Cover Charge

In response to someone pointing out that the NAS implicitly contrast Theory to ‘Reason and Evidence’, Robert [in the comments] makes this more general point:

'What this should alert us to is that the ‘Theory debate’ comes to us ‘pre-politicised’ – it’s already been framed in a certain way, certain stakes have been set up. And the way it’s been framed involves a rightist agenda. The appropriateness of using a term as pre-politicized as Theory, as if it were just some neutral academic term, seems to me questionable. It’s already radioactive with polemical charge. '

I agree that if you are fighting on a certain terrain it’s as well to know who circumscribed that terrain, when and for what purposes. That’s another argument. For now, though, speaking of polemic, take a look at the cover of Theory’s Empire:



The paratextual stuff on Theory’s Empire manages ingeniously to suggest a number of familiar tropes at once. The house of cards that can be blown down with a gust of ‘reason and evidence,’ a grand illusion (cards and magical tricks anyone?) At the same time, the sundry implications of Empire – a kingdom where authority and dogmatism have sovereign rights. Hints of grandiosity, of preening and pretension. Indeed, add title and image together, and the image forms of a reassuring little nude Emperor reigning over his empty fiefdom. This is pure polemic. Tedious and without subtlety.

But in order for the rhetoric of the image to be intelligible, a great deal of (ideological) work has to have been done beforehand. This ‘work’ is the 'framing' of which Robert spoke. Personally, I would think it wise to analyse this framing before simply settling on ‘Theory’ as your object of analysis.

update: The editor of Theory's Empire comments briefly on the cover design here.