> Empowering? Frankly, literary theory strikes me as one of the most _crippling_ things ever devised. I've rarely seen anyone with a background in literary theory acquire power, or even demonstrate an ability to deliver power to those who need it most.
Well, maybe you need to meet people who practice critical thinking. Some of the students I have mentored have gone on to run their own non-profit agencies in Harlem and other parts of New York City, as well as being doctors and lawyers. In fact very few have gone on to work in academia. Why do you categorize critical thinking skills (what you call literary theory) as being limited to academia? Since almost everything is a text capable of deconstruction, these skills come in handy in whatever walk of life you find yourself in.
> Look at it as a matter of social control. In any large population, you're going to have people who are both marginally more intelligent than most, and who may develop a resentment for existing power structures. What do we do with such meddlesome people? We can't train them to do anything that might actually _affect_ the world.
Of course we can train them to do things to affect the world. And one of the tools we give them is the ability to think critically and deconstruct texts. What is unempowering about teaching young people to not accept received wisdom and think for themselves? Isn't that one of the first steps?
> So, we develop a curriculum which appeals to their sense of themselves as Smart People, but which fails to give them any training that might make them powerful or dangerous.
The ability to deconstruct the lies of the white hetersosexual male elite in America is very dangerous. The proof is that critical thinking practices and deconstruction come under attack so often -- they challenge the hegemony.
> We encourage them to cultivate a critical stance, but only about matters which are trivial and ephemeral-- stuff they can study without too much effort, without a lot of fact-checking or memorization, and without any applications to the Real World which might undermine their theories.
As far as I can tell texts are part of the Real World. In fact a lot of critical thinking goes on on this list. Look at the analyses of what is going on in Cancun. That is a text being deconstructed on this list using the tools of critical thinking. I do not think that texts that promote racialist agendas are ephemera, but allow that some might disagree.
> It's a bit like Jesuitical training, except that, unlike the Church, we _don't listen_ to these people. They can generate as much theory and discussion and discourse as they like-- in fact, it might become a tidy little market to generate some economic activity. But taking their verbiage into account would be like using astrology to determine industrial policy.
Actually the recent Lawrence decision used the fruits of critical theory as part of its rationale. So it has proven very useful (at least to queer people) in fighting heterosexual elites.
> The nice thing about this curriculum is that it actually _does_ train these people to be useful. Those who follow this particular path will content themselves with the ego-boosting thought that they "see through" lies and mythologies.
Well, what I like about critical theory is that it is a practice that allows me to empower young people who then can pass that empowerment on to others and their community.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister