Theoryisn’t a matter of a particular philosophical school, but of a way of engaging with intellectual problems, often using quotes or themes from the works of people who the author explicitly considers to be doing genuine philosophy.*
Judging from the argument of the piece, I expect they’d say it’s true that a lot of people in the humanities academy now do what they’re describing with a bunch of the authors who get lumped under the awkward heading of postmodernism
(especially in dime-a-dozen jeremiads against postmodernism
of the sort you describe). But also that it’s perfectly possible to do it with other authors of other schools of thought. (Speaking for myself, I’ve certainly seen similar sorts of things done with hot takes from libertarian and anarchist texts, or with a certain kind of Catholic traditionalism using mishmashes of Chesterton, Mortimer Adler, popularizations of Scholastic authors, and etc. etc. I think I agree with you that the dime-a-dozen jeremiads against postmodernism
have been pretty boring for many years now, even when they are intellectually acute. And I’d argue that they often aren’t that. But I think or hope that Carnevali is doing something a bit different, even if there’s some overlap in their targets.)
I agree with you about DIY;
I think I know what the author is getting at,** but I found that jarring too, given my normal set of associations.
** They compare it to assembling Ikea furniture from instructions, not to pasting together a zine according to your own ideas.
]]>The way you describe “theory” sounds very much like what I call “pat theory.” (not to be confused with “pet theory,” although there is considerable overlap)
Also, there’s certainly a punk element in me that approves of pretty much anything “formed in a DIY fashion.”
]]>