Theory for the Masses

If theory is important and for the masses, don’t write incredible tomes name-dropping theorists and theories. Don’t parrot Judith fucking Butler.

When you do, I get the feeling you’re more interested in keeping common people out of your circle, oftentimes the very people you write about.

17 Responses to “Theory for the Masses”


  1. 1 Anne Oct 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Here here!

  2. 2 Linnaeus Oct 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    I’m an “academic” and even I have issues with theory, or rather, the expression of it in the context of the humanities (under which my field of study lies). A lot of it really is in my view written in impenetrable jargon and when I read it, I have a hard time discerning the evidentiary support for the arguments.

    Which is not to say that all theoretical writing is like this.

    It’s funny…in my discipline (history) there’s a bit of a division between those in fields like European or South Asian history, which tends to be more theory-driven, and American history, which has a reputation for being more “empirical”. I don’t fall neatly into the Americanist camp because my field is slightly different, but I “do” American history more than any other geographical field. Americanists, because theory is less apparent in their works, are sometimes considered to be know-nothings because of it, also because American history is “newer”. I really don’t get it sometimes.

  3. 3 norbizness Oct 18th, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    [At the Ace Awards, Dick Cavett stands at the podium]

    Cavett: Well, my time’s almost up here, so, uh, I’d just like to say… I know Woody Allen. [a couple of people clap halfheartedly]

    [after the show, with Homer]

    Dick Cavett: Let’s walk and talk. I, uh, I have some wonderful stories about other famous people that include me in some way.

    Homer: Er, can’t, I gotta go distract bulls at a rodeo.

    Cavett: Hey, me too. We can go together.

    Homer: Um…no, I’m going a different way than you, Dick.

    Cavett: Heh heh, your…churlish attitude reminds me of a time I was having dinner with Groucho and–

    Homer: Look, you’re going to be having dinner with Groucho tonight if you don’t beat it.

  4. 4 Kevin Oct 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    I hear you, Lauren.

    The thing with Judith Butler is that when she want’s to she can write in a way that is understandable by anyone without a PhD in Theory. The same is true when she speaks. I don’t get her turn towards obscurantism at all.

    Linnaeus- I’m an Americanist. My official field is literature (I’m a grad student), but my studies delve into history and philosophy as well. And yeah, I get the know-nothing thing all the time. It’s weird, especially since it’s not like I’m unfamiliar with Theory. In this day and age you have to be if you’re going to be an academic. I can cite Austin or Max Black all day, but I don’t get nods of acknowledgement until I throw some Deleuze and Guattari in there (regardless of whether their work is pertinent to mine). I’m talking about my peers here, fellow grad students, not necessarily my profs, but this is how I see the academic humanities going these days. I will say that my school, Cornell, is heavy into theory so my take on it might not represent the field as a whole.

  5. 5 Sheelzebub Oct 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    Right. the. fuck. ON.

    Here’s another tip: going on and on and on name-dropping and pulling the more intellectual than thou card just makes my eyes glaze over. And also makes me think you’ve got nothing of any import to say.

  6. 6 punkass marc Oct 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    As someone who is an elitist snob and ignorant dolt, I would just like to say that I think it was poor form for Judith Butler’s parents to give her the middle name ‘fucking.’

  7. 7 JC Oct 18th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Not all theory is for the masses. Sometimes, to work through ideas, you have to write to fellow academics and intellectuals.

  8. 8 Amanda Marcotte Oct 18th, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    Agreed, JC. I’d add that I think that people who have invite-only orgies should not complain if they don’t have a crowd of breathless admirers applauding every cum shot.

  9. 9 Chris Clarke Oct 18th, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Ta-Ra-Irigaray
    we make no sense today
    it’s an elite soiree
    exclusionist theor-ay
    our writings all convey
    an in-group clique cachet
    and when you take them out
    not much to think about!

  10. 10 Auguste Oct 18th, 2006 at 10:52 pm

    people who have invite-only orgies should not complain if they don’t have a crowd of breathless admirers applauding every cum shot.

    Listen, I told you, it got lost in the mail.

  11. 11 Auguste Oct 18th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

    The invitation, that is.

  12. 12 Amanda Marcotte Oct 19th, 2006 at 12:02 am

    Of course. I got the cum shot, and boy was the postman surprised. (rimshot)

  13. 13 zuzu Oct 19th, 2006 at 12:36 am

    Blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah.

  14. 14 Linnaeus Oct 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Theory: It’s like talking to dogs.

  15. 15 Chris Clarke Oct 19th, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Of course. I got the cum shot, and boy was the postman surprised. (rimshot)

    I hate when they throw the letters all over the outside of the mailbox.

  16. 16 astronautgo Oct 19th, 2006 at 8:35 pm

    I hate when they throw the letters all over the outside of the mailbox.

    Well how do you know the mail came, otherwise?

  17. 17 aspazia Oct 20th, 2006 at 6:24 am

    Amen Sista!

    I have been recovering from obscurantist theoretical lingo for years. Not sure I ever understood the point of it.

Leave a Reply