Kim Charnley: Second response to McKenzie Wark regarding ‘High’ and ‘Low’ Theory

To recap: McKenzie Wark asserts that there is division in concept-forming activity between ‘High’ and ‘Low’ theory. I don’t agree that there is such a division and, more to the point, I don’t think that making such a distinction is politically useful.

Wark’s high /low framework is a classic example of binary thinking: low and high equate in his account to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ respectively. Of course, I endorse all of those characteristics that Wark equates with low theory because they are, by definition, all virtues of intellectual engagement within political action. But why must these virtues be placed in a relationship with this pantomime-villain High theory? And what are these High theoretical tendencies that we should be avoiding?

High theory has two key characteristics for Wark: 1) it is conditioned by institutionalised desire 2) it legislates beyond its own domain. With respect to 1), it is important to emphasise that I did not bring up Wark’s social position because I think that this is a shortcut to judging the usefulness of his ideas. I was, in fact, trying to point out that the reduction of ideas to their social position, a move which is central to Wark’s definition of High theory, leads to silly paradoxes and snap judgements. Whilst a Marxist would always agree that there is a crucial relationship between base and superstructure, this does not mean that every idea has to be reduced to a social origin. This kind of move closes down thinking.

Like Wark, I work in Higher Education, though my position is relatively undistinguished. Like many people who find ideas important, I am more or less an autodidact – I found my way to philosophy, cultural and political theory from studying Art. I very much agree that culture is a commons, but find crude generalizations about philosophy unhelpful. A sure hallmark of academic discourse is one-upmanship about which is the more radical branch of academia: whether it be philosophy, cultural studies or theories of information and new media. The importance of a democratic forum, and this is how I understand Occupy, is that questions of origin are of less significance than the debate and its outcomes. Reducing ideas to their social position is just a way of avoiding thinking about them.

With regards (2), Wark sees much of my criticism of his account as complicit with High theory because it is involved in ‘legislating’ beyond its domain. But I would argue that all theories legislate: they all have the power to carve up the world and shape our experience. For example, you can hardly legislate more widely than by dividing all concept-forming activity into ‘high’ and ‘low’ theory. This legislative power is exactly why ideas are powerful and worth fighting over. There is no such thing as a good theory that avoids the dangerous potential to open possibilities, or indeed to close them down. This is the knife-edge which compels us to contest ideas and judge their adequacy: to shape the force of ideas through debate, political action and other collaborative activity. In so doing, we legislate beyond our domain, and we really must do this if we are to contest anything.

I don’t think that a binary of good and bad theory helps with this task. In fact, the binary of good and bad theory tends to reduce the stakes involved in ideas. If some approaches to ideas are simply good and others simply bad, we are saved the trouble of having to think about them. We can just use this good / bad distinction as a kind of automatic sorting machine. This is perhaps illustrated by Wark’s response, which diagnoses my thinking as having high tendencies but does not look to the usefulness of this high /low distinction.

This is not intended as a personal attack on Wark, or a judgement on his work as a whole. For what it’s worth, I agree in principle with Wark’s emphasis on economic and class analysis in relation to the production of new media forms as outlined in A Hacker Manifesto. I do not share his optimistic judgement of the power of detournment, but I will read his new book with interest. Undoubtedly, there is an important debate to be had regarding the strengths and limitations of borrowing as a strategy (or tactic). However, my key point is that discussions over the usefulness of the conceptual schemes that we bring to this historical moment are a vital part of an attempt to realize the potential of Occupy.

By Kim Charnley