It is certain that critical theory is facing a crisis of theory
itself. What does this mean? It means that theory has essentially lost
itself in theory. This will become evident post-Gaza. Why post-Gaza?
Because here, theory was pit against lines of power that it
underestimated and failed to detect. The result was that its attempt at
praxis turned out to be incompetent; what it portrayed to the world was a
praxis of idealism as opposed to resistant power. (I suspect many are
not psychologically ready to accept this thesis, unfortunately, these
individuals will require a greater display of the force of repressive
power).
There will be many, I suspect, hoping to
rebound after Gaza, who will embrace the nihilism of deconstruction,
thinking that the problem is that critique was not radical enough.
While this critical edifice can play a part in dismantling narratives of
power, it cannot play a revolutionary part, which is to say, a role of
reconstruction, precisely because its critical power derives from a
nihilism that undermines itself in this sense.
This is what theory must face:
“…citizens
are experiencing their growing political powerlessness because the most
politically consequential decisions hardly make it onto a political
agenda that they can influence in their role as democratic
citizens.” Habermas, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie Vol.2 p.801
Theory
is facing powerlessness. Theory must learn to grapple with this
powerlessness if it wants to be effective within the domain of praxis.
It must first come to terms with its limitations; its revolutionary
delusions and arrogance. If it cannot do this it cannot begin down the
vital path of rational reconstruction. Required of it is the
ability to *construct* new innovations of resistance. But more than this
is required; it must also restructure its social discourse to fit
within (be revolutionary within) democratic process and procedure: it
must learn to argue and win its case; it must learn to fight officially
within the system.
This is because the
revolutionary path, at this point along the development of technological
society, merely feeds into the power of the repressive narrative. Those
who resist are not only easily crushed, but are also easily framed as
reckless anarchists who stand opposed to civilization.
The
thing that matters more than anything else is that theory learns to
begin from the basis of a sober ontology of power. This means that
theory doesn't underestimate repressive power, or romanticize its own
power. This cannot be emphasized enough!
The
emphasis of theory is bound to shift toward the necessity of dialectic,
because dialectic is the very thing that obliterated the epistemology of
repressive power, though this consciousness of theoretical power or
rational power, has not yet entered into the public sphere. It still
only exists at the highest levels of theory (it exists as a kind of
privileged consciousness). This needs to change; the critical weapon of
dialectic needs to be understood and unleashed within the public sphere.
(We must not wield it as ideological hacks, which will only serve to
make a caricature out of it).
I suspect that
the future of critical theory has to do with it overcoming its own
regression, finding its way back to its original, rational path in
dialectic. I suspect a hard sobriety will be heaped upon it in the form
of repressive power, displays of resistance being crushed by violence.
The utopian ideals of theorists will continue to be thwarted as they leap
into the public sphere without thought. For many this will mean a slow
learning process, just to realize the limits of their power. But this
can be avoided by taking heed to thought now and proceeding toward the
innovation of new, non-violent forms of resistance. But these forms will
fail if they are birthed from subjectivity in the form of emotional
reaction.
The hope of the future doesn't
reside with individualism, it resides in qualitative institutionalism,
democratic formations, something the spirit of the age has been taught
to reject. People are taught to egotistically build up the self and pit
it against other "self-made" individuals. Social media has attacked our
solidarity.
There is so much more that can be
said, but I think the crucial thing is comprehending the rise of a new,
fascistic, state-corporate-power, that stands ready and willing to crush
dissent with law and violence. Adding to this is the manipulative role
that social media and disinformation play in keeping society divided (successfully thwarting attempts to accurately frame resistance movements).
This division stands as an authentic negation to the unity needed to engage
in revolutionary action. But I don't see society being at the point of
revolution as of yet, this is not a necessity, there are still rational
channels that should not be discarded, and insofar as revolutionary
theory discards them, it burns the bridge on which it stands.
Above
all, thought is required. And this means we (discipline! impulse
control!) allow it to mediate between theory and praxis. The new
propaganda goes undetected, and slithers through the domain of
geopolitics, but I'm pretty sure we know we have been infected with it
when our political projects have deviated from a strategic concern for
democracy; when our democratic choices are emotionally directed toward
non-democratic ends.
-
-
-
