My Problem With Theory Driven Anything

Reading Mechademia and discussions on the Anime Manga Research Circle email list have gotten me thinking about how I dislike theory driven anything.

Let me start off by acknowledging some prejudices that I have. When I was an undergrad studying philosophy I was being trained in what is known as the analytic tradition. This method of philosophy is based on using a specific set of rational and logical tools to analyze and understand the world at its deepest level. These are the philosophers who look at how language works, the basis of scientific method, systems of ethics, religious beliefs, etc. The focus is on methodology.

The professors I studied under had nothing nice to say about any literary theory. To say they found much of what goes in the English department laughable would be an understatement. They had no use for deconstructionism, post modernity, or the like. Part of their dismissal stemmed from the fact that people put theory first without properly analyzing that theory. So I’ve inherited their suspicions of literary theory and any system of debate that is driven by theory over methodology.

In analytic philosophy, every theory is analyzed and tested. Most theories falter under the analysis. Philosophers extract what they think is useful from any given theory and see it as a stepping stone to understanding the phenomena under study much better. For example, let’s say you have a theory that names are linguist pointers to a person or object. The problem with this theory is what to do about fictional people or concepts. So you have to refine your theory to address these entities. Those new definitions will be analyzed and will have to be refined further to address new objections. There are flaws with this tradition, such as the insistence on perfection, but in general I find it congenial to my own way of thinking. Particularly, I like how the phenomenon and its study are paramount.

This putting the phenomenon first is the basis of my own critique of theory-driven academic writing. I find theory-driven analysis in Mechademia most unsatisfying. Instead of trying to understand a work on its own terms first, what you get are essays that attempt to shoehorn an anime or manga into whatever theory the writer endorses. If the theory and the work aren’t very compatible you get tortured explanations that attempt to show how at a deeper unexplored level the anime or manga actually conforms to the theory even if all other indications are to the contrary. I don’t find such writing insightful or helpful in my own appreciation of the work. Instead, I usually end up writing in the margins how the author has failed to understand the anime and manga and what points s/he got wrong.

I’m not anti-literary theory or theory in general. Theory is a good tool for analysis and can help illuminate hidden or oblique points in a film, TV series, or book. No one theory can cover all literary material. I know some theories THINK they can, but delusions of grandeur aside, any theory has a limited range of works that it can encompass. You can apply the theory outside this range but the analysis will prove to be fruitless, if not ludicrous. Best example is any attempt at a Freudian reading of Grimm’s fairytales. Trust me, the oven in Hansel and Gretel is an oven. (I will tell you that Wicked City is begging for a good Freudian analysis and it could be done with nice blend of seriousness and humor.)

Let me give you two examples showing the failure of theory first thinking. Anyone who takes Psychology 101 should have been introduced to this first example. Decades ago, a study was conducted to determine what was the most importance factor in determining the success of psychological counseling. It wasn’t the theory that the psychologist followed. It wasn’t the techniques the counselor used. It wasn’t even if the patient and counselor subscribed to the same psychological theory. It was the trust the patient had in his/her counselor. Only patients that truly trusted their counselors responded to and improved with treatment. The greater the trust the better the response and improvement. No psychological theory or technique was shown to be more successful on its own. It all boiled down to person-to-person relationships.

The second example is Einstein’s discovery of relativity. Einstein was pondering the effects of traveling at the speed of light on objects. All accepted theories of physics over the course of human history said time was constant. Time did not change under any circumstances. However, Einstein couldn’t ignore the conclusions of his thought experiments. The observed phenomena simply refused to obey the known theories. So Einstein had to create a new theory to explain his observations. In other words, the phenomena dictated his theory. That’s the way it should be.

At its core, my complaint against theory-driven literary analysis is that it’s not really paying attention to the anime or manga. Proper understanding begins by letting the artistic work speak for itself. What messages is the author explicitly trying to convey, what methods are used to express these ideas, how well constructed are the plot and characters, etc. Only after understanding this first manifest level of the work can we then move on to analyze the deeper structures of the work. But it’s MANDATORY that we understand the manifest level of the work first and allow work to guide us into its deeper layers. It would be wrong to offer a post-industrial interpretation of My Neighbor Totoro. The ideas and concerns of post-industrialism don’t inform the work. It may share some ideas and themes with post-industrialism, but that doesn’t justify trying to put the entire film within that context. When I’m reading academic analysis I’m looking for insight into the work itself and not the writer’s favorite literary theory.

Theories are simply tools. Being a good theorist is like being a good carpenter, you need a variety of tools to do your job properly. I’m not talking one or two theories. A carpenter can’t get by with just a hammer and a saw. You need a dozen or more theories in your analytical tool box. Only after you’ve created a well stocked tool box are you ready to begin interpreting anime and manga. By having a variety of theories at your disposal, you’ll be able to approach the anime or manga objectively and with the mental flexibility to give the work the analysis it deserves. Now you have the ability to see which theory appropriately fits the anime or manga and will provide the best insight. No more shoehorning a work to fit the only analytical model you know.

Just so we’re clear, it’s the work itself first, the analysis second, the theory third. If you follow that order, you will get it right.

I’ll just name two of my favorite examples of analysis. First and foremost in my heart is Tolkien’s “Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics”. A brilliant, content-driven piece that is still the standard today. You can’t write about Beowulf without first talking about Tolkien. If you wish to do literary analysis, you have to read this essay. Second is Azuma’s Otaku: Japan’s Database Animals. Here Azuma studies the otaku fandom in Japan and analyzes the way they consume anime and manga. He then goes to demonstrate this consumption pattern with current anime and visual novels. Amazing insight, he shaped the current generation of otaku studies. I reviewed the book here: http://bit.ly/1Bkkfo

Let me end by saying I’m not anti-theory. Newtonian physics will get you far on this planet. I don’t believe in theory above content. I would like to see people trained in methodology and be conversant in multiple theories. I want to how to look deeper into the anime or manga and see the riches it holds. I’m not interested in how a particular theory is best illustrated by an artistic work. Shakespeare has been around for centuries, the theories of how to read him change with the seasons. I want lasting wisdom, not contemporary facts.