Would you characterize Byung-Chul Han’s Non-things as a critical theory, a productive theory, or something else? Why? This week while reading “A Portrait of a Scholar…In Progress” in Composition Forum, the distinction Louise Phelps draws between critical and productive theories queued these questions. If we grant “theory” its etymology, the trace gives us theorein, or the high-seated view, as if in a stadium: I could see-hear-feel the entire pitch, end to end, the lights and patterns, the sea of Swifties (if this is a concert), etcetera. The high-seated view is specific and selective; it’s neither arbitrary nor capricious.1I mention this because, while theory can be experimental, exploratory, serendipitous, and even accidental, making theory or doing theory is frequently a labor with a motivating purpose, along the lines of ‘come along with me to this particular vantage point wherefrom we can together notice x, experience y, gain a better grasp of z, and so on.’ Caring for the big picture may invite us into a moral relationship with the bigger scene beyond ourselves and and parts too long unnoticed—(possibly) priming principles of relationality, stewardship, an in-common now. Yes, we saw together the fireworks, or roared together for an encore. Yet this removed proximity alone is not enough. Theorein interanimates with pragmata, or enacted deeds. Returning to the question, then, about Han’s purpose(s): is this critical or productive? (180) [DM-??]2Added: I am also experimenting here with the footnote feature. Shall we call it a loophole, a breach of nineties decorum?
[Han, 2022; Rodrigue & Phelps, 2013; Crowley & Hawhee, 2011; Jackson, 2014]
- 1I mention this because, while theory can be experimental, exploratory, serendipitous, and even accidental, making theory or doing theory is frequently a labor with a motivating purpose, along the lines of ‘come along with me to this particular vantage point wherefrom we can together notice x, experience y, gain a better grasp of z, and so on.’
- 2Added: I am also experimenting here with the footnote feature. Shall we call it a loophole, a breach of nineties decorum?