On the one hand it is a commonplace to say that “theoretical” usually refers to inaccessible texts that are addressed to a privileged, predominantly male social group. Hence, to many men’s ears it is synonymous with “profound,” “serious,” “substantial,” “scientific,” “consequential,” “thoughtful,” or “thought-engaging”; and to many women’s ears, equivalent to “masculine,” “hermetic,” “elitist,” and “specialized,” therefore “neutral,” “impersonal,” “purely mental,” “unfeeling,” “disengaging,” and—last but not least—“abstract.” On the other hand, it is equally common to observe that theory threatens, for it can upset rooted ideologies by exposing the mechanics of their workings. It shakes established canons and questions every norm validated as “natural” or “human.” And it undermines a powerful tradition of “aesthetics” and “scholarship” in the liberal arts, in the humanities as well as in the social sciences. To say this is also to say that theory is suspicious, as long as it remains in occupied territory. Indeed, theory is no longer theoretical when it loses sight of its own conditional nature, takes no risk in speculation, and circulates as a form of administrative inquisition. Theory oppresses, when it wills or perpetuates existing power relations, when it presents itself as a means to exert authority—the Voice of Knowledge.
Trinh T. Minh-ha, Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 41-42
origamiaround
vaporwave
discoholicmusic
romaincrisis
jacobvanloon
annaxmalina
kianamaiart
kaledo-art
