The Thussu reading for this week effectively summarizes the principle theoretical frameworks underpinning the field of international communication. It also firmly grounds the field within International Relations, as many of the theories discussed - notably dependency theory, liberalism ("free flow"), modernization, structural imperialism, the many variants of critical theory, etc - apply to the social sciences writ large, not just IC. For those of us who are primarily practitioners rather than budding scholars, it can be easy to dismiss theory as something that we need to understand for class papers and blogs, but can forget once we graduate and go back to the "real world." However, theory and practice exist in symbiosis and are constantly creating and recreating one another. For example, economic policy in much of Latin America in the second half of the 20th century was based on dependency theory and the import-substitution growth model. This approach called on nation-states to strive for autarky, replacing imports from the Core (ie, the industrialized West/Global North) with domestically produced ersatz products. Critics at the time predicted that the approach would fail, as the Core had a comparative advantage in high-value added goods. As it turns out, they were right, and virtually all of Latin America has turned to export-led growth, a strategy that worked quite well for the Asian tigers (or dragons, depending who you talk to. Personally I like dragons).
Or at least, that's the interpretation that is available to me thanks to my Western education. Studying in Chile in 2005, I realized that there were other paradigms that gave the same "facts" very different meanings. I knew that intellectually, of course, but a semester of economics a la chilena (ie with avocado and lots of salt) made me know it in my gut. The paradigms that we come to view as dominant matter, as they shape the way we interpret everything that we learn subsequently.
I was reminded of this lesson a few months, when I somehow (and through no fault of my own) wound up sampling single-malt scotch and fine cigars with three gentlemen of my acquaintance, all in their late 20s, Ivy League-educated, wealthy, and with strong ties to New York City. One was a defense contractor, another was a conservative think tank wonk (sic), and the third was an investment banker.Somehow I wound up trying to explain critical theory to them, and it just did not take. Their world view simply did not allow them to imagine that a woman, a person of color, or a poor person might have a better vantage point from which to observe and critique gender, race or economic relations. Meanwhile, they seemed to think that my normative view that public policy should put the needs of the most needy first (the only part of my Catholic school upbringing that took) was completely incomprehensible, and borderline irrational. Given our radically different world views, the best we could do was agree to disagree, but many others who are engaged in similar clashes of world views don't have that luxury as they have real-world interests to reconcile.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEdited my first post since I mistyped something.
ReplyDeleteI really like your last point, although I question your earlier idea that any physical, economic, or gender difference can give one a "better vantage point from which to observe and critique gender, race or economic relations." Someone who's been trained in any one of these fields might have a more comprehensive view, but to say that there's a biological or situational imperative that automatically grants a superior frame of knowledge of what is really an abstract and/or academic concept seems a little specious to me. The men in the experience you described may have discounted your ideas based on your gender or economic situation, but that doesn't necessarily impact on the validity of the theoretical solutions you were arguing one way or the other. Of course, that may just be my outside white, middle-class male perspective. :P
Going back to my original point, I do appreciate the idea you raise that many of those involved in clashes of views world-wide do not have the luxury of explaining their position and affecting the other's perspective in a peaceful, patient way. Even with radically different perspectives, we stand to benefit much as a society if we make an effort to educate others through that freedom of civility and respect rather than expect them to eventually change their views on their own.
Thanks for commenting, Sam. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on my original post, which perhaps assumed a greater familiarity with critical theory (including critical gender theory, critical race theory, etc) than is perhaps the case.
ReplyDeleteTo simplify a bit, the aspect of critical theory that I refer to here is the idea that in a social relationship in which one group or individual wields power over another, the subordinated group or individual has a different view of that power relationship than the dominant individual group, and that the perspective of the oppressed should be privileged in order to promote positive change in society. Critical theory aims to not only explain society, but also change it, which is why it is not neutral in evaluating these opposing perspectives. It's an openly normative position, and is certainly controversial. Like any theory, it's only one lens through which to view a situation, and I think in many situations it's a very useful but by no means sufficient paradigm to consider.
My original post may have given the impression that critical (race/gender/etc) theory automatically settles any real-life argument in a certain way, however that isn't the case. Rather, it deals with aggregates. To use a historical example, if the majority of whites in pre-1960s America believe that "separate but equal" is fair, and the majority of blacks do not, critical race theory demands that the perspective of the oppressed blacks be privileged - not because blacks are intrinsically wiser or better than whites in any way, but it is more difficult to accurately assess inequality from a position of power. Therefore, the black perspective that "separate but equal" is unfair must be privileged over the white perspective in order to achieve social progress.
Similarly, critical gender theory takes a normative stance that the position of women who believe that the lack of paid maternity leave constitutes gender discrimination should be privileged over the position of men who believe that the birth of a child should be treated no differently than any other medical condition. There are lots of other paradigms to apply to the situation, all of which might lead to different conclusions - this simply happens to be the conclusion that critical gender theory leads to.