>To me the test of literary theory is its practice. Are the literary
>theorists, post modernists, etc. able to get their ideas to grip masses and
>change the world ? That's the test of their theory. I am openminded to their
>claims to make improvements and corrections of Marxist social theory.
>However, I haven't seen the proof of their claims in terms of revolutionary
>social movements that literary theory and post-modernism have given rise to.
>Maybe in the future.
I'm surprised to see you write this. I woulda thunk theory emerged *from* practice or, rather, (dare I say it) theory and practice are dia--uhm, errr,...mutually constitutive.
True story: I'd been talking with the beau about something we were reading. He was grappling with "dialectical" and I said it's kind of like "mutually constitutive". And we had a little chat about that(smooches Joanna!). Later, while basking in post-coital bliss, we were talking and I said, "There, see, now THAT's mutually constitutive!" which earned me a tickle fest. See, it just ain't that hard to get across difficult concepts. I think my best experience explaining ontology was when Clinton was getting grilled about whether he really had sex!
As for pomos, IIRC, Judith Butler makes it pretty clear that her theorizing in _Gender Trouble_ arose _out_ of queer experiences. The whole idea of gender as performance is going to be a whole lot more understandable to queers who deal every single lovin' day with the issue in ways that hets simply don't. Women are going to be much more sympathetic to it, as well.
bell hooks' work in _Theory: From Margin to Center_ arose from her experiences working with feminists who expressed attitudes toward work and family that were at odds with her experiences as a black woman. Dorothy Smith, IIRC, also introduces her theoretical by showing how it was shaped by experiences in the New Left and in trying to get through the structure of the academic career with burdens and obligations her male colleagues didn't have.
Well, what am I thinking? Feminist theorizing arose out of struggles in other social movements. One of my mentors was writing about her experiences in that era. She had to have someone help her organize the reams and reams of mimeographed articles, manifestors, essays, memos and so forth that were the only form of "published" work among feminists in those days.
At 08:42 AM 12/4/03 -0800, you wrote:
> From what I have
>seen, most of the people attempting to trash him on
>this have not even 1/100th of the experience he has in
>science, philosophy and social science.
It is supposed to be about the arguments, not about the people. Someone who's written for 50 years in philosophy doesn't automatically have a better argument than someone with 2. As for trashing, grow some hair: criticism isn't trashing.