Theories

I’ve been thinking about Lukács’s philosophy on theory in relation to Edward Said’s, as portrayed in the latter’s article, Traveling Theory. Here are my outlined thoughts on each argument individually, and then in relation to one another:

Lukács

·      Five steps to reach “theory” (pg. 165):

o   First: Consciousness experiences “ossification” (stifling, inflexibility) through system’s “reification” (over-structuring)

o   Second: Consciousness “classes” itself (recognize power to think generally—beyond reified system) and feels itself a “crisis” (contradiction) within this reified system

o   Third: Consciousness “classes” itself (recognize power to think generally—beyond system) and feels itself a “crisis” (contradiction) within this reified system

o   Fourth: Emerges consciousness of change in current situation (because now consciousness is a crisis within system—needs to be reconciled)

o   Fifth: Consciousness looks ahead in time to “self-realization” (only now in state of “projection”== a theory)

§  To be fully objective—fully object—is completed reification; to be fully subjective—fully subject to only the individual’s mind—is worthless isolation (pg. 164)

·      Theory is not set in law—which would be too strictly defined and create an object—but connotes an aspect of the hypothetical and subjective. In its projective nature into time, it engages physical reality so as not to be irrelevant in isolation, but neither to halt in a frozen, qualitative, defined “space.”

Said

·      Theory dangerously solidifies in our minds, and we too easily allow it to become the be-all-end-all to our thought. What we intake from authority, our minds accept as fact. We forget it is merely theory (pg. 179).

o   Article itself demonstrates theory’s danger. It’s a published, scholarly work; reading it as such comes with precarious authority that too easily leads to an overprotected, over-enforced, and uncriticized theory. The thought presented in this article—by the authority invested in the article itself—runs the risk of falling into the very trap that it argues against: unquestioned “cultural dogma”

§  Mass-communication of ideas is fastest way to change; but can we do so outside of authoritative connotation? What is the most effective way to combat this, while still publishing ideas? Should we avoid the position of authority? Or simply try to combat its blind acceptance?

§  Theory should describe reality—and be flexible to change with it. We get it wrong by trying to shove experience into the narrow confines of strict theory (Said, 174).

Conclusive Thoughts

·      Both Lukács and Said theorize on theory, and thus inevitably draw up questions and contradictions. Lukács makes logical sense in laying out his argument; but his steps to theory acquisition are, in and of themselves, a theory systematized. Said criticizes the acceptance of authoritative, published theories; yet his article is an authoritative, published theory that he hopes will be accepted. Do these disparities invalidate the whole of their respective arguments? Or do they prove them to be true—for they repeat by example that theories do, indeed, need to be continually questioned?