Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 34, No. 291. Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne Hosted by DH-Cologne www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org Date: 2021-03-20 12:10:15+00:00 From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk> Subject: 'theory'? One of the most treacherous intellectual tar-pits for the unwary must be 'theory'. By this I don't mean what Jonathan Culler, in Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (1997), called "just plain ‘theory’" (p. 1), or what Terry Eagleton, in After Theory (2003), meant either. I mean 'theory' as a promissory note, used as if it the word simply denoted a universal constant, invariant across disciplines, most likely carrying baggage filled with unexamined debts to the physical sciences or to someone in the Nomenklatura, suffused with the longing to be like them, accepted, authoritative. Gadamer, in "Praise of Theory" ("Lob der Theorie", 1980), starts at the beginning (ours, that is), with the origins of the word in Ancient Greek, often translated 'contemplation'. Between then and now 'theory' has accumulated so many uses (as the OED entry shows) as to bewilder attempts to define it. Not that I think any single definition would help. What I do think would be truly helpful would be a study of uses discipline by discipline. Stephan Trüby's "Tausendundeine Theorie" (2015), trans. Natasha Fewtrell (2017), helps but isn't quite what I am looking for, as it does not relate common usage in each discipline to the agenda of that discipline. Any suggestions? Yours, WM -- Willard McCarty, Professor emeritus, King's College London; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist www.mccarty.org.uk _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php