Why The Left Should Use Theory Tactically

On the left, some readily embrace theory, while others insist on practice, opinions, and subjectivity. As elitist as theory can be, and as rationalist, I want to present at least four reasons why critical theory is still important before we reject Theory Per Se on our path to liberation.

1. The heart of praxis is the dialectic of theory and practice. Just as direct action is not a stand-alone tactic, practice without theory would mean re-learning everything when you want to do anything, and would be 'impractical.'
2. One way the oppressed can deal with oppression is asking questions. Even if you don't get a full answer, you can still open up new experiences that were hidden or silenced or which you wouldn't have otherwise thought of. But there is a logic of asking questions too, which can be guided by theory. If theory is assisting rather than controlling our thinking, it can be complimentary. Sometimes asking a question is more powerful than denying a dominant authority outright. Make those with power doubtful of the naturalness of their privilege and you will make everyone more confident in resisting them.
3. One of the few remaining activities left to you as a social loser, or an economic loser (unemployed), is reading books by yourself or discussing ideas online on forums. It opens you to a community of people who think like yourself. There is a long tradition of auto-didactic scholars from less privileged backgrounds who find their work rewarding and stimulating, as an alternative to a world where practice is technical and depends on proper specialization and skill-qualifications. There is also something about immersing yourself in ideas (avoiding practice for a moment) that allows you to generate new thoughts without the need to transform or question your own, which practice often demands when oppressive.
4. There are theoretical alternatives to positivism and overly detached science. Not all thinking is necessarily technical, but it can still be rigorous and interdisciplinary. Not all science is mechanistic or rationalistic - science is a method for developing theory out of experience - not just of collecting 'data.' Good science is premised on a humble uncertainty about how systems truly work, and is about projecting possibilities rather than predicting the future. The question of whether science is 'normative' (and hence, informed by the same biases as opinion) or whether it deals with facts is based on a false dichotomy between facts and norms/values. If science deals with facts, hypotheses, explanations, comparative knowledge-claims, there will be lots of points when values enter, but more often they guide, rather than falsifying scientific efforts at validity. I try to cut postmodernists some slack (I tend to be more of a post-structuralist myself, within Marxism), but a discursive reduction of methodolical and ontological questions leads to a premature closure, based on an overly-symbolic vision of practice.

Insofar as part of oppression is not just the system oppressing us but our own inability to get ourselves out of the oppression or to imagine and enact other futures, we need theory to help us get there. But it will have to be dialectical theory which allows for constant change (truth is temporal), the play of differences, and to imagine a world which is inherenly 'open' to transformation by praxis, rather than just an oppressive 'system.' As Michel Foucault argued, the role of the theoretician in social and political struggle has changed - now theorists are more like recollective thinkers, and they give 'tactical pointers' rather than general strategies. This vision of theory is not divorced from or superimposed on practice - but it is necessary for practice, and in that sense, necessary for 'the left.'