wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
>
> One problem with this operation is that it seems to assume that
> someone who is a 'professor' is automatically engaged in something
> called 'theory.'
Yes. But it is worse than this. Reid Ahlbeck is so pitifully ignorant of anything that goes on under the label of "theory" that a discussion taking off from his illiterate yowls is bound to be pointless. (Why did 'B' post it anyhow? As a sort of practical joke?) My attempt to educate myself to the kindergarten level on this material was rudely interrutped by the catastrophes that overcame my vision back in January, and now I forget most of what I had somewhat painfully learned. But perhaps a few elementary points might help.
Let's start at the beginning. "Theory" is, first of all, a synonym for "philosophy" (and does not refer to the kind of theorizing ordinarily of concern on this list). It was (probably) introduced because the French theorists who are at its origins (not quite accurate term here) though of themselves as rethinking philosophy in somewhat different terms and wanted a different label. The term got fucked up in part by literary critics in the u.s. in the '60s who were interested not in philosophy but in literary criticism. But now at the beginning, or one of the beginnings. Consider the following paragraph:
Yes.Butitisworsethanthis.ReidAhlbeckissopitifullyignorantofanythingthatgoesonunderthelabelof"theory"thatadiscussiontakingofffromhisilliterateyowlsisboundtobepointless.(Whydid'B'postitanyhow?Asasortofpracticaljoke?)MyattempttoeducatemyselftothekindergartenlevelonthismaterialwasrudelyinterrutpedbythecatastrophesthatovercamemyvisionbackinJanuary,andnowIforgetmostofwhatIhadsomewhatpainfullylearned.Butperhapsafewelementarypointsmighthelp.
That more or less accurately transcribes my first paragraph above as it would exist in speech rather than writing. So Derrida begins by noting the tremendous importance of the space in writing: it is a character, not the absence of a character. This was discovered by a number of modern writers (who had great influence on Derrida) back early in the century, in particular Pound & Joyce. It became, of course, (Of course my transcription is too simple: I left in the punctuation marks and upper case letters, which do not appear in speech.) When there are pauses in speech they are not uniform and don't correspond to any set of mutually recognized conventions. (Earlier writing, without word breaks and reading left to right then around the corner right to left, was a bit 'truer' to speech.) So the focus on writing rather than speech (pioneered, incidentally, in the critique of Saussure in V. N. Volosinov, "Marxism and the Philosophy of Language."
Just another tidbit from Tilottima Rajan (_Deconstruction and the Remainders of Phenomenology_). She argues that French theory's roots were more in Sartre than in (as they themselves tended to claim) in Heidegger - and also that they were wrong about Sartre's understanding of Heidegger: He didn't misunderstand Heidegger, he understood and disagree! She also, incidentally, desynonymizes "deconstruction," "post-structuralism," and "post-modernism" (using the latter mostly to refer to the decay of lthe theories she writes of). She calls "post-structuralism" an erroneous label coined by American critics but finds the term useful to refer to certain subordinate develoments of deconstruction.
The point of all this is that the _history_ of what the asshole Ahlbeck calls theory is just too complex, with too many variations, for what he has to say to be remotely relevant to anything except his own ignorance and the ignorance of anyone who takes him seriously. This post is pretty ignorant but it tries to honor the complexity of its material.
Carrol
Note: If this is a bit garbled it is for two reasons: (1) my partial grasp of the material, based on reading last November and December, and (2) awkwardness because of vision in checking the material: I can't read the book I'm using while sitting in front of the computer but have to carry it to another room to place under a reader which projects it on the screen. Then by the time I get back to the computer my memory of some details begins to weaken.