Theory, Practice, Pragmatism and "Wonkers Bonkers" Annotations

some chaotic thoughts by Tahnia Getson 2022

Is there a line between theory and practice, or is it all relative? What differentiates the two seems to be subjective and there is no universal definition of that line. Activism, allyship, accomplices – they are all buzzwords that are used in everyday conversation and in social media bios, but can they exist without theory?

Based on what I pulled from Heer's Acting without Thinking, they cannot. I found myself drawn to this article and Theory as Liberatory Practice written by bell hooks. The definition of activism, allyship and the newly declared ‘accomplices’ is something that has continued to baffle me in the advocacy field as they feel unclear to me – there is a muddiness in the definitions and role expectation of each. That is work that I am continuing to try and make clear for myself. There seems to be a number of people who insist that yelling louder is the best way to ensure their voice is heard. In some instances, I am in absolute agreement. Riots, protests, and political upheaval all have their place in this world – yet, without thought or strategy these actions will not accomplish their intended goal. You cannot have a goal without theory as the road to plant the finish line. In Heer’s article, it suggests that activism without theory is simply violence.

What I am particularly interested in is: when did we lose that foresight? Some of the protests that we remember as being successful, the Stonewall Riots (1969), the March on Washington (1863), Women’s March on Washington (2017), the George Floyd protests (2020) etc., all seem to have come out of a place of intense hurt and years of remaining unheard by the perceived majority. It felt as though they came out of a necessity to yell louder. Based on Heer’s article, it is hard to define if these pivotal moments in human rights would be considered “hyper-pragmatic", or if these protests and activist movements were made successful with theory as practice. That the practice of evaluating why we were there, how we got there and sparking thoughts about how we move forward to create effective change. From my understanding, this outlines a clear indicator of inaccessibility of information.

How do we effectively communicate intent and the theory that paved the path for these protests to begin? How do we begin to initiate systemic and social change and/or progression if the theory that got us there is inaccessible? These are many of the chaotic thoughts that are whirling around my brain as I try to process social action in a time when social media and the internet can simultaneously make information incredibly accessible and inaccessible all at once. How many times have we heard someone say something to the effect of “I want to learn but I don’t know where to look or what to trust.”

Something that struck me from Theory as Liberatory Practice, is the stark reality that academia is one of the most inaccessible forms of information – but we are taught that it is the only reliable form of information. We are expected to trudge through language that can be daunting, in a world where admitting you do not know something is considered a weakness. Academia is built on scaffolding that allows for substantial systemic exclusions – even applying for graduate school was filled with an excessive number of obstacles. As someone who is the only person in three generations of their family to even attend post-secondary education – navigating the system without someone who had already done it was near impossible.

It took me two years of talking to old professors, researching the system, and desperately hoping for the best to even wind up here. That doesn’t include the months of research trying to find a school with a background or faculty to support my interests in advocacy, systemic exclusions, and the Intersectionality of Queer and Feminist Theory.

Thank goodness for theory writers like bell hooks, who clearly believe that the way forward includes making theory as practice accessible. hooks challenges the practice of punishing those who question the system, pointing out that change comes from a place of questioning (hooks 1). To step back and look at practices and question why we are doing them is theory in practice. Without asking questions, we could never create a strategy moving forward. Without a strategy, it is hard to engage in conversation about the systems to effectively pave our way forward and toward a place of equity.

Honestly, I could likely write an entire paper unpacking this paper and the many ways that it draws parallels to conversations I have frequently. I enjoyed that it made sense of some of my scrambled thoughts and ideas that did not have a foundation for myself yet. hooks highlights the importance of understanding intersectionality and those systemic exclusions that exist among a variety of identities, and it is important to understand that as a foundation before you push forward with that work.

I will admit that many of my annotations in this article included things such as “this is wonkers bonkers. Academia is being gatekept by the privileged” (Tahnia, random annotation 2022). It highlighted that many of my favorite theory books were written in a way that was accessible, often including art to remain engaging and offer an additional format for understanding. This is something I felt hooks highlighted in her article – that we must be looking at everything as multifaceted. We learn in so many ways, ergo, we should consume theory and literature in a variety of mediums to allow ourselves the opportunity to digest and learn.

If we rely on academic journals to teach us, but that is not how we best learn, then we are only doing a disservice to ourselves and the folx around us. There must be a blending between action and theory. Where Heer criticizes those who rely on pragmaticism, he fails to recognize the inaccessibility of information and theory. The hyper-pragmaticism comes from a place of trying so hard to be heard repeatedly but being shut out of the conversation because you do not use the "right" words such as “pragmatic” or “quagmire” in your conversations. We cannot condemn a form of activism if we are unwilling to make additional tactics accessible.

Additionally, and I know I have written an excessive amount so thank you for bearing witness to my thought process, I found myself thinking about the argument of statistics being valued more than anecdotes. Recently, someone told me that they do not engage in conversations about systemic exclusions. They would like “facts” compiled and placed on their desk. This perplexed me because people are not merely statistics. Numbers, while incredibly helpful at times, do not convey the circumstances in which someone lived. The methods they had to utilize to get closer to the same starting point as everyone else.

Genuinely, I have several additional thoughts whirling around my brain. They have just yet to land on a platform in which I could logically put into a sentence. They will continue to marinate up there until they have fully formed – one day they will appear in a 2am thought when I am supposed to be sleeping. Thank you for tuning into my long and winding road to understanding theory as practice and practice as theory.

Bibliography

Heer, J. Acting without Thinking. TNR April 24 2015, https://newrepublic.com/article/121635/acting-without-thinking-protest-movements-are-shaped-debates

de Sousa Santos, B. (2017, January 27). Life and thought [Video]. YouTube.

hooks, b. (1991). Theory as liberatory practice . Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 4(1). 1–12.