The root of the matter. . .?

“Everything we do in life is rooted in theory” -bell hooks

      My gut reaction was to say I do not really agree with this statement. However, upon some reflection I settled on that I really do not agree with this statement. It is a subtle difference, but one that reflects my growing unease with the positioning of what should be a set of interpretive frameworks as some sort of absolute structure indicative of human thought and action. This is a dangerous move that has the potential to be a step backwards away from a broad and depending respect for the diversity of identity and experience that is out there. Perhaps I am misrepresenting hooks with this interpretation, so please speak up of that is the case. Theory should, in my opinion, always be externally applied. As I mentioned, I see it as a tool for interpretation and reflection. It does not, can not, and should not be used to assume intent, describe causality, or be privileged as offering any sort of absolute understanding.

      To put this position in a more concrete way, take the example of the trained poet or musician looking at the works of an untrained/self-trained amateur. If the result is considered bad, the trained individual will likely attribute it to a failure to understand this or that theory, or a misapplication of some principle or another. If the result is considered to be good, then the trained individual will find and isolate elements that conform to what they understand to be a theoretically and technically sound piece of work. In the first scenario, I might suggest that frameworks might be blinding the trained artists to what falls outside of them. In the second, they are mapping intentional design over freeform expression. The latter is not necessarily wrong or damaging, but it assumes a reversibility between theory and production that I just do not think can be assumed. This is not to say that theory cannot inform the production of art, or even the simple quotidian matters of life. What I am saying that this connection should not be presumed.

      Again, this could be a gross misrepresentation of the intent behind what bell hooks was saying, so I say this all while reserving the right to shift positions. I am not set in stone. Dare I say, what I write here is not rooted in theory, but in an instinctive reaction?

      Now, let me totally shift gears and say the more I find my instructional practices to be grounded in theory, the more space I find for things I have long disregarded as outside my wheelhouse. The two primary examples of this are the works of Shakespeare and poetry in a broad sense. As a student, even as a graduate student, I have always shied away from poetry as the realm of the pretentious. Why write poetry, I thought, with all of its stilted forms and restrictions, when you can just write prose to the same effect? Part of this was my exposure was largely limited to highly regulated forms of poetry used as tools of cultural capital for dominant groups within a given society. I’ve been convinced to reconsider this stance, particularly in the context of teaching critical literacy, and encouraging students to see themselves not only as consumers of literature, but as producers.


      Poems offer excellent practice at encoding and decoding small bits of text. Poetry is, at its core, about layered and complex meaning buried in nuance and subtext. It is composed with intent, a desire to elicit specific reactions, both emotional and intellectual. It does not allow for passive engagement for the author or the reader. Prose can offer all of this as well, but poetry does not allow you the out of simply engaging in a surface reading and saying, “Okay. I get this.” As a targeted tool for cutting one’s teeth on the framework of critical literacy, I think I will definitely see myself turning towards poetry more than I would have thought a year ago.