Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> More Chomsky, from the Frontline interview: "n fact, there is almost
> nothing in the social sciences that ought to be called a theory.
> Human affairs are too complicated."
>
> How can you think and talk without theories, even ones you don't
> recognize as such?
>
I'll make a guess: (for Chomsky) A theory links present and future in an intelligible relationship; but this is impossible because those relationships are _wholly_ contingent. Therefore there can be no proposition of social science that can be called a theory.
Rosa Luxemburg's theory (socialism or barbarianism) is therefore disallwoed, because even though contingent in many ways it still claims to know the _necessary_ direction of the present.
I don't agree -- but it is a more or less coherent theory of theory. :-)
Carrol