In response to Michael's original post and Mairian's reply, I've been
wondering about the following:
from Michael's posting, I get the sense that he wants to place blame
somewhere, and he questions whether or not it might lie with academics who
undoubtedly are guilty at times of multiple, confusing and preponderous
theory...but there's something more at stake here I think.
Instead of pointing fingers at someone, instead of trying to problematize
theory qua theory, he might (as we should do) have been trying to fault
the difficulty of merging theory with practice. which is something that
isn't simply very evident with things like philosophy and difference
theories (like race class, gender, sexuality, and disbiltiy).
So my question is thus:
how is it exactly that theory moves into practice? or is it that somebody
thinks something ought to be done, like the independent living movement,
so they get busy and have a document drawn up, and then the theory that
gives it all a name follows from that activity?
I know what pragmatism's approach to this sort of question would be. But
it still doesnt explain how one who theorizes can change policy. I suppose
this question is merely reminiscent of the Ivory tower debate from a week
ago....at any rate, I just wanted to post my devil's advocate response to
michael's question.
best,
alexa
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|