Prosthetic Thoughts

Whilst we’re on the subject of Theory, I’d like to ask you about the curious locution ‘doing theory’. It is as if thinking were replaced by ‘doing thought’. Was George Lukacs ‘doing theory’ when he wrote ‘Theory of the Novel’? Is Adorno’s “Lyric Poetry and Society” an instance of ‘doing theory’? The answer is no, they were thinking in as rigorous and critical a way as possible, using the conceptual resources at their disposal, within the tradition in which they had been trained - ie Marxism and dialectical thought, now deeply ingrained in their sensibilities..

‘Doing theory’ on the other hand makes theory sound like a profesional specialisation, some kind of technical skill, perhaps, to be used at work, but basically optional and detachable from your personality. Thus whereas Adorno or Lukacs were engaged in an activity that was so intimate to them as to be, so to speak, inoperable, the ‘theory’ of ‘doing theory’ is more a prosthetic device, or a series thereof – A Deleuzian hand, a Foucauldian eye, a false Zizekian-beard.

Perhaps in some quarters this is indeed what thought has become, professionalized and prostheticised; something to be left on the desk on the way out of the office. And this through prudence, since to really live (& really to think) these ideas might be to change your life or, at least, render your existing situation unsustainable. But if this is the case, then what we need to be looking at are the economic and institutional factors responsible for this. Instead, what can happen is that the ideas themselves receive the criticism which should be directed at the institution that has distorted and reified them. Where this happens it is clearly a form of displacement, one with ideological effects, and needs to be combated. (See Jodi's post).

This, at any rate, was my first thought on the phrase. Second: ‘Doing theory’: the other thing about this is its intransitivity. To talk about 'doing theory' sounds like ‘watching television’, i.e.., you’re no longer watching a particular programme; it’s the activity itself which is now an object of enjoyment. Now here we are touching, I think, on how Theory is seen. Theory has become its own object, its practitioners caught in some kind of self-referential enjoyment. Theory simply loops back into and feeds itself, self-grounding and self-perpetuating with no social issue. Now while this may contain truth, we may at the same time be dealing with a version of that long-standing suspicion of theory as non-instrumental thought, as irresponsible, playful, insufficiently plugged in to social and economic reproduction. And so I refer you again to Theo

btw, contrary to appearances, this isn't the promised follow up post to the one preceding it.