joanna bujes wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention that they didn't have "theory," so like, if you can't
> write a dissertation about it, it doesn't count.
Probably in general political discussion it would be best not to use "theory" in the rather special sense it has had in (mostly) literature departments over the last 25 years or so. It's a good word and points to a crucial aspect of human practice; its use in a way that would not count the theory of gravity, the theory of thermodynamics, the theory of surplus value, the theory of natural selection, the literary theory of Coleridge, the revolutionary theory of Lenin, the principles of Mao, et cetera -- this relatively narrow recent use should not be allowed to turn this crucial word and concept into nothing but a sneer.
And in the present discussion it is in fact crucial that we (a) see theory (in its traditional not litcrit senses) as central to our immediate concerns and (b) give careful attention to (i) the sources of liberal theory in human practice and (ii) the extent to which that theory has now outlasted its material grounds and requires replacement with theory which can account for, make conscious and develop further, the human practices of the last century.
As incoherent as are Brian's and (I'm afraid) Charles's responses to Justin, I think the arguments of both are pointers to the material conditions which exhibit the exhaustion of liberal theory.
Carrol