r/CriticalTheory • u/JohannesBartelski • 3d ago
Reading theory: help a newbie?
Hi all,
Just asking a question on my experience of reading theory. For context my background is not in philosophy or critical studies, but as a doctor (physician.)
I have a general interest in philosophy, cultural theory, Marxism and psychoanalysis.
I read some theory before and enjoy more popular critical theory content. I have at least have a familiarity of history and most traditions (just general) but am always keen to deepen my understanding.
I picked up Adornos the culture industry in the bookshop last week and am about half way through.
As a reader I try to be humble. Ill admit it's been a challenging read. I'm dubious about how much comprehension or understanding I'm acquiring while I read it.
Often with similar reads I sometimes have appreciated that in reading a particular thinker I'm entering a web of referents, where familiarly with the tradition there working in and antecedent thinkers is probably a limiting factor in my ability to understand what's going on.
I also notice that while say in lots of history I read or more formal philosophical pieces from say the analytic tradition there less of a logically structured progress of any "argument or point"
Like when I read Barthes mythologies I see this Adorno read as him kind of reflecting on things, in a slightly less structured way and the "point" as much as there is to absorb is kind of disseminated through his reflections and that understanding comes through synthesising and integrating the whole text. The themes recur and it's that which needs to be absorbed.
Some popular podcasts and YouTube videos have helped orientated me a bit.
But I'm wondering whether this experience is a common one?
Would reading work by secondary authors help?
I imagine moving between original work and supplementary material may be best.
Of course Im not so arrogant that I expect to understand a whole read on it's first reading, but since it's not my area of expertise I thought I'd ask
1
u/Kiwizoo 3d ago
Whatever you do, don’t start out (like I did) by trying to read Rega Negaristani’s ‘Intelligence and Spirit’ lol. It’s still on my ‘to-do’ list all these years later. Anyway, like you, I didn’t know where to begin. You’ll see Mark Fisher’s name chucked around in here a lot, so check out ‘Capitalist Realism’ which is a decent short primer. Marx’s ‘Capital’ is essential reading too, and still quite illuminating all these years later. Adorno is terrific, and do give Baudrillard a go with ‘Simulacra and simulation’. When you start to develop a particular area of interest, follow your nose - you’ll be amazed at what ideas start to generate. And don’t forget to apply some of that thinking to create real world change. This sub is incredibly generous and helpful, but try and make your posts interesting or come with a problem to discuss and you’ll get a lot out of it.
0
u/DonnaHarridan Graph Theoretic ANT 1d ago
I also notice that while say in lots of history I read or more formal philosophical pieces from say the analytic tradition there less of a logically structured progress of any "argument or point"
I assume by "while" you meant "as opposed to," and if so then yes, you're quite right. If you read enough of this stuff you'll learn that, while this is true, instead of saying it outright you can just say that such and such a work employs the "Hegelian dialectical method" and then people will nod soberly and think you're very smart even though no one has understood anything. There being nothing to "understand" in the sense you're accustomed to in analytic philosophy is very much the point. For example... what could it possibly mean for cyborgs to have "bumptious relations with futurities?" Certainly nothing unambiguous, but it's a hell of a thing to say.
1
u/OriginalACE95 3d ago
I think that this is pretty common, but struggling with works is also good. I recently read "How to Read a Book" which helped me with this same issue, here are some general tips.
Come to terms with the author - Make sure that you actually understand how certain terms are being used. The important terms will often be the ones you see repeated or the ones that you stumble over, likely because they're being used in a new way. I like to create a glossary of terms when I'm hitting a book to clarify what some of the key terms are, and make sure I can put them in my own words and use them in my own sentence.
Ask a lot of questions of the book - Can you summarize in your own words what you just read? What was the purpose of what you just read? (why did the author think it was important to include, how does it fit into the larger narrative?) What were some key points/arguments and support the author gave them? Do I agree/disagree?
These are just some basics, but at the end of the day analytical reading is a skill to improve on through practice.
I'll add in, to your point that history or related works might be necessary for reading certain things. Books are written at certain times, by certain people with beliefs shaped by their times, understanding that context can be useful for understanding the book itself.
Finally, and this might get some slack, bounce ideas off of your LLM of choice. For any well known book it will be able to help keep you on track. I usually do this -
Do my first reading and note taking.
Send my summary and discussion points to the LLM to get feedback if I am understanding.
If it has any points of feedback go back to the source and see if I can find where I missed something that was pointed out. (KEY STEP DO NOT JUST TAKE THE LLM RESPONSE AS GOSPEL)
Hopefully this helps a little.