Need for critical theory
Teoria Critica | 06.03.2006 17:34 | Analysis | Culture | Globalisation
A profound social need exists today for critical theory.
Not theory as a separate sphere—there are already too many separate spheres.
Not theory, as direction of praxis—often praxis knows how to manage very well on its own.
Not theory as a closed language of a clerical caste, but as an element of revolutionary political action for whomever would like another time.
Not theory as a separate sphere—there are already too many separate spheres.
Not theory, as direction of praxis—often praxis knows how to manage very well on its own.
Not theory as a closed language of a clerical caste, but as an element of revolutionary political action for whomever would like another time.
Critical theory, for its radical negativity. A revolutionary language that, to depart from its self-saying in this time of super-exploitation and of domination, might have the courage, if necessary the arrogance, to radically contest that which exists in its totality—without accomodating itself in easy suggestions, in reassuring determinisms.
The need for theory is born of conflict. From Seattle to now, a new political generation has matured this need, to which the vulgate of the end of theory cannot give repose. The need for theory is an element of conflict. In the conflict one discovers the possibility to radically transcend that which exists, and one experiments with the illusory nature of happy oases. Who practices conflict searches in theory for languages of and roads to revolution.
The need for conflict, on the other hand, is an element of negative theory. Outside of conflict, of distances, and of organizations, of super-explioted and dominated subjects, also of the best words changed into (or "written in") stone, and soon they don’t have another choice—apology for domination, or a song of submission.
Critical theory, because the moment is reached in which to interrogate the critical traditions of the previous century. Not to stabilize or establish an historiographical dogma. The 1900s was a tragic time, and those who ended up losing still played a part in the tragedy, only without the power to be able to stop it. For the vanquished, it is finally time for revenge.
This society negates the past and the future, and transforms the present into a thing, a measure of the extraction of surplus value. To recover time means to recover all times.
We want another future, we want our future, we want it for ourselves and for the vanquished of the past.
For this we intend to negate, and to overthrow, the capitalist present.
We have only one scientific certainty in the course of hsitory—that things, as they are, cannot go forward. Another time, the impossible, is the only possible time, aside from catastrophe.
Only if theory will mature in the reality of alienation, will it be able to transcend and negate. Only if a critical theory will mature in an historic negation, will the power of the revolution be able to rebel and change the course of the crazed horses of history.
Specialists of critical theory don’t exist, nor does a stable reality, save in the courage of negation.
Only if this will be a collective force of all of those who sense the refutation of that which exists, will it be able to give itself a critical theory at the height of danger and of the possibilities of this time.
From
http://theoriacritica.blogspot.com/
An Italian web site for theorical research
The need for theory is born of conflict. From Seattle to now, a new political generation has matured this need, to which the vulgate of the end of theory cannot give repose. The need for theory is an element of conflict. In the conflict one discovers the possibility to radically transcend that which exists, and one experiments with the illusory nature of happy oases. Who practices conflict searches in theory for languages of and roads to revolution.
The need for conflict, on the other hand, is an element of negative theory. Outside of conflict, of distances, and of organizations, of super-explioted and dominated subjects, also of the best words changed into (or "written in") stone, and soon they don’t have another choice—apology for domination, or a song of submission.
Critical theory, because the moment is reached in which to interrogate the critical traditions of the previous century. Not to stabilize or establish an historiographical dogma. The 1900s was a tragic time, and those who ended up losing still played a part in the tragedy, only without the power to be able to stop it. For the vanquished, it is finally time for revenge.
This society negates the past and the future, and transforms the present into a thing, a measure of the extraction of surplus value. To recover time means to recover all times.
We want another future, we want our future, we want it for ourselves and for the vanquished of the past.
For this we intend to negate, and to overthrow, the capitalist present.
We have only one scientific certainty in the course of hsitory—that things, as they are, cannot go forward. Another time, the impossible, is the only possible time, aside from catastrophe.
Only if theory will mature in the reality of alienation, will it be able to transcend and negate. Only if a critical theory will mature in an historic negation, will the power of the revolution be able to rebel and change the course of the crazed horses of history.
Specialists of critical theory don’t exist, nor does a stable reality, save in the courage of negation.
Only if this will be a collective force of all of those who sense the refutation of that which exists, will it be able to give itself a critical theory at the height of danger and of the possibilities of this time.
From
http://theoriacritica.blogspot.com/ An Italian web site for theorical research
Teoria Critica
e-mail:
alear@iol.it
Comments
Hide the following comment
how true
07.03.2006 14:46
The "alternative globalisation movement" at least since Seatle 1999 is very hostile towards theory and criticism. Everyone now is an "activist", that is supposedly our combining characteristic.
Criticism is supposed to be non-practical and therefore a waste of time, or worse, counter-productive.
But criticism can often be more practical than praxis in itself. Let's reclaim the right to do theory!
Frankfurter