I’m really busy since school has started, but I definitely intend to keep this blog going with a few posts per week, even if they are shorter ones.
Yesterday, during my Contemporary Feminist Theory class, we were discussing what comes to mind when we think of theory. I said that I feel high theory is classist, in that it’s not accessible to everyone, but it’s also necessary to do activism effectively. I’ve had these thoughts for some time now, and generally stuck to them pretty vehemently.
Nevertheless, my point was addressed later in class by the professor. High theory might be considered exclusionary, because not everyone can access it, never mind find the time and knowledge to comprehend it. But, if we’re to say that, then we must say that writing is exclusionary, because there’s a large population that can’t read. My blogging is exclusionary in the sense that not everyone has access to a computer. I think you get the point.
So, focusing on how a medium is exclusionary isn’t exactly effective in trying to increase access to a certain population. Rather, IMO, it’s important to focus on the nature of the material, rather than they way the material is conveyed. If a video is racist, an essay, sexist, and so on, then there’s a problem. One could argue a video format is exclusionary if no transcript is provided, though, and I would see that as a fair point.
But I digress. How can we make high theory more accessible? By making post-secondary institutions more accessible. By removing the oppressive barriers that prevent certain populations from seeking education. That, as I write it, sounds like a better solution than “dumbing down” high theory and distributing it widely.
September 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I think these are all very interesting and important questions! And I like the thinking behind them. I agree with what you are saying, that we shouldn’t necessarily focus on what makes a medium exclusive but rather how to make the most substantive material possible and how that material can be accessed easier by a greater portion of the population.
So then we have the goal of making our communities more inclusive. While I think this is a good thought, I think it may lead to a type of universalism that we don’t want. Both high theory and “low theory” or “practice” have their purpose, both of which are good and important and in a sense, these aren’t two separate entities, either; much of actual practice emerges from at least some theory and theory is created based/influenced on/by actual lived experiences, so there is a very dependent relationship working there. In order to have a much greater and substantive diversity of ideas, I think both high and low theory are important and that we need to value both. (as a sidenote: In a way to battle the “classism” inherent in high theory, perhaps creating a different value schema would help–one that sees the inherent necessity and dependence of both high and low theory. That’s only a side thought, I don’t know where I was going with that…)
Okay, so in a way to get out of this tangle of inclusivity/exclusivity, high and low theory, diversity of ideas/universalism, etc., I think that what could help is some sort of “translation” ability that we can all develop as individuals that will help us navigate the dichotomy of “real life”(for lack of a better term) and academia. This is all very sketchy in my head, but being able to either translate or figure out when, where, and how ideas from “low” theory can be transfered to “high” and vice versa would benefit every community while keeping those differing communities in tact at the same time. Of course the idea of developing individuals’ translating ability could be considered high theory in itself, so maybe this is more directed at folks with high theory as their forte, but alas, I find it interesting and worthwhile when I as an individual can translate ordinary, everyday, “dumbed down” speech to correlate with some sort of fancy high theory that I learned about in one of my classes or when i have a regular, everyday thought and then find that a theory already exists that matches. Overall, I think it’s beneficial to realize the connections between high and low theory and in that way create a more inclusive community while at the same time still maintaining each practice for it’s specific purpose.
I don’t know if that made sense or really spoke to any of what your post was trying to say, but hey, I try!
September 9, 2008 at 10:22 pm
This is something I myself struggle with, and one reason I vehemently detest academia (while having been privileged to attend post-secondary, I might add). I am not sure if it is about making “academic” theory accessible to people as much as it should be about utilizing people’s lived experiences to develop useful theories.
In my opinion, feminist (etc) theories should exist to support activism and the lived experiences of people. This is why “theory from the margins” is so important; it is about forcing academia to be accountable to the people.
I think academics should be less focused on developing theories and more focused on listening to the theories that play out and exist in people’s every day lives.
While I must say that I have a love affair with feminist theories because I believe that they indeed came from the lived experiences of women, I worry about the “professionalism” of feminist theory and academic practice; if we are “stealing” from the lived experiences of people, then absolutely academia must be accessible to all. (And it should, for a myriad of reasons). That said, it is less important for us to develop labels and boxes than it is to put theory into practice. This is the problem with many theories, although I must say that feminist and Queer and disAbility Rights (etc) theories are certainly trying very hard to “walk the talk”.
September 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm
This is embarrassing, but what is high theory? Is it just highly theoretical feminist thought, or a certain defined body of work? I do think that in general, education is exclusionary, but I also think it’s interesting to think critically about how we think of different types of education as the “right” way to learn. This thought came to me in my Law in the Muslim World class when a student presenter couldn’t remember at which university in France the Moroccan leader studied law, so he said “well, I don’t know, but you know, somewhere in France, so he’s a smart dude.” Ignoring the fact that a JD candidate used the word “dude” in a presentation, I thought it was interesting that he used this facile comparison between the Moroccan and Saudi leaders. You have the “smart dude,” aka Western-educated, and you have the out-of-touch, “uneducated” Saudi, who was educated at home and presumably mostly in religious principles. The author of the article we were talking about also made this value judgement, albeit in different terms. My thought was “sure, a Western-educated person would be more likely to come up with a Western-style democratic constitution, but why are we making the leap that his education is necessarily *better*?” In the particular Saudi context, religion and culture may well be far more important than so-called “cosmopolitan” subjects. So anyway, I just think it’s interesting how unilateral our educational perspective tends to be, even subconsciously.