>Anti-war movements do _not_ stop wars; they contribute in various ways to
>the actual forces that
>end wars _and_, more importantly, they involve more people in practical
This reminds me that, with all my intense reading of the history of feminismS lately, one thing became clear -- and disappointingly so: Being involved in political practice did *nothing* for theory. Whatever theories emerged out of the women's movement they were several and competing and not at all on the same page. Even with women who came out of the left, the early women's experience in political practice really didn't do a whole lot for theory, though it created a cacophony of theories. And what is also clear is that different experiences in terms of what kind of political practice they were involved in mattered as to what kind of feminist theory/practice they crafted. E.g., involved in Freedom Summer yielded different approaches to theory and practices than did those involved in, say, the new left vs those involved in other liberal groups.
it's a nice answer, that theory is born of practice. problem is, there are still a bunch of different theories -- and thus a bunch of disputes since theory that emerged from practice doesn't much assist anyone in figuring out what the next round of practice might be. as Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out a while back, to just go at the problem using the same old same old is often a problem since the same old same old does't account for prior successes. (An argument Doug and Ted once made against some of Katha Pollitt's rather tired same old same old feminism which sometimes never acknowledges that anything ever gets better).
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)