On the Theoretical Trappings of the Thesis of Anti-Theory; or, Why the Idea of Theory May Not, After All, Be All That Bad: A Response to Gary Thomas

"A radically atheoretical posture is conceivable only in a purely theoretical world of wild fancy," writes Kanavillil Rajagopalan in response to Gary Thomas's article, "What's the Use of Theory?" published in the Spring 1997 issue of the Harvard Educational Review. While agreeing with Thomas that educators and researchers often depend too heavily on theory and that theory often does not translate into actual practice, Rajagopalan points out that Thomas's call for the complete abolition of theory does not translate into actual practice either. In fact, Rajagopalan asserts, in arguing against the use of theory in education, Thomas winds up creating a new theory—a theory of anti-theory—fraught with many of the same problems Thomas identifies in other people's theories. Rajagopalan's critique focuses on three points: first, humans may by nature be theorizing creatures, making the call for the abolition of theory impossible in reality; second, Thomas himself cannot help but fall into the trap of using and relying on the frameworks of theory to make his argument against theory; and third, Thomas's notion of "the hegemony of theory" would be more accurately written as "the hegemony of a theory"—that is, theory is not necessarily the problem, but particular theories are problematic. In the end, Rajagopalan believes that throwing out theory is not the most effective way to deal with the increased dependence on theory in education. Instead, educators must first analytically break down theories to prevent individual theories from being used as the basis for sweeping educational assertions, and then "push a number of theories to flourish and proliferate, trying to make each theory hegemonic."