This is a mayhemic article about a pattern I meet everyday these days.
(As you know, when you spot then notice a pattern, you see it everywhere, right?)
ONE
Bourdieu explains that there’s a problem with scholars studying the source of Manet‘s paintings scandals. These guys develop theories about the “will of Manet”, seen as a smart rebel.
Like in History, it’s easy to rebuild stray events and sew them into a “will” of destiny or whatever. Bourdieu says simply that Manet was just in the process of painting, that’s all. A haeccetian recall : he’s painting, thinking about a Japanese etching, he has an idea with color, or frame, he finds difficult to paint eyes, a gaze, and deals with the days (hungriness, sex, friends, insomnia, whatever, who knows).
The clear will to make a scandal doesn’t even exist. He just paints! Theoricians, 100 years after, explain crystal clear theories.
TWO
This could be one branch of the science of bullshittery.
Taleb tells stories of lecturers in huge hotels of New York powerpointing about the need to be ethical and fight poverty, who treat waiters harshly at lunch. The consequences of these meetings is mainly to blossom other meetings with powerpoints elsewhere in the world. Practice what you preach, buddy!
THREE
Big talkative personalities (like me, haha) love theories, maybe more than action, so what? I love to talk about movies and books and arts, I love analysis, I love structures. Plus I’m an INTFJ, plus I’m a Five (a watcher). I’m not action man. And sometimes I admire action men…
Grand diseux, petit faiseux, we say in Ch’ti, the north of France dialect : “Big teller, small maker”. Makes sense?
FOUR
If you Google “theory” and “action” on Google you’re parasitated by… Theories of Action, arghhhh.
I regret to not to be an anthropologist (sorry for my English), and I probably need help here. I’m pretty sure that many persons studied the dance between action and theory.
Creation is an act of resistance, says Deleuze.
A book of Agamben is called “The Fire and the Account”. He says that acting and thinking are interlinked :
We think when we can’t act anymore, we act when we can’t think anymore
Lacan says that what is important is that “makes something happen” – then you can catch a tip.
“Life to knowledge” !
Maybe the action is not that important, but the way one person witnesses it, talks about it, links it, shows a way to live or to spout…
OK, I know, it’s mess. I’ll dig into it. Who can help me?
Thanks for reading!
Instagram : noted_women
a french toolbox 