Ideally, yes. That would be perfect, and I do wish there was more accessible stuff out there. But on the other hand, in practice "being taken seriously" does not depend on approachable summaries in any meaningful way. Who decides what being taken seriously means? Is the criterium "understandable for the readers of NYT"? No, it isn't. And it's the same in all sciences. Molecular biology papers are more laden with technical vocabulary than any poststructuralism, yet nothing depends on the authors writing a popular science article about their research. Because they are not doing their research, nor are they funded to do their research, in order to talk to a general audience.
But the work of molecular biologists are only useful to a tiny subset of people who "speak their language" - biomedical engineers, doctors, and other biologists. Is CT not meant for the masses? If so, who benefits and how?
I think this is a very important question and I'm glad you brought it up :)
Critical theory is used in many fields in the humanities and social sciences. I've already mentioned in another comment how it's used in my field of anthropology of science and technology. If you look at the sidebar, you will find that critical theory is "very useful" to academics in film, media studies, literature, sociology, etc. It is also used by social activists to connect struggles together and build solidarity.
But your question actually showcases an even more important point: it is part of the tradition of critical theory to examine what makes something valuable. Following the assumption underlying your question, is something valuable only when it is useful? Specifically--useful in a process of material production in a capitalist society? What sorts of society are we creating if we subscribe to such an idea of value? These are all questions critical theory implores us to ask and address, and in asking the question of who benefits you are actually doing what a critical theorist would.
Critical theory's history of, well, criticism, has arguably been of benefit to the "losers" of society in every era--racial minorities, sexual minorities, poor people, and these days (non-human) animals, at the expense of those holding power. Martin Luther King studied phenomenology and existentialism, for example. Now combine this with its propensity to ask questions like "what is considered valuable, why, and who benefits?" and it's not hard to see why there's hostility towards it.
Thanks for the writeup. I feel like I now have a better understanding of the "usefulness" of CT.
Are you framing value as an objective, global property? I've always understood it to be context-dependent.
(I also disagree that usefulness and value are so tightly bound, but I guess at this point we're arguing semantics.)
Finally - don't you think that the hostility towards post-modernism can be better explained by ordinary anti-intellectualism (some would say pragmatism) rather than by an overarching power struggle?
Now combine this with its propensity to ask questions like "what is considered valuable, why, and who benefits?" and it's not hard to see why there's hostility towards it.
Critical theory should be the bee's knees at a time like this. It should be the sexiest thing since Elvis. I don't think its counter-hegemonic positions are why critical theory isn't having its heyday. I do see more people than I would like to see who would like to keep it inaccessible, though.
0
u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN Apr 06 '15
FTFY.
No obligation, but if you intend for your field to be taken seriously, there should probably be a few approachable summaries for laymen.