Is theory the same as ideology, then?

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well yes, that's one of the things I disagreed with Robert about - the
> extent, or not, to which such a theory was tactically organised. As I said,
> I remain skeptical about the extent of the mainstream's theorizing. It
> depends of course on what we mean by theory, in this situation, and what we
> mean by 'organise'. The mainstream is not just the 'School of Quietude'
> either, it has different faces and conflicting pushes behind it - look at
> the confused tangles Paterson gets himself into, the poor man really doesn't
> know where he is at times.
>
> Of course I agree that any theorizing on the mainstream side is not on a par
> with Bernstein et al, but, as I've pointed out before, this lack of 'theory'
> is its strength, is its advantage - but, what shall we call it? - behind the
> lack of 'theory' there lies a huge theory, long standing, or a whole mix of
> theories, all long naturalised by use and habit. It is not just a matter of
> being lazy, it is of never having been given the opportunity to do
> otherwise, or alternatively doing everything in ones power to avoid any such
> opportunity. It is safe. It is successful. Why change? A problem with trying
> to talk about this is that it can all sound over dramatic.
>
> Did you see Dave Bircumshaw's little designation of Duffy, in another tag,
> as being 'social realism lite'? Realism of different hues plays a big part
> in mainstream poetics. Realism has all kinds of theoretical bases -
> literary, philosophical, political etc., and by that I mean it has theories
> about how certain shared cultural assumptions can be manipulated by a poetry
> writing individual to produce what on its terms are good poems - poems
> rooted in a reality while spiritually transcending it through the elevation
> of the poet's 'thoughts' into an aesthetic object, the poem. These people
> are not all twerps. They are dedicated too.  What am I trying to
> say?........... perhaps I am saying that all of this cannot be just down to
> habit and laziness - there are all sorts of shared cultural positions, ideas
> about language, ideas about the use of literature, that form the basis of
> their poetics - their theories about poetry in other words.
>
> Tim A.
>
> On 31 Aug 2010, at 12:50, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>
>> Yes, Tim, but the “School of Quietude” (to borrow Silliman’s term for
>> this) probably aren’t as organised “theoretically” as is being implied here.
>> They may be conforming to an accepted linguistic paradigm i.e. “make sense
>> and describe things excessively”, but is that really a theory on a par with,
>> say, Bernstein’s et al? I don’t think so. It is more like a writing
>> preference, based on habit and laziness.
>>
>> For all my dislike of Paterson and O’Brian’s poetry, I get the sense that
>> the poems matter to them—however badly they’re written. I don’t get this
>> sense with the theory-led poets, who seem more akin to worker bees producing
>> indifferent and interchangeable texts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Original Message:
>>
>>> 'Non-theorised' poetry, in my experience, often has a theory: it
>>> doesn't articulate it because it assumes that it is 'natural'.
>>
>> Yes exactly, or it pretends that it is, or convinces itself, or
>> behaves as if etc.
>>
>> In mine and Andrew Duncan's 'Don't Start Me Talking' this issue crops
>> up in my interview of Robert Sheppard where we disagreed about the
>> extent and depth of this problem. Robert was saying that things had
>> changed and that the mainstream had now 'come out' with its theories.
>> I was skeptical about this and still am. If you take away the cloak of
>> naturalism (oh I like that - it's mine - don't touch it) you expose
>> yourself as just another type of poetry, as opposed to THE type - such
>> a move would be tactical folly for the mainstream.
>>
>> What I think happens now is that they leave the theorizing in the
>> background, in its correct place as part of a lit course etc, only to
>> be brought out front house when really needed. In this way front house
>> can carry on as always. If you look at some of the things Don Paterson
>> and Sean O'Brian say, and the context/audience in/to which he says
>> them, you can see this in action.
>>
>> Tim A.
>



-- 
Editor, Masthead:  http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com