So I'm taking a POCO class: postcolonial theory. And it's weird. Really weird.
And here's why. When I was busy reading Heidegger and trying to figure out the world, I had no deeper motive. I simply wanted to figure out, to the best of my ability, the muck I was in. The same with Merleau-Ponty, Camus, Nietzsche, and recently Deleuze. But in this POCO class everything feels different. It seems that we're reading about oppression in all it's global-capital forms in order to do something about it. Except we're not. And that's what's so weird.
All of these "theorists" keep arguing back and forth with each other, trying to establish ethos by all kinds of means - the most famous of the group establish ethos by way of geography. People like Spivak and Bhabba and Said for example get to be outside (sort of) of the American system because they were born in places like India. So they understand oppression first hand. But they get to be first-world academics also, clearly inside the American academic system and deservedly so. They're really fucking smart. I particularly like Said because he seems to care the most about what actually happens to the people he mentions.
However, what most of what I've read does is attempt to define what it is they're talking about. Nobody seems to agree on what Postcolonial Theory is, means, or is supposed to do. Jesus. What I love about English Departments is also what I hate about them. They are so big and unsure of their project. It means I get to slide in as an imposter, which I love. I mean only in English can you write about everything from Southpark to David Cronenberg to Technology and Boredom - the last one is me.
So what's so weird to me is the implication that theory is supposed to do something. I mean, sure, it sounds nice. But I just don't think theory really leads to action very often. To be clear, I have no problem with that; in fact, I think Literature should be its own end. I don't read novels so I can learn things about imaginary people or so I can learn to be a better person. I read novels so I can enjoy the pleasure of the text. I look at art for the same reason. I listen to music for the same reason.
This idea of what theory and academia in general - especially at higher levels - is supposed to do is starting to sprawl in my head, so I'm going to stop for now, take a breath, and try to meditate on it. But seriously - if anybody has a take on this - should theory lead to action? And if so, why does it rarely do this? And in particular, in terms of POCO, did we need a theory to understand oppression?
Should theory lead to action?- Yes, but only indirectly. Action should be inspired by theory, but should come about organically, not directly.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this rarely work?- The difficulty arises from trying to precipitate something concrete(action) from something abstract(theory). It's hard to find examples of where this has worked, but easy to show examples of where it has failed(communism, prohibition, religion, and so on).
Do we need theories?- Yes. They help us understand complex structures and histories. Their value lies in their ability to enlighten and open up dialogues.
i like your tone in this post - it's nice - forceful but thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm pretty much on board with the sentiments. I just wonder if theory ever leads to action. I mean did the Civil Rights movement need theory? I mean sort of. But it's not theoretical to go "Hey I'm being oppressed." It's the opposite of theory in a way because it's not abstract at all. And I'm a bit cynical here - I should acknowledge that it's possible for theory to lead to action - I"m sure it does in places. But more often than not I want to say action leads to theory. If I had to choose a more popular trajectory.