Theory

[robinturner]

Am I the only person to be irritated by the blanket use of the word "theory" in the humanities? In the past there were various types of theory: political theory, literary theory (which was lit crit with a chip on its shoulder), critical theory (as though other theories were uncritical), fatal theory (which never really caught on because no one could understand what Baudrillard was going on about) and of course that ultimate exercise in academic silliness, queer theory. Now, increasingly, there is just Theory.

As far as I can tell, Theory just means speculating about some subject that happens to interest you and (the difficult part) getting your speculations published. To do that, you need a lot of citations from someone who did exactly the same thing about something that interested him or her, but is more famous than you. Let's say I went to see the latest Star Wars film and enjoyed it, but at the same time felt vaguely uncomfortable about some of the implicit politics. Now I could just write a n online review of the film saying "George Lucas may think he's being critical of America's slide into authoritarian rule, but the whole Jedi mythology is elitist and Jar Jar should be shot" (which is more-or-less what David Brin said years ago). A lot of people might read it, but it wouldn't be Theory, and it wouldn't get published in any academic journals. On the other hand, if I were to find a few papers on related subjects by people like Zizek, Lacan or Baudrillard and relate them to my own reactions to the film, then that would be Theory.

Somehow I think it's all a case of physics-envy.

Comments

[solri.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was bullshitting about Sith, since I haven't seen it yet. Lucas stated in an interview that the first three episodes were meant to be about the erosion of democracy in America post-Vietnam. I think he is deep to the extent that he stands on the shoulders of giants (to mix a metaphor). The first film was pure Joseph Campbell, and the others drew on every cinematic tradition imaginable. You could call it plagiarism, but a more charitable view would be (ahem) intertextuality. Whatever, he's fun to analyse (I once wrote a rather tongue in cheek mythological analysis of Episode I (http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/starwars.html))

[vret.livejournal.com]

You don't need to see it to have an opinion on it. That's what critics are for.

[cf.livejournal.com]

actually, your opinion of it will be better if you don't see it...