An idea I've been tossing around in my head
I'll probably eventually do an academic write up of this, but FIRST (IF YOU JUST LIKED THIS OR WHATEVER THIS IS AN EDIT) here is the problem:
Theory gets turned, somehow, in to policy. Critical Theory is a fantastical school of thought (and IMO is the only 'Big Idea' that the Social Sciences have had in at least a decade), but it hasn't yet addressed the implementation of policy so much as tried to change the theory which turns into policy. Part of the problem is that even Critical students are taught in highly positivistic ways and these methods of thinking stay with us, so there is no real 'tradition' of thought within the social sciences which is able to completely part with the problems of positivistic/rationalistic reasoning.
UNTIL NOW (except it's more like UNTIL 1830)
Clausewitz understood, as a general, that it is impossible to recreate some event to the degree that one can use it as an example in an attempt to create some universal 'truth'. Too many variables exist in any equation which aren't recorded, and even in modern examples where we know precisely the situation that a general or a policymaker was in, two massive blocks make it impossible to truly understand why a decision maker made a decision:
- It is impossible to fully understand the baggage that a human takes with them
- Language is private and personal experience, as well as a contextual one, and thus even if I were to write about what frame of mind I was in years ago the words I use now have a different meaning than the same words I would use then (a very critical idea for a soldier from the early 19th century!)
Thus, Clausewitz created an alternative method of teaching warfare, based on mental reenactment (note: this is similar to Collingwood's idea of mental reenactment of history. I need to read Collingwood's The Idea of History but they're very similar ideas I've been told). He understood that experience was the most important thing when it came to one's efficacy on the battlefield, so he endeavored to create a method of teaching which simulated experience. Essentially, Clausewitz saw theory not as a way to create some version of absolute truth that can judge a right decision from a wrong one, but rather as a method by which individuals can understand why a decision can be difficult.
This could help transform critical theory into critical policy in several important ways: firstly it avoids the positivistic/teleological/antidemocratic methodology of the mainstream social sciences and offers an actual alternative at the root of the problem (ie the method of teaching). Secondly it does away with the positivist notion that if we think hard enough we'll find some teleological policy/ideology/thought which will be so perfect. Thirdly it incorporates personality into the problem of policymaking in a sincere and realistic way; rather than seeing emotion (or democracy for that matter) as an impediment to real Truth (/ideal Policy), we accept our human flaws in order to create better understanding.
Woah this turned into an academic write up
ANY IDEAS DUDES AND LADIES AND THEYSIES
