![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
King of Sites (Arkham): The essence of earth behaving as air, such as a diamond: A true businessman, with a gift for identifying opportunities and taking advantage of them. A person well informed about the world, skilled in all things physical, and eager to encourage others. A pillar of practicality and dependability, embracing tried and tested methods, and possessing an innate understanding of the material reality. A philanthropist and devotee of both luxury and hard work, whose word is as good as gold.
Feb. 7th, 2008
sleepy theory
Feb. 7th, 2008 02:41 pmI woke up this morning consumed with thoughts on "theory", about it's purpose and how I engage with it. My first coherent thought was that it should, at some level, connect with something real, some experience, interaction, history, some object, social or material; otherwise, it will be nothing but meaningless conjecture, a series of exercises in "What if?"
That led me to consider how I engage with it, which is different than how I think it should be created or used. I think I tend to start off engaging theory on the grounds upon which it presents itself. I know this can, and usually does, end up pulling me down narrow alleys of specious thought and leaving me to test and evaluate theories on their own terms. This often ends with me being distraught and disoriented; from within it's given framework, any theory is harder to assess, counter or dismiss. Instead, it becomes a (rhetorical?) project of the search for internal inconsistency and deconstruction, letting the babysitter know all the calls are coming from inside the house.
What I think it should be used for, and how, is different. I think it has to do with illuminating the operation of the current, accepted, usually invisible theoretical practices already in play so that they can be assessed with an eye towards broadening possibilities, opening more already extant people and experiences up into the classification of tribally human. Theory used to create hierarchy, to separate or diminish others, is a misuse of theory that is most often in the service of most conservative, regressive forces of the status quo.
That led me to consider how I engage with it, which is different than how I think it should be created or used. I think I tend to start off engaging theory on the grounds upon which it presents itself. I know this can, and usually does, end up pulling me down narrow alleys of specious thought and leaving me to test and evaluate theories on their own terms. This often ends with me being distraught and disoriented; from within it's given framework, any theory is harder to assess, counter or dismiss. Instead, it becomes a (rhetorical?) project of the search for internal inconsistency and deconstruction, letting the babysitter know all the calls are coming from inside the house.
What I think it should be used for, and how, is different. I think it has to do with illuminating the operation of the current, accepted, usually invisible theoretical practices already in play so that they can be assessed with an eye towards broadening possibilities, opening more already extant people and experiences up into the classification of tribally human. Theory used to create hierarchy, to separate or diminish others, is a misuse of theory that is most often in the service of most conservative, regressive forces of the status quo.