the fabio test, or how to judge “social theory”

I am often asked, why do I relentlessly criticize obscure theory yet find a place in my heart for Foucault? The answer is simple. I judge rhetoric separately than intellectual content. I think it is possible, and often helpful, to separate how an idea is discussed from the idea itself. How do I do it? Simple – take some tangly-talk and then translate it into the simplest language possible. If the idea is still interesting after decontamination, I give a thumbs up. If I get a platitude, or worse, thumbs down.

So let’s get back to Foucault. What happens if we drop Foucault in solvent? I’d say that some of Foucault’s biggest insights are:

  • Discipline and Punish: Western society has moved from punishing people through physical force to having people regulate themselves.
  • History of Sexuality: Sexuality varies greatly over time and is more diverse than people expect. Then, people created a science to make sexuality intelligible to intellectuals.
  • Archaeology of Knowledge/The Order of Things: There is an order, or structure, to how people understand things and we can see that through a close reading of intellectuals of various eras.

These hypotheses can be debated, but, at the very least, they are hypotheses that make sense and can be assessed. There are hypothesis which are falsifiable (e.g., maybe Foucault’s description of the history of corporal punishment is simply wrong). My beef with much theory is that when you translate and simplify, you either get platitudes, obvious points, extremely wrong points, or a modest point dressed up in confusing verbiage.

50+ chapters of grad skool advice goodness: Grad Skool Rulz ($2!!!!)/From Black Power/Party in the Street!!

Written by fabiorojas

March 17, 2015 at 12:01 am

Posted in fabio, just theory

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Recommending ‘Critical Terms in Religious Studies.’ Edited by a college prof of mine, Mark Taylor, who (I swear must have!) rewrote the introduction to each essay to do something like this. Titles like Ritual, Myth, Relic, Gender, Experience, Performance, and so on. Plenty serious, but with a point of entry so accessible you can pass it around at parties.



    March 17, 2015 at 12:12 am

  2. maybe it will help if you cite examples of theories you think lack substance once boiled down to the essentials. My guess is that the debate here is not between people who just love empty theory versus people with higher standards such as yourself. Rather, people probably just have significantly different ideas about what theoretical “substance” even looks like anyway. Without getting more specific, this all just feels like posturing of another kind (i.e. the currently fashionable “anti-theory” version).



    March 17, 2015 at 1:39 am

  3. Guest: Have you not heard of the Great Critical Realist Death Match of 2013?


    Liked by 1 person


    March 17, 2015 at 1:41 am

  4. “Guest: Have you not heard of the Great Critical Realist Death Match of 2013?

    Didn’t realize you’d posted anything substantive in that thread at all…


    a second guest

    March 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: