion in debate. Maybe I was too easily attracted by the black superhero Verb! and the Motown sound on Saturday mornings. Maybe I just felt jilted by the country-folk music of "a noun is a person, place, or thing." Whatever personal insanity puts my pen across paper, the explication of kritiking in the verb sense is a current strategy for debate. Debaters should not be hesitant to suggest flating a process. Over reliance on policies has truncated what is considered for debate. Verbs can expand the range of debate arguments. The words of schoolhouse rock echo my conclusion, "I get my thing in action. (Verb!, that's what's happening) To work, to play, to live, to love.

Theory in debate evolves. Since the first printed treatment of kritiks in debate (which occurred in this publication in 1993), there has been lots of innovation. Those early perspectives have already been added to, some discarded, some advanced. Kritiking remains controversial, and it will remain so for a while. Fiating kritiking is not suggested for all kritiking debates. It is mostly offered as a compromise, a move between policy making and the fledgling paradigm that is supporting kritiking (remember, this is the second compromise, kritiking as an alternative was an initial attempt at middle ground). Fiating kritiking is useful as a way of adapting to the judge. Debaters are encouraged to explore this idea and expand the boundaries of kritiking theory.

Bibliography

Bauschard, Stefan (1995, November). Uniqueness: A Sacred Concept. Extensions: Newsletter of the American Debate Association, pp. 2-5
Bennett, William (1996, April). An Introduction to The 'Kritik.' The Rostrum, pp. 19-26.
Shanahan, William (1993). Kritik of Thinking. In Roger E. Solt and Ross K. Smith (Eds.) Debater's Research Guide: Health Care Policy: Debating Coverage Cures, (pp. A3-8). Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University.
Shors, Matthew and Steve Mancuso (1993). The Critique: Skreaming Without Raising Its Voice. In Roger E. Solt and Ross K. Smith (Eds.) Debater's Research Guide: Health Care Policy:Debating Coverage Cures, (pp. A14-18). Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University.
Simon, Jonathon (1995). Power without Parents: Juvenile Justice in a Postrnodern Society. Cardozo Law Review, v. 16, pp. 1363-1426.
Solt, Roger (I 995). The Anti-Kritik Handbook. Denton, TX: Paradigm Research.

- FOOTNOTES - ENDNOTES -
-
1 At this point, please be aware that this article makes absolutely no attempt to cover all the ground of all kritiks. In particular I will not be dealing with kritiks of rhetoric or language at all. It may be that some kritiks are excluded from this discussion and cannot be advocated as a process.
2 I take these words directly from Chris Lundberg, University of Redlands, Semifinal round at Baylor University 1996, endorsing an argument from Spanos/Heidegger.
3 Lundberg again.
4 Here is another example of kritiking suggested in the literature. This argument is that we should question the current mode of sanctioning (punishment) in the juvenile context. Unlike ageism, this argument seeks to find a new way of working within the juvenile justice system, suggesting restorative justice (where the criminal is viewed as having a debt [financial at times] for their crimes). Gordon Bazemore, Florida Atlantic University, and Mark Umbreit, Univ. of Minnesota, July 1995, Crime and Delinquency, p. 296-316. In addition, we have suggested that rethinking the way juvenile courts carry out the sanctioning function may be a prerequisite for more comprehensive reform aimed at preserving the juvenile court and a rehabilitative focus for juvenile offenders. The blueprint presentedhere,basedontheprinciplesofrestorativejustice,prescribes a comprehensive redesign of sanctioning policy. Such redesign would begin with change in values; acknowledgment of new "customers" of the system (i.e. victims and the community); the development of new goals and objectives; change in the justice process; change in the priority assigned to various practices and programs.
5 It is quite possible there are more than three options. However, these accurately represent the different paradigms under scrutiny.
6 Please note the usage of a verb in this statement. Counter-thinking may be described above, but the option of a counter-thought (noun) has not been discussed anywhere in this study and is a totally different beast. The counter-thought may be another negative argument/argument style available to the debaters, but it is beyond the reach of this paper.