After attempted to write my own better big words on the word “theory,” I feel rather discombobulated. I don’t know how successful I was at all.
First, I feel as if I wasn’t original. As I researched more and more about theories on theory, I realized that everything I had been thinking has already been written on. I wish I could have spend months sifting through the Haraway, the Foucault, the Latour, but that was just not a possibility. Thus, I feel as if I am left with an unoriginal attempt at paraphrasing these theorists. But maybe they felt the same way and this feeling is part of the process of theory. It’s possible that I have actually contributed to the world of theory by applying these already established theories to an example. Another way I imagine that I have contributed to this academic world connects with a key literary theory explained by TS Eliot, but more recently presented at the Festival of Scholars by Kristen Lang. This is the notion that by reading and writing about fiction from the past, the process of reading and alluding actually has the power to converse with and change that which came before. I imagine my engagement with environmental theory to be much the same: a conversation which changes, however slightly, future interpretations of those whom I cite.
Another worry I have coming out of this project is that my treatment of theory isn’t adequately environmental. Sure I use the example of gentrification and city planning, but I don’t end with a final epiphany about how this relates to environmental studies and sciences. I sort of explain why my questions are relevant, but I never go back with final recommendations.
Regarding our discussion and warning about not letting the form dog wag the content dog, I have developed a strong opinion about the inherent connection between form and content. The content, its communication, accessibility, and interpretation is pretty much dependent on the form. The form, be it video, collage, a paper, or even more abstractly language, is fundamentally what makes theory a tangible point of connection with other people and the outside world. I spend a lot of time in my environmental theory discussing, justifying, and acknowledging the form. This was a fundamental aspect of the content of my argument. Therefore, I don’t see a separation between content and form. Instead, I see a hermeneutic relationship.
If I’ve learned anything from this project, and from this course as a whole, it is that theory is not definitive. No matter how logical or complete a theory might seem, there will always be those perspectives which entirely disagree. We’ve seen this in the science wars most explicitly, but also in discourses of sustainability, values, and our case studies on Douglas County, Oregon. Disagreement is fruitful. Disagreement is important. And with inclusion of more voices, as is another one my fundamental arguments, more disagreement is bound to occur, and with it, the betterment of theories. As more voices and more types of knowledge are included in the theoretical discussions as these discussions occur outside the exclusive academic realm, the ability of theory to describe and respond to social and environmental needs increases.