Week+2+theory+for+what+and+theory+for+whom...

As I read Haraway and Fischer I am confronted by the recurrent notion of, “why do we need theory?” Talking with friends that live a life outside of academia (and even a few that inhabit the ivory tower) questions begin to arise about the necessity and usefulness of the works of Foucault, Derrida, Haraway, Nietchse, and the countless others that have contributed critiques on the nature of being and society. The core of the “practical” concerns is a perceptual gulf between scholarly output and those who attempt to apply their own willful forces on the workings of society. To many the philosopher, ethicist, theorist or historian seems so removed from the day to day concerns of humanity they become resentful of the privilege these scholars have acquired to pontificate at their leisure. Recently, the topic of social revolution came up as a means of denouncing those in the ivory tower of the learned as accomplices in the failures of government. Jerome Bruner (Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, seems to acknowledge part of this issue when he remarks that during times of upheaval the government is as equally combative to the academic as the poet and author. Their ability to provide alternative perspective on how to structure life is a subversive act against the status quo. This seems to be the point at which I am most able to justify the privaleges that I and my intellectual peers have obtained. While I understand the lack of direct attachment of social movements and revolutions to particular theories and narratives, it seems that the ability to confront the complexity of existence and provide means of enabling consideration of such things as “alternative modernities” is a justifiable result of our work. The trouble with this perspective is confronted by Fischer as he targets the university as a culture that still attempts to “…create, unmarked, universalistic, subjects of reason, culture and republican politics…” Here is where my argumentative friends gain traction in their derision. If academic pursuits are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that social life is progressing at a faster pace than any segment of society is capable of evolving into, then the result is a promotion of cultural normatives and removal of academia as an outlet for “reflexive modernization (Fischer, 459).” As Fischer proclaims, “we cannot afford to abandon responsibility, and therefore we must build new social forms of reflexive modernization that can make such systemic complexity and interactivity accountable (Fischer, 470).” In essence, the position that I take is that my responsibility (particularly in the discipline of STS) is to transgress/transcend the boundaries of technoscience, culture, constraints, and society to create a language that can make sense of this complexity. Perhaps this is where my own conflict with philosophy and theory comes into play. Much of the efforts coming out of these groups ignores the rich tapestry of discourse that develops in everyday life, instead attempting to continue the tried and true of reverting to states of nature and theoretical stories. These become simply folk tales of existence, capable of making one think, but rarely forcing oneself to inquire and critique at a personal level. There still exists a love/hate relationship with the theories that I find useful and applicable, but seem to escape the attention and consideration of the fast majority of people. I’d like to inform them of how enlightening it is to read those crazy French philosophers and sociologists or dive into feminism, ethnography and cognitive development but in so doing am I just patronizing their intelligence, at best, or acting as something of a gatekeeper to the “higher” branches of learning. How best to translate the work of Haraway, with her emphasis on multiple perspectives and modesty, to individuals not given the academic time and freedom to explore these notions? Finally, is all this questioning an attempt to portray myself as an "obligatory passage point" or simply arrogance that the masses just couldn't understand Haraway and her obfuscatory kin. Alternatively, the broad success of Haraway seems to suggest that perhaps her methods are as equally relevant to the many as my stylistically challenged prose could be.