The tidal wave of critical argument in debate has changed the face of the activity. It is no longer possible to get through a successful debate career without thoughtfully engaging the diverse array of arguments that are described as "kritik." Some will find a place to support an already-existing love of critical theory. Some will find a place to hone a fine-edged disdain for critical theory. All will examine the dominant strains of critical thought in a curriculum combining a close-reading of original sources with argument construction culled from the latest specific applications. Come and join jon sharp at the KNDI for a unique opportunity to immerse yourself in the world of kritiking.

The plan of study will mix evidence production and an engagement with specific flavors of kritiking. The lab will be divided into several sections, during which we will employ a graduate-school style discussion format with daily readings in addition to longer-term individual and small group research assignments. Each section will focus on a specific domain of critical engagement, with individual days focusing on specific authors or controversies. Examples include: Power and Subjectivities (Foucault, Butler, Agamben, Arendt), Political Community (Badiou, Edkins, Ranciere, Connolly), Political Economy: Marx and Post-Marxism (Laclau, Mouffe, Meszaros, Hardt & Negri), Re/Presentation (Baudrillard, Bataille, Shapiro, Spivak) and Psycho Analytics (Zizek, Daly, Mills, Zupancic). Note: Additional specific sections will be added once the topic is released.

In addition to the main curricular divisions, the lab will feature a number of presentations unique to this program. A non-exclusive list includes:

Genealogies of Kritik – Those who do not know history are doomed to lose in the doubles. In order to fully exploit the possibilities offered by kritik and kritiking, it is crucial to understand the origins and evolution of this style of argument. As such, we will devote specific sessions to charting the genealogy of critical advocacy from its origins in the dark recesses of value objections and the decision rule to more recent formulations of alternatives and performance-based approaches.

Standpoints – Three times a week, we will gather as a group to plumb the depths of identification to examine different vectors of individual and group identity which comprise distinct standpoint epistemologies. Examples include Genders and Feminisms (Betty Reardon, J. Ann Tickner, Jill Steans, V. Spike Peterson), Racing Advocacy (Derrick Bell, Cornel West, bell hooks, Paul Gilroy, Kimberle Crenshaw), Queering Theory (Eve Sedgwick, Michael Warner, Lee Edelman, David Halperin), and Border Crossing (Gloria Anzaldua, Chela Sandoval, Nestor Garcia Canclini).

Frameworks and Frame-Ups – three times a week, we will devote an entire lab session to the strategery of what has come to be called Framework. These sessions will have a two-fold purpose. First, we will familiarize ourselves with the dominant strains of the framework debate from both sides. Second, we will step back to develop practical techniques for intervening into this process of establishing the boundaries of what is productively debatable. While our aim will be to creatively evade these frameworks, we will also devote substantial effort to enlarging the debate over framing in order to establish a common ground capable of accommodating arguments from both sides of the (largely imaginary) policy/kritik divide.

Critical Notebook - a daily tirade limited to a particular concept or micro-argument - like a podcast, but not available on the internet (jsharp is sort of like that).